Delhi High Court held that writ involving matter of availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit [ITC] under GST not entertained since due to availability of appellate remedy as the matter involves several factual issues and the concept of ITC by itself involves a series of transactions.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to interest on its delayed GST refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act affirming that interest is automatically payable without a separate claim if the refund is not processed within 60 days.
A waiver of the Show Cause Notice could not be done on the basis of a pre filled form and the same being used as a basis for not issuing a Show Cause Notice or not affording a personal hearing, was not permissible.
Delhi High Court held that consideration for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreement is not Royalty for the use of copyright of the computer software and hence doesn’t give rise to any taxable income in India.
The Delhi High Court declined to hear Soham Industries’ writ petition against ITC denial and penalties, citing the availability of appellate remedies despite claims of non-service of SCN.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Rs. 1.04 crore GST demand against Priyanka Goyal, ruling that the show cause notice was not properly communicated via the Additional Notice tab, impeding the petitioner’s right to reply
Delhi High Court has permitted release of gold items seized from a traveler after he agreed to pay a redemption fine and customs duty. The court’s order disposes of petition.
The Delhi High Court ordered a bank to unfreeze a company’s account, ruling that the provisional attachment, issued by an officer of a lower rank, had expired.
The Delhi High Court ordered the unfreezing of a company’s bank account, ruling that the provisional attachment had expired as it was more than one year old.
Delhi High Court set aside reassessment for AY 2018-19 holding that escaped income was under ₹50 lakh and did not meet conditions of Section 149(1A). AO’s attempt to club multiple years without proving a singular asset or event was rejected.
