Delhi High Court holds that an extension of the six-month period to issue a show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act must be communicated before expiry of the initial period. Delay in issuance renders detention invalid.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a case involving alleged fraudulent ITC, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The ruling reinforces that complex factual disputes must be addressed before the appellate authority.
Delhi High Court quashed an ex-parte order after a taxpayer’s accountant failed to inform them of a show cause notice, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to be heard.
Delhi High Court rules that GST authorities acted mechanically and ignored submitted documents when cancelling registration. The registration is restored, and fresh adjudication is ordered.
The Court set aside the ex-parte GST demand order after noting the petitioner’s medical condition prevented participation in proceedings. A fresh opportunity was granted subject to payment of costs.
The Court found that retrospective cancellation unfairly impacted customers’ ITC eligibility. It limited the cancellation’s effect to the SCN date, noting the absence of any fraudulent ITC allegation.
The Court permitted a time-barred appeal after holding that the traveller could not be penalized for relying on incorrect legal advice. It directed that the confiscation order be heard on merits.
The Court ruled that the petitioner must challenge the confiscation order through the statutory appellate process, deeming the order served on the date of the judgment and ensuring her right to a personal hearing.
The Delhi High Court found that the search, seizure, and detention of goods under Section 67(2) CGST were invalid, as statutory conditions were not met.
The Court held that Section 148 notices dated 31 March 2021 but issued after that date could not be treated as issued within the old limitation period. The ruling applies the amended reassessment framework and the Supreme Court’s directions in similar cases.
