The Kerala High Court has held that income tax exemption claimed by public charitable trusts should not be denied merely on the bar of limitations. The court was of view to consider the applications for condonation of delay without being too hyper-technical and in a judicious manner.
The division bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the delay in filing the audit report in Form-10B can at best be 30 days, as the law only requires that the audit report be uploaded at least a month before the due date for filing returns. The Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to condone the delay instead of taking a strict view of the matter.
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that 12% Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) applicable on geo membrane for waterproof lining fabrics and allowed the refund of the excess 6% GST paid by the petitioner.
The Court held that the product manufactured by the petitioner being Geo Membrane is classifiable would fall under Chapter 59 and not under Chapter 39 as held by the respondent No.4 – the Gujarat Advance Ruling Authority relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Raj Packwell Ltd. The petitioner, therefore, is liable to pay the GST @ 12% from 15.11.2017 onwards and not @ 18%.
The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with statutory provision which mandates consideration of explanation on the part of assessee before passing adverse order invalidates such order.
The High Court remanded the matter back to the proper officer, with a direction to re-adjudicate the issues involved in the show-cause upon giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative.
The Madras High Court set aside Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand order and recovery notice passed without providing a hearing opportunity, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court found that the entire GST demand was recovered without providing hearing.
The court noted that the entire tax demand was recovered without following due process, further justifying the petitioner’s claim of a violation of their rights. Thus it set aside the impugned order and consequential recovery notice. The matter was remanded.
The Allahabad High court ruled that Freight charges, delivery acknowledgement, and toll receipts and the payments thereof required to prove physical movement of goods. The court refused to interfere in the orders issued by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) department as the petitioner failed to submit these documents and GSTR 2A Filing.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a matter where the GST registration of a business was cancelled on the grounds that the suppliers had availed of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) without the actual receipt of goods and had passed on this credit to the petitioner without supplying goods.
The court also observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available to challenge the impugned order, which they had not utilised. Consequently, the court concluded that the writ petition did not warrant any favourable order. However, considering the significant impact of the GST registration cancellation on the petitioner’s business operations, the court allowed the petitioner another opportunity to challenge the order. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted the option to either file an application under Section 30 of the GST Act for revocation of the cancellation or appeal the order within 15 days of receiving the court’s decision. The court also instructed that, should the petitioner choose to proceed, the relevant authority must issue a decision on the merits of the case after a hearing for both parties.
In a recent ruling of Delhi High Court the writ petitions were allowed, quashing the reassessment proceedings of the respondents as mere failure to digitally upload Audit Report doesn’t contribute to non-disclosure of material facts.
The writ petition was allowed and impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and initiation of reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Madras High Court has condoned a one-day delay in filing GSTR-3B and set aside the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) reversal notice issued by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department. The court observed that the one day delay needed consideration.
The court concluded that the respondent’s refusal to condone the delay and the subsequent ITC reversal under Section 73(1) was unfair and detrimental to the petitioner. Thus, the Madras High Court set aside the show cause notice and allowed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
The Madras High Court in a matter under its consideration clarified on the scope of responsibilities of a Commercial Tax Officer while issuing refunds of Input Tax Credit claimed by exporters.
The Court reaffirmed that the Petitioner was not required to “physically” verify the E-way Bills produced by the Exporter while maintaining that the Petitioner was time-bound to process the refund claim within a period of 7 days from the date of application by the Exporter, failing which, would attract interest and sanctions under the GST Act.
In a recent case of Delhi High Court, it was held that the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration with retrospective effect was unreasonable as the impugned order failed to inform specific reasons for cancellation.
The Madras High Court remanded the matter to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) as the income tax order passed violated natural justice and was deemed non-est in law.
A single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the assessment order included certain additions and was passed by the PCIT. The court noted that the petitioner had given a reply, arguing that the additions were improper, and requested a personal hearing. However, the PCIT did not grant the hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the PCIT for the assessment years 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2018-19 are non-est in law.
