The High Court held that while Section 128A(4A) directs Customs appeals to be decided within six months, this is a directory provision. Appeals should be disposed of as soon as possible to avoid undue delay.
Delhi High Court held that GST SCN based on documents, statements, evidence seized passed on by Income Tax Department cannot be held to be baseless and vague. High Court warns GST Department and other departments to be careful while citing judicial precedents specifically if the same has been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence [AI] software.
The Court held that refund appeals pending for years must be decided within the statutory one-year period under the CGST Act. It directed the Appellate Authority to issue orders by January 2026.
Court held that Customs cannot rely on oral waivers of show cause notices. Detained goods must be released if statutory requirements under Customs Act are not followed.
Court held that authorities failed to consider petitioner’s earlier deposit of over ₹2.01 crore before imposing penalties. Matter was directed to GST Appellate Tribunal for fresh evaluation, with permission to appeal without further pre-deposit.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST demand linked to suspected fraudulent ITC transactions. It held that factual disputes must be resolved through the appellate remedy under Section 107. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.
The Court held that a pre-deposit made under the excise category due to a non-functional service tax portal must be treated as valid. The Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The Court quashed the ex-parte GST order after finding that no reply or hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, with fresh adjudication subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on related notifications.
The Court held that objections raised by Customs lacked merit, noting similar goods were earlier cleared without issue. The review was dismissed and costs were imposed for unjustified action.
Delhi High Court held that the mark ‘SoEasy’ for Hindi language learning is suggestive in nature and it is settled law that suggestive Trade Marks are liable to be protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
