The Court held that issuing a single assessment covering several financial years is without jurisdiction. The order was quashed, reaffirming that GST proceedings must be initiated separately for each financial year.
The court examined whether assessment orders could survive when DRP directions lacked a DIN. It held that such directions were invalid, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeals.
Income Tax Department was directed to encash the Demand Draft, confirm the sale, and issue the Sale Certificate in favour of the highest bidder, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s rights.
The court held that ITC cannot be denied solely due to delayed return filing when statutory amendments retrospectively permit such credit. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits.
The High Court flagged an unexplained delay of more than ten years in finalising customs assessments after provisional release. Authorities were directed to complete assessments within six weeks.
The High Court upheld confiscation and penalties where goods declared as grey fabric were found to be corduroy. The ruling confirms that misdeclaration attracts action under the Customs Act.
The High Court held that Sections 73 and 74 no longer apply from FY 2024–25 and set aside an order passed under Section 73. The order was directed to be treated as a notice under Section 74A.
Madras High Court held that countervailing duty [CVD] is not leviable on vessels that are imported into India prior to notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 which is later converted from foreign-run to coastal run. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court found a major discrepancy between GST returns, income tax declarations, and bank receipts, ordering a forensic audit before fixing liability and remanding the matter for fresh assessment.
The court held that passing a GST order on the same day as filing an additional reply does not automatically indicate irregularity. A detailed order showing consideration of replies does not warrant writ interference.
