The Court ruled that consistency in tax litigation presupposes an informed and deliberate decision by authorities. Mere failure to raise an issue in one year due to oversight does not bar future appeals.
The Delhi High Court held that duty drawback accrues only upon passing of the order by the competent authority and not merely in the year of export.
The Delhi High Court upheld restraint on a company’s move to remove a director because the special notice only made vague allegations without disclosing particulars. The Court held that statutory rights under Section 169 require meaningful grounds and opportunity of representation.
The Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department was liable to compensate an assessee for delayed release of seized KVPs and IVPs after settlement dues were paid. The Court awarded interest for the delay period and additional simple interest for continued non-payment.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were valid since the limitation period stood extended till 30 June 2021 under TOLA.
Delhi High Court held that disputes relating to GST refund rejection and appreciation of evidence should be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act. The Court declined writ interference as GSTAT was functional and operational.
The Delhi High Court held that orders passed under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 are final and conclusive. It ruled that Section 154 of the Income Tax Act cannot be used to rectify such orders.
The Court directed release of the refund amount deposited before it after finding that no interim order from the Appellate Tribunal restrained refund disbursal. The release was made subject to future appellate orders.
The Delhi High Court set aside an assessment order after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s reply filed on the same date as the order. The Court held that this violated principles of natural justice.
The Court granted interim protection against coercive recovery proceedings after the petitioner argued that the revisional order was passed beyond the three-year statutory limitation period under the CGST Act.
