The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration after finding that it was based solely on an invalid field visit report without witnesses or proper procedure. The ruling emphasizes that unilateral inspections cannot justify cancellation.
The Delhi High Court quashed a GST adjudication order passed without the taxpayer filing a reply or being heard. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to respond, subject to conditions.
The Tribunal held that reopening based only on generalized information about a scrip, without independent inquiry or linkage to the taxpayer, is invalid. Entire addition on alleged bogus LTCG was deleted.
The Court held that refund rights accrued before the 2019 amendment to Section 54 cannot be taken away retrospectively. The key takeaway is that limitation changes cannot extinguish vested GST refund rights.
The High Court stayed reassessment proceedings after noting that the legality of Section 148 notices is under consideration before the Supreme Court. The key takeaway is that proceedings must await the apex court’s final ruling.
The court held that repeated resignation of key accounts staff constituted genuine hardship. Rejection of delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) was set aside, directing acceptance of the belated return.
The Tribunal set aside reclassification of imported penetrating oil as adulterated diesel. It held that failure to meet diesel BIS standards and lack of proof of adulteration defeated the Revenue’s case.
High Court held that a final assessment order passed without awaiting DRP directions violates section 144C. Such non-compliance rendered the assessment order non est and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal examined whether a penalty could survive despite an allegedly vague notice. It held that since the assessment order and later notices clearly specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was valid.
The High Court set aside GST assessment and appellate orders where the date for personal hearing was fixed on the same day as the reply deadline. It held that such procedure violates principles of natural justice.
