The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
The High Court set aside CESTAT’s remand orders, ruling that the legal challenge to DRI jurisdiction is resolved by the Supreme Court’s definitive judgment. The court condoned the substantial filing delay conditional on the deposit of ₹10,000/- in costs per appeal.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the Principal Additional Director General of DGGI is authorized to provisionally attach bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The court referenced Notification No. 14/2017, equating the rank to a Principal Commissioner.
The Delhi High Court set aside the second Section 148 notice, ruling it was time-barred and constituted an illegal initiation of parallel reassessment proceedings.
The court directed implementation of an Order-in-Appeal allowing the release of gold upon payment of a reduced redemption fine and penalty of ₹35,000 each.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in GST fraudulent Input Tax Credit [ITC] matter is allowed since entire evidence has already been collected and there is little likelihood of tampering with evidence.
The Delhi High Court overturned a ₹19.79 lakh ex-parte GST assessment order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to rehear the case on merits. The ruling mandates that the Petitioner deposit the tax amount of ₹10.22 lakh and file a reply by the specified deadline.
Delhi High Court held that 3621 days of delay in filing of an application for impleadment as legal heir allowed since matter came to the knowledge of legal heir only after the same was listed after nearly thirteen years. Accordingly, since reasonable and bonafide explanation provided, the delay in filing of impleadment application condoned.
Delhi High Court permitted petitioners to seek anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. Section 438 for CGST offences, citing the Supreme Court’s clarification in the Radhika Agarwal case. The interim protection was extended for two weeks to allow the petitioners to apply for bail.
Reassessment based on a new Permanent Establishment (PE) ground, which was absent from the initial notice, was quashed by the Delhi High Court. The court ruled that tax authorities must adhere strictly to the grounds stated in the statutory notice.
