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.
The Court held that proceedings on the GST show cause notice may continue but cannot be enforced pending the challenge to the amendment making pre-consultation discretionary.
HC refused to entertain challenge to customs penalty after finding concealment of facts and noting availability of alternate remedies. It upheld investigation’s findings on misdeclaration and imposed exemplary costs.
Delhi High Court partially upholds CESTAT ruling against a Customs House Agent involved in alleged duty drawback fraud, emphasizing proportional penalties and due diligence responsibilities.
The Court declined to interfere and directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the ITC-related demand and penalty. The ruling ensures the appeal will be heard on merits if filed within the specified time.
The Court found that the petitioner did not receive effective notice because the SCN was placed in a less visible portal tab. It set aside the demand order and directed a fresh hearing opportunity.
High Court declined to interfere with an ex parte GST order after assessee failed to attend scheduled hearings. Petitioner was directed to pursue statutory appeal, with outcome subject to Supreme Court’s decision on related notifications.
Delhi High Court held that person aggrieved by the provisional attachment order passed by the Adjudicating Authority should prefer an appeal to Appellate Tribunal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