The Madras High Court granted relief to the City Union Bank by deferring the Income Tax Department’s dues until the bank has fully recovered its debts.
A single bench led by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed City Union Bank’s difficulties in selling the property due to the charge created by the Income Tax Department, as reflected in the encumbrance certificate, which hindered potential buyers from participating in the auction. The court declared City Union Bank as the first charge holder, allowing it to proceed with the sale of the property. After the bank’s dues are settled, any remaining funds must be paid to the Income Tax Department (the first respondent). Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a deduction under Section 80-IA(7) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied solely because the assessee failed to digitally file an audit report.
Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja noted that since the audit report was submitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) and available for examination during the assessment process, the requirements of Section 80-IA(7), as they stood before the 2020 amendments, were effectively met. The court further held that the failure to file the report digitally should not be considered fatal to the claim under Section 80-IA(7). The court, in favour of the petitioner, ruled that the reassessment action for AY 2013-14, being initiated beyond the six-year limitation period, was invalid and must be set aside.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that simply appending the word “approved” by the PCCIT when granting approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is insufficient for reopening under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphasised that while the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) is not required to provide detailed reasons, there must be a satisfaction recorded after due consideration. The approval process is intended as a safeguard and should be substantive, not merely a formal or ritualistic gesture. The reasons given serve as a crucial link between the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn by the authority, ensuring transparency in how the decision was reached. In disposing of the petition, the court held that the PCCIT failed to satisfactorily document its approval. The mere use of the term “approved” does not indicate independent consideration, making such approval legally flawed.
In a recent ruling of Delhi High Court the writ petition filed was allowed owing to lack of compliance with provisions of Section 153(3) of Income tax Act and barred the fresh assessment order passed by the respondent.
The Impugned notices and assessment order are set aside. Respondents are directed to refund Rs. 36,62,185/ along with interest within eight weeks from date of order. The petition was allowed on the aforesaid terms.
The Allahabad High Court directed the revenue to pay the excess amount paid as stamp duty to the petitioner as the respondents could not produce any material to show that the category of the land in question had been changed as per Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act.
The court, after observing relevant judgments, observed that “ it is clear that deficiency of stamp can neither be determined on the value of future use of the property nor it can be levied on the ground that property can fetch good market value nor in the absence of any declaration made by the State Government changing the nature of the land from industrial to commercial.” The single bench comprising of Piyush Agrawal held that the respondents were unable to produce any evidence of land category change and also directed to refund the petitioner with any amount paid by him in accordance with the impugned order within a month of the certified copy of this order being produced.
The Bombay High Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for failing to adhere to a binding judgement in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors.
The Bombay High Court thus directed both the JAO and the Chief Commissioner to personally deposit costs of Rs. 25,000 each with the “National Association for the Blind” within two weeks, reflecting the seriousness of their misconduct.
The Delhi High Court has nullified a reassessment order against Vedanta, ruling that the payment made for acquiring mining rights through e-auctions cannot be treated as income.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, observed that the Department of Mines and Geology had merely informed the Assessing Officer (AO) about the total amount paid by the petitioner to secure mining rights through e-auctions. This amount, the court held, clearly does not qualify as the assessee’s income for the relevant year. The assessee’s income should be calculated based on the revenue generated from the sale of iron ore and other non-ferrous metals.
The Bombay High Court provided relief to Larsen & Toubro by setting aside a service tax demand Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) that was issued without jurisdiction. The court, agreeing with the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning, quashed the show cause notice.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Jithendra Jain and K.R. Shriram, noted that the basis of the show cause notice was similar to that which was quashed by the Gujarat High Court. They observed that L&T had already discharged the service tax liabilities for 2013-14 and that the notice was issued without jurisdiction. The court, agreeing with the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning, quashed the impugned show cause notice dated October 23, 2018.
