This half-yearly round-up analytically summarizes the key Direct and Indirect Tax Judgments of the Supreme Court and all High Courts of India reported at Taxscan.in during the First half of 2024.
The Kerala High Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to pay Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) on work done under contract. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Devaswom Board, 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders under the law within two months
M/S M C Eldho & Company, the petitioner has approached the Court being aggrieved by the fact that, in respect of certain work being done by the petitioner for the 2nd respondent, no GST is being paid to the petitioner, though the Devassom Board is legally bound to pay such GST.
Considering the limited nature of relief now sought for by the petitioner, Justice Gopinath P disposed of the writ petition directing the Devaswom Board to consider and pass orders in accordance with the law within two months.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition on the availability of a statutory remedy under the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order.
Since there is no ground to entertain the writ petition, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order and if such an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority, the same shall be considered on merit.
The Delhi High Court modified the order cancelling Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration to cancel the retrospective effect. There is a contradiction regarding the submission of the reply. The order stated that the registration is liable to be cancelled for the following reason âwhereas no reply to the show cause notice has been submittedâ.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that both the Petitioners and the department want cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner, though for a different reason.
The Kerala High Court in a single judge verdict held that if the revenue audit raises an objection that the assessment was not completed in accordance with the provisions of the Income tax Act,1961 it cannot be treated as a change of opinion because this is the statutory prescription and statutory ground/reason for re-opening the assessment
In a single judge verdict Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that âIf the revenue audit raises an objection that the assessment was not completed in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be treated as a change of opinion because this is the statutory prescription and statutory ground/reason for re-opening the assessment. The Assessing Authority has proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions of Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, I find no error of law or jurisdiction in the impugned order.â The court further observed that if the assessee has not filed the return of his income in pursuance of the notice, the assessee may file his return within a period of four weeks.
The Bombay High Court has clarified that the share premium received through the issuance of shares is categorized as a capital account transaction and does not attract taxation as income.
The courtâs decision provides clarity on the tax treatment of share premium in capital account transactions. Counsel for the appellant, R.A. Dada, argued the case, while Suresh Kumar represented the respondent. The courtâs decision provides clarity on the tax treatment of share premium in capital account transactions. Counsel for the appellant, R.A. Dada, argued the case, while Suresh Kumar represented the respondent.
The Delhi High Court directed re-adjudication as the failure to respond to Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) was due to a missing of receipt of notice from the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) portal.
The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to open the portal to enable the petitioner to file a response to the said Show Cause Notice which shall be filed within 30 days. Thereafter, the Proper Officer of the respondent shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notice within four weeks thereof. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity for a personal hearing.
The Allahabad High Court rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in appeals filed under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that âSection 107 of the GST Act prescribes a specific limitation period within which appeals against certain decisions must be filed. This limitation period is integral to the functioning of the appellate mechanism under the GST Act and reflects the legislative intent to expedite the resolution of tax disputes. By imposing a time limit on the filling of appeals, Section 107 aims to prevent undue delayed in the adjudication process and promote the efficient administration of the GST regime. On the other hand, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for the extension of prescribed periods in certain exceptional circumstances, such as when sufficient cause is shown for the delay.â
The single judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appropriate action against the erring supplier after being informed by Revenue that necessary measures had already been taken against the erring supplier.
In a single judge verdict of the Kerala High Court, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that since appropriate action had been taken against M/s. Spanila Sanitary Ware nothing survives in the present writ petition, hence the petition is dismissed.
The Kerala High Court directed the income tax appellate authority to Keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of stay petitions or Income Tax appeals. The court modified the impugned judgment of the Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that recovery proceedings are stayed till pending disposal of the stay petitions or appeals whichever is earlier by the appellate authority.
A division bench comprising Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath viewed that since the Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the alternative remedy before the statutory authority, it was incumbent upon the Judge to protect the appellant from recovery proceedings pending disposal of the petitions by the respondent appellate authority.
The Gujarat High Court observed that lender banks must furnish copy of audit reports before classifying loan account as fraud.
A Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta K Vishen observed that âUndisputedly, in the present case, no such steps have been taken by the respondent lender banks and therefore, on this limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the decision of the respondent banks declaring the account of the company as fraud is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted and let the respondents concerned, after furnishing the copies of the forensic audit report and supplementary forensic audit report so also reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to submit the representation, complete the proceedings by passing order.â
The Delhi High Court was directed to issue a valid show cause notice ( SCN ) since the same was issued without mentioning details of invoices or bills on alleged Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) evasion is invalid.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the petitioner shall be entitled to avail of such remedies as may be available in law in case aggrieved by any further order passed by the Proper Officer. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court held that subscribing to a legal database should not be construed as a transfer of copyright. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purshaindra Kumar Kaurav, made this observation while addressing an appeal by the Income Tax Department related to the subscription fees of LexisNexis, a legal database.
