The issue was whether additions could survive when no incriminating material was found during search proceedings. The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that Section 153A jurisdiction was invalid, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court permitted the Enforcement Directorate to attach and freeze assets after finding a prima facie case of money laundering. The ruling reinforces ED’s powers to secure properties to protect depositor interests.
Bail was denied after the Court noted that the alleged offences involved a multi-state organised network. The ruling affirms that the gravity and scale of economic offences are key factors in bail decisions.
The Tribunal held that delayed PIMS registration, when completed before clearance, is a procedural lapse. Confiscation and penalty were set aside as the import was not in substantive violation of policy.
The Court set aside a rectification rejection passed before the scheduled hearing date, holding that Section 154(3) requires a prior opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with natural justice.
The issue was whether CBIC notifications could extend limitation for orders under Section 73. The Court held the notifications illegal and directed fresh adjudication after treating prior orders as show cause notices.
The dispute involved ITC denial due to mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The Court quashed the orders and held that authorities must apply Circular 183 and re-decide the case.
The Delhi High Court held that the SVLDR Scheme cannot be invoked for a show cause notice issued after 30 June 2019. Even if the notice arises from the same dispute, eligibility depends strictly on the statutory cut-off date.
The Court annulled a GST adjudication after finding that no proper personal hearing was granted, directing fresh proceedings with due notice and opportunity.
The High Court refused to interfere in a penalty order involving alleged fake invoices, holding that such disputes must be examined in appeal. The key takeaway is that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised where complex factual issues and alternate remedies exist.