The Bombay High Court provided relief to Larsen & Toubro by setting aside a service tax demand Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) that was issued without jurisdiction. The court, agreeing with the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning, quashed the show cause notice.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Jithendra Jain and K.R. Shriram, noted that the basis of the show cause notice was similar to that which was quashed by the Gujarat High Court. They observed that L&T had already discharged the service tax liabilities for 2013-14 and that the notice was issued without jurisdiction. The court, agreeing with the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning, quashed the impugned show cause notice dated October 23, 2018.
The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ) filed by Crimeophobia, a self-proclaimed criminology firm, which sought state-sponsored funding from the exchequer for Hindu rituals in Maharashtra’s cave temples, the formation of a Transnational Sanatan Commission, and other unrelated demands, while imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner. The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, warned the petitioner against the misuse of PILs for advancing personal agendas.
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court directed the trial court to release the Rs. 25 lakh Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) to the petitioner, citing the absence of a fresh Look-Out Circular (LOC).
Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court, allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court to release the FDR of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner, after which the petition was subsequently disposed of.
The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax authority to re adjudicate the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) to the petitioner, in a scenario where the SCN is issued before the GST portal redesign.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta remanded to the concerned authority to adjudicate the impugned SCN afresh. And also the petitioner is given the liberty to file a response to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The concerned authority can adjudicate the impugned SCN after considering the petitioner’s response and after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The Delhi High Court directed expeditious action on application for cancellation of the GST Registration and told not to hold the application on Account of assessment of tax, interest or penalty that may be recoverable from the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court restricted the retrospective cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration due to lack of justification in the impugned order.
The bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta disposed of the petition and held that the cancellation order will take effect from the date of the SCN, which is 21.12.2021, not retrospectively, which is on 17.07.2021. Thus, the Delhi HC directed cancellation of GST registration to be prospective as the impugned order does not reflect the reason for cancellation.
In a recent ruling of Delhi High Court the impugned cancellation order canceling the petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration and Show Cause Notice was quashed and the respondent- department was directed to restore the petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax registration owing to unreasonable cancellation.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta observed that the impugned cancellation order canceling petitioners’ GST registration should be revoked and directed the petitioner’s GST registration.
The Bombay High Court directed the tax department to issue necessary certificates to the assessee, who has fully paid all dues under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 ( IDS ).
The bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the petitioner had met all requirements under the IDS and deposited the appropriate tax amounts.
The Bombay High Court has annulled the legal proceedings initiated against the directors of M/s. Hubtown Ltd. under Sections 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act. This action followed a belated deposit of TDS, despite the company having already rectified this by depositing the same with accrued interest as stipulated in section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court of Delhi found that the show cause notice ( SCN ) was insufficiently detailed and thus invalid. The court granted the petition, canceled the notice, and directed the immediate restoration of the petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration, while allowing for the possibility of new proceedings if warranted. The pending application was also disposed of.
The High Court of Delhi allowed the petition, ruling that the failure to pass a fresh assessment order within the prescribed time rendered the assessment for assessment year (AY) 2004-05 time-barred. The court set aside the impugned notices issued by the assessing officer and directed a refund of INR 37,73,012/- along with applicable interest, to be made within eight weeks.
The Delhi High Court quashed retrospective cancellation of GST as it does not satisfy the provisions under Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench, comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta, observed that the SCN does not meet the requisite standards of a show cause notice. It opined that the cancellation order did not specify why the petitioner’s GST registration was terminated. The Delhi High Court thus disposed of the petition and held that the cancellation order will take effect from the date of the SCN, which is 28.06.2023, not retrospectively, which is on 29.12.2022.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that compensation awarded under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 computed after deduction of income tax. The court enhanced the amount of compensation once allowed and directed the insurance company to pay the balance amount in one month.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond four months under section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017. It was evident that this discretion conferred upon the appellate authority is restricted to condoning the delay only for a maximum period of one month.
The Calcutta High Court in a significant case held that Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) Registration cannot be cancelled for Non-filing of return when there is no dubious process to evade tax.
