The High Court held that amended SEZ Rules and a later circular could not be applied retrospectively to confirm GST demand for 2017–18, rendering the order without jurisdiction.
The court declined to examine the merits after noting that a final adjudication order had already been passed. The key takeaway is that the petitioner must pursue the prescribed appellate remedy.
The court addressed seizure of imported textiles alleged to be misclassified and held that goods need not be retained during adjudication. Re-export was permitted on execution of a bond and furnishing of a bank guarantee, safeguarding recovery of differential duty.
Rejecting objections on non-existence of the arbitration clause, the court applied the doctrine of separability. Arbitration was held maintainable despite termination or expiry of the main contract.
The court examined whether a third party could seek impleadment in an ongoing competition investigation. It directed the regulator to decide the application swiftly, noting that CCI orders have binding, in rem effect on the entire industry.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The case examined whether refunds could be blocked on the basis of a subsequent lab report issued without new samples. The court ordered early consideration of representations and possible show cause proceedings.
The issue was whether a non-public servant spouse could be discharged at the threshold in a disproportionate assets case. The court held that properties in the wife’s name and joint holdings raised triable issues of abetment.
The dispute concerned reversal of ITC based solely on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The High Court held that failure to consider the CBIC Circular prescribing the procedure vitiated the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
The dispute concerned rejection of a request to amend a Bill of Entry due to an incorrect invoice number. The court directed fresh consideration after submission of contemporaneous documents, without ruling on merits.
