Delhi High Court directed CBIC to submit draft amendments as the definition of jewellery and monetary limits are under review, with interim directions possible.
Court held that GST proceedings must be treated as closed when tax is paid before SCN and 15% penalty is deposited, leading to quashing of order against petitioner.
Court found it unjustified that the Council demanded compliance and personal appearance without supplying relied-upon material. It directed that proceedings be deferred until documents are furnished, reinforcing the right to a fair preliminary inquiry.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration could not stand when the amended place of business was not considered. It directed re-inspection of the updated address and fresh adjudication of the show cause notice.
The Court held that amounts deposited under protest and retained during investigation must be considered for statutory pre-deposit. It set aside the dismissal of appeals and directed CESTAT to hear them on merits.
The Court addressed whether a second CGST demand could stand when the DGST had already raised a similar demand for the same period. It held that the petitioner may appeal the CGST order without additional pre-deposit because the earlier deposit covered the same amount.
The Delhi High Court invalidated the retrospective cancellation of GST registration where the show cause notice did not contemplate retrospective action, ensuring a fresh hearing after re-inspection.
The Court held that the approval granted for multiple search assessments was issued in a consolidated, mechanical form without case-specific consideration. It noted that Section 153D requires meaningful application of mind, which was absent in the approval examined by the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court ordered release of gold bangles and iPhones seized at the airport, recognizing them as bonafide wedding gifts. The petitioner must pay a redemption fine, with warehousing charges waived.
The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking Form 26A certificates, citing delay and laches as the petitioner approached nearly ten years after the License Agreement expired.