It was observed that, âAs we examine the nature of the transaction between an Indian subscriber and the assessee, it becomes manifest and apparent that it neither comprises of a transfer of copyright nor does it include a transfer of a right to apply technology and other related aspects which are spoken of in Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA.â It was thus held that, âWe thus find no justification to interfere with the view as expressed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and shall consequently stand dismissed on the aforesaid terms.â
The Delhi High Court set aside the order cancelling Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration as the department failed to issue a notice regarding retrospective Cancellation. The bench observed that when the petitioner did not submit a reply, the proper officer recorded that the reply of the petitioner had been considered and at the stage when the petitioner did submit a reply, the Proper Officer recorded that no reply was filed.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva And Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that there appears to be complete non-application of mind. At the stage when the petitioner did not submit a reply, the proper officer has recorded that the reply of the petitioner has been considered and at the stage when the petitioner did submit a reply, the Proper Officer has recorded that no reply was filed.
The Delhi High Court set aside retrospective cancellation of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration. The show cause notice is ex facie defective as the same does not contain any details or quantum of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit or any refund claimed on the said account or reasons.
Since both the petitioner and the respondent want the GST registration to be cancelled, though, for different reasons, the division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja modified the order of cancellation to the extent that the same shall operate with effect from 01.02.2021, i.e., the date on which the petitioner discontinued business.
The Delhi High Court has directed the payment of Value Added Tax ( VAT ) refund exceeding Rs. 13 lakhs, along with statutory interest as per the Delhi Value Added Tax ( DVAT ) Act, as it remains pending.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, concluded the petition by directing the respondents to process the petitionerâs refund application in accordance with the law. If found eligible, the refund, along with statutory interest as per Section 42 of the DVAT Act, 2004, was ordered to be disbursed to the petitioner. However, if the refund was deemed non-refundable, the reasons for such decision were to be communicated to the petitioner, allowing them to pursue appropriate legal remedies. This process was mandated to be completed within four weeks from the date of the directive.
The Allahabad High Court in a recent judgement dismissed the writ petition as there was no explanation for the absence of an invoice and e-way bill on Intercepted goods. The court viewed that the petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has not been able to explain the absence of an invoice and the E-Way Bill.
Justice Shekhar B. Saraf concluded that the petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has not been able to explain the absence of the invoice and the E-Way Bill.
The Delhi High Court has reinstated a Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration that was canceled retrospectively due to the failure of the GST Department to provide reasons for cancellation in the Show Cause Notice ( SCN )
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noticed that neither the Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2023 nor the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 give any details of the alleged invoices /bills that have been issued by the petitioner without underlying supply of goods or services. As such, these documents cannot be sustained.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition which sought for disposal of the appeal expeditiously. The court found that there is more than a thousand ( 1000 ) days delay in filing a second appeal before the Value Added Tax ( VAT ) Appellate Tribunal.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the appeal before the respondent has been filed with a delay of more than a thousand days. In view of the huge delay in filing the 2nd appeal, the Court does not deem it appropriate to grant any of the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The court dismissed the writ petition.
The Delhi High Court has directed a re-adjudication in a Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) matter, citing the failure of the proper officer to adequately verify the petitionerâs submissions.
In light of this, a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the order dated 31.12.2023 cannot be sustained and was accordingly set aside. The matter has been remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication of the SCN dated 29.09.2023 by taking into consideration the petitionerâs detailed response.
The Delhi High Court directed to upload an order on Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) as the inability to file goods and services tax ( GST ) appeal due to non-communication of GST order. The Court viewed that a copy of an order obtained from the office of the respondents to file an appeal is not a valid service.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja disposed of the petition directing the respondents to upload an order on the common portal. On said order being uploaded, it would be open to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under law.
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgement dismissed the review petition filed by the revenue department against the hotel owners in relation to sales tax exemption on bar-attached hotels and shops. The Court viewed that review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there is an error apparent on the face of the record which was not present in the case.