The Bench directed the respondents/ Department to take a pragmatic view in the matter and permit the assessee to carry on his business. Further clarified that if the assessee complies with the directions, then the assessee’s registration under W.B GST Act shall be restored by the Jurisdictional Officer.
The Delhi High Court reversed the decision of canceling the GST Registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect, due to the lack of details in the SCN.
The Division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta observed that, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the cancellation of the GST Registration but seeks that the cancellation should not be operative with retrospective effect. In view of the above, the order dated 16.06.2020, canceling the GST Registration will take effect from the date of the SCN, i.e 29.05.2020 and not ab initio.
The Calcutta High Court directed the GST department to allow rectification application under Sections 161 of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017. iT was observed that Section 161 of the act allows assessee to apply for rectification within time prescribed.
Section 161 clearly provides for, inter alia, affected person to apply for rectification. The third proviso says, where the rectification adversely affects any person, he is to be given hearing. The authority in already having passed impugned order, hereby set aside, had decided no rectification was necessary.
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to seek statutory remedy as provided under the law against the threatening action of the VAT officer.
The bench comprising of Justice Jyoti MulimanI held that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Thus, the bench dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to seek statutory remedy as provided under the law.
The Delhi High Court emphasized that no tax could be levied on notional income, ruling that the Valuation Report obtained by the employer was inapplicable to shares subject to a lock-in stipulation and thus not sellable in the open market; consequently, the Court held that the difference between the allotted price and the market price of ESPS ( Employee Stock Purchase Scheme ) shares is not taxable as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Delhi High Court directed the trial court to release the Rs. 25 lakh Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) to the petitioner, citing the absence of a fresh Look-Out Circular (LOC).
Justice Manoj Jain of the Delhi High Court, allowed the petition and directed the Trial Court to release the FDR of Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioner, after which the petition was subsequently disposed of.
the High Court Of Delhi quashed the reassessment notices for assessment year(AY) 2018-19 issued to petitioner. The court held that the interest income from Non-convertible Debentures (NCDs), taxed under Section 194LD of the Income Tax Act,1961 was wrongly reclassified as dividend subject to Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), which should be paid by Genpact India Private Limited (GIPL), not the petitioner.
The Court, comprising Justice Vibhu Bhakru and Justice Sachin Datta, determined that the petitioner’s GST registration could not be cancelled based on vague allegations and an insufficient SCN. The Court set aside the impugned cancellation order and SCN, directing the respondent to restore the petitioner’s GST registration immediately.
It was clarified that this decision does not prevent the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law if adverse action against the petitioner is deemed necessary. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and all pending applications were also dismissed.
The Telangana High Court has held that the Non-Resident India ( NRIs) are not exempted from following mandatory faceless procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has observed that the taxpayer is nowhere distinguished between NRIs and Indian citizens. The reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the income tax law must comply with the requirement of the scheme whether or not the taxpayer is an NRI or Indian citizen. The court held that the department has erred in not following the mandatory faceless procedure as prescribed in the scheme. Since the department failed to issue notices under income tax Section 148 in a faceless manner, the entire further proceeding founded upon it and assessment orders stand vitiated.
The High Court of Delhi set aside a flawed show cause notice (SCN) issued to petitioner, which lacked specific details and supporting documents. The court ordered the immediate restoration of petitioner’s Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration but noted that new proceedings could be initiated if needed.
The division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta allowed the petition, set aside the SCN, and directed the respondents to immediately restore the petitioner’s GST registration and contended that the order does not prevent the proper officer from starting new proceedings if needed.
The High Court Of Delhi, disposed of the petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation order and the show cause notice (SCN), finding that the cancellation process violated principles of natural justice.
The division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta set aside the impugned cancellation order and SCN and directed that if the respondent wishes to cancel the petitioner’s GST registration, they must issue a new SCN detailing all grounds for the action and follow the legal process.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