The single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh found no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the Court to reconsider the Judgment under review. There is no substance in these review petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
The Kerala High Court dismissed review petition in the matter relating to the payment of interest on delayed payment of turnover tax by Bar Attached Hotels.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âOnce the notification was issued, the respondents herein have remitted the tax, as per the time extended for filing the return and remittance of tax. This Court has considered every aspect of the matter, the submissions and documents placed on record. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which requires this Court to review.â
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to Lava Managing Director in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ) and commented that delicate balance between life and death in cardiac emergencies underscores importance for prioritization.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma observed that âThe delicate balance between life and death in cardiac emergencies underscores the importance for prioritization and specialized care required in such cases, for mitigating the profound risks posed by these medical conditions. Each passing moment in the face of cardiac distress is fraught with the peril of irreversible harm, and in case of any eventuality that may occur in applicant not getting proper and specialised treatment, this Court will have to bear the weight of regret.â
The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition on the availability of a statutory remedy under the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017. The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order.
Since there is no ground to entertain the writ petition, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the impugned order and if such an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority, the same shall be considered on merit.
In a recent judgement, the Delhi High Court set aside the show cause notice ( SCN ) and the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration cancellation order as the same failed to mention a cogent reason for cancellation. The bench observed that neither the show cause notice nor the order spell out the reasons for cancellation.
The division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the impugned show cause notice and order of cancellation. The GST registration of the petitioner is restored. The petitioner shall comply with Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
The Delhi High Court has observed that stamping of registration of a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) is not relevant for adjudication of an application under section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad viewed that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the Petitioner to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as to the amount of duty with which the instrument in question is chargeable and proceed ahead per law.
The Delhi High Court quashed the issuance of Look Out Circular ( LOC ) in absence of any reasons being furnished by Union Bank of India.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that âIn the absence of any reasons being furnished by the Appellant, the issuance of the impugned LOC in the year, 2021 was unjustified and the Respondent was deprived of his liberty to travel without following the due process of law.
The single bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the review petition on the judgement which directs payment of 5% Tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on the total turnover of bar-attached hotels based on tax exemption allowed during COVID.
The court of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there an is error apparent on the face of the record. Since there was no error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the Court to reconsider the Judgment under review, there is no substance in the review petition. The court dismissed the review petition.
A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has once again held that, the penalization of search and seizure actions within the framework of Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot be applied to operations at godowns without due jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Allahabad High Court quashed both the penalty order under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act and the decision of the first appellate authority.
The Delhi High Court has held that Good and Services Tax ( GST ) registration cannot be cancelled merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period. The Petitioner discontinued the business on the demise of the father of the Petitioner. The retrospective cancellation of the registration resulted in the denial of the Input Tax Credit for the said period.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that both the Petitioners and the department want cancellation of the GST registration of the Petitioner, though for a different reason.
The Kerala High Court, despite of lacking writ jurisdiction over the disputed legal question, has ordered an appellate review regarding the penalty imposed under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, (KGST), 1963
The bench of Justice Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Dr. Kausar Edappagath granted an additional ten days were extended to the appellant for filing the appeal.
The Delhi High Court observed that mere non-filing of GST Returns for some period does not mean GST registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that âRegistration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayerâs registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.â
The Kerala High Court directed re-adjudication under Kerala State Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017KGST Act. It was found that the assessee cannot reply without details on the alleged Violation of Rule 10 of Rule 96 of CGST Rules.
A division bench of the Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath viewed that the appellant must, at least at the first instance, appear before the officer and show cause against the proposals. However, the counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the appellant is entitled to the materials based on which show cause notice was issued to it and without such materials, it may not be possible for the appellant to give a proper reply.
The Allahabad High Court quashed the order of Commercial Tax Tribunal for non-compliance of Rule 63(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 ( UPVAT Rules ).
A Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed that âAccordingly, when the impugned judgement of learned Tribunal is seen in the context of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ved Ram vis a vis the provisions of Section 57(8) and Section 57(5) of the UPVAT Act, 2008 read with Rule 63(5) of the Rules, 2008 it clearly emerges that learned Tribunal has patently erred in neither noting the points for determination nor giving the reason for such decision thereon. Even though certain reasons are indicated in the impugned judgement, as emerge from a perusal of the said judgement, yet without determining the points for determination and the reasons for such decision thereon, it cannot be said that the judgement of learned Tribunal complies with the provisions of Rule 63(5) of the UPVAT Rules, 2008.â
The Delhi High Court directed the rehearing of the show cause notice as the same was sent to the wrong email address. The petitioner was never intimated about the hearing on the show cause notice, so the matter calls for a remit so that the petitioner can be given an opportunity for a hearing.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 30.08.2022 afresh. An application has already been filed by the petitioner seeking the rectification of the mistake committed by the petitioner in Form GSTR3B for the period July 2017 to November, 2018 and the application has not been disposed of. The Court directed the Competent Authority to consider the application filed by the petitioner for rectification of the mistake under law.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the exemption from payment of customs duty for aircraft used for flying training purposes or non-scheduled services.
The coram of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted the petitionerâs request to withdraw the petition while reserving the right to pursue appropriate legal remedies. Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
The Kerala High Court upheld the denial claim of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) on the ground that the claim was fraudulent as it was claimed based on a forged invoice. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the adjudication authority to complete the adjudication process expeditiously.
The single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh didnât find that impugned notices/intimations are without jurisdiction or contrary to the law as provided under the GST Act or Rules made thereunder. Since there was no ground to interfere with the impugned intimation and notices, the court dismissed the writ petition. The adjudication authority is directed to complete the adjudication process expeditiously.
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the order issued by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) and Central Excise. According to the High Court, the Superintendent was not the proper officer to issue order regarding the matter of wrong availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claim exceeding Rs. 10,00,000.
The Allahabad High court ruled that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction and set it aside. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, and the writ petition was allowed.
The Delhi High Court directed the special judge to expedite the hearing on an application seeking the release of passport concerning the urgency of traveling abroad to pursue studies. The petitioner was restricted from traveling abroad based on the charge sheet filed under the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice Navin Chawla disposed of the petition by setting aside the Impugned Order passed by the Special Judge. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh application before the Special Judge to seek release of his passport.
The Madras High Court held the Chennai Metro Rail liable for TDS deduction on machinery and not the work contractors.
A Single Bench of Justice C Saravanan observed that âIt is quite possible that the petitioner had opted to pay tax under Section 5 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and therefore had obtained Form S Certificate of no tax liability under proviso to Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with TNVAT Rules, 2007 but had failed to pay the tax. This would require a fresh determination.â
The Allahabad High Court has nullified the reassessment order against Flipkart, underlining that the burden of proving escaped assessment lies with the assessing authority.
The Bench observed that, âOnce, the consequence of an assessment order arose and that assessment order was defined by the disclosure of facts and figures in the annual return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13, jurisdiction to reassess the petitioner for A.Y. 2012-13 may have been assumed only against a valid reason to believe recorded in the context of the facts and figures that found mentioned in such assessment order/ annual return.â
The Kerala High Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to pay Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) on work done under contract. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Devaswom Board, 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders under the law within two months
Justice Gopinath P disposed of the writ petition directing the Devaswom Board ,respondent to consider and pass orders in accordance with the law within two months.
The Delhi High Court in a recent case has held that a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) and Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) cancellation order is invalid when it lacks reason and clarity. The court viewed that neither the show cause notice nor the order spells out the reasons for cancellation, thus the order does not qualify as an order of cancellation of registration.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noticed that the Show Cause Notice as well as the impugned order of cancellation, are themselves vitiated on account of lack of reason and clarity. The appeal has been dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation. Since the very foundation of the entire proceedings i.e., the Show Cause Notice and the order of cancellation are vitiated, the proceedings are invalid.
The Delhi High Court restored the registration as the show-cause notice ( SCN ) failed to provide any rationale for the retrospective cancellation of the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration.
The bench did not delve into this matter deeply but hypothetically acknowledged that if the respondentâs argument holds, the proper officer must take into account the compliance history of the taxpayer before canceling the registration retrospectively. Moreover, it stated that both the show cause notice and the cancellation order lacked proper reasoning for the retrospective action. Consequently, a division bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned SCN and the GST registration cancellation order. Subsequently, the petitionerâs GST registration was reinstated, with the directive for the petitioner to adhere to Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the department to treat a matter under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme ( SVLDRS ) and issue discharge certificate as the petitioner was unable to pay the SVLDRS Scheme amount due to financial crunch.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, after considering the arguments, referred to the Division Bench judgment and concluded that the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment. The order dated February 27, 2024, quashes the impugned order and remands the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner is directed to pay interest at 15% per annum on the amount paid under SVLDRS for the period from July 1, 2020, to June 9, 2021. Once this condition is met, the 1st respondent is instructed to treat the case under SVLDRS and issue a discharge certificate.
The Delhi High Court directed the assessee to submit documents before the Goods and Service tax ( GST ) appellate authority as the nature of service cannot be determined in the absence of documents.
A division bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the Order âin- Appeal and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner shall place on record of the Appellate Authority copies of the agreements, entered into between the Petitioner and the foreign entities. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority shall reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order on the appeal filed by the respondents after allowing a personal hearing to the Petitioner.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
