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.
A Single Bench of the Kerala High Court observed that there can be no invocation of writ jurisdiction to extend limitation for making payment on failure to comply provisions of Subka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme.
A Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âOnce the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the scheme, which is a complete code in itself, this court would not like to extend the limitation for making the payment under the scheme in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.â âI am of the view that the petitionerâs contention that he could notice the SVLDRS-3 only on the website of the CBIC on or around 15.6.2020, and thereafter, he tried to make the payment but he failed for âtechnical glitchesâ is not convincing. The petitionerâs allegation that there were âtechnical glitchesâ is not supported by any cogent and credible evidence. The petitioner ought to have made the payment within 30 days from 19.02.2020 or till the extended time, which he failed to do soâ the Court noted.
the Jharkhand High Court observed that the determination of value of excisable goods for assessment falls within exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that âWe are having no hesitation in holding both these appeals as not maintainable and the same would lie before the Honâble Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, inasmuch as, the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters are specifically excluded under Section 35G and it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act.â
The Delhi High Court observed that mere non-payment of returns for some period not reason to cancel GST registration with retrospective date.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdev and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that âRecords clearly demonstrates that petitioner had submitted an application seeking cancellation of the GST registration on 06.05.2019 and thereafter, vide order dated 09.07.2022, the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled. Once the registration stood cancelled, there was no cause for the petitioner to file any returns. Accordingly, the cancellation of the registration on the ground that petitioner has failed to file returns is not sustainable. Further, we note that the cancellation of registration has been done with retrospective effect.â
The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that the departments of the State including Excise and Revenue do not have priority over secured creditors debt.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya observed that âTherefore, once the petitioner is a secured creditor and has moreover created the first charge over the property, then obviously, it has the first right to realise its dues and this question is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Honâble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Union of India & Ors.â
The Calcutta High Court upheld the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the decision made was on basis of the material available on record.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed that âThe stipulation under Clause (d) has been complied with by the assessing officer who has taken a decision, on the basis of the material available on record including the reply/replies given by the assessee and found that the case of the assessee for the assessment year under question namely 2016-2017 is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and prior approval of the specified authority has also been obtained. Thus, the provision of the Section 148A of the Income Tax Act has been scrupulously followed by the assessing officer and there is no error in the decision-making process of this court to interfere.â
The Kerala High Court quashed an assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was violation of the natural justice principles.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âI am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of date mentioned for submission of the response to the show cause notice dated 23.2.2023, the petitioner had bona fide believed that the petitionerâs request for adjournment to 17.3.2023 to give response to the show cause notice dated 23.2.2023 was accepted. However, before 17.3.2023, the impugned order, Ext.P6, has been passed on 14.3.2023, and therefore, I am of the considered view that there was violation of the principles of natural justice.â
The Kerala High Court quashed the Income Tax Assessment order which was passed without following the natural justice principle.
The court made clear that, if the petitioner does not deposit 10% of the assessed tax in the five assessment orders or fails to appear before the 2nd respondent on 18.01.2024, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner and the demand as per the assessment orders shall be in force for the realisation of the tax assessed.
The Kerala High Court observed that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 to extend limitation of thirty days for filing objection against the draft assessment order.
A Sigle Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âI do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned assessment orders as there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to extend the limitation of thirty days for filing objection against the draft assessment order.â
In a recent decision the Delhi High Court observed that the cancellation of GST registration by the proper officer must be based on an objective criterion.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that âIn terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied.â
The Delhi High Court set aside the order of cancellation as there was non-mentioning in the show cause notice ( SCN ) that GST registration is liable to be cancelled from retrospective date.
A Division Bench of Justices Ravinder Dudeja and Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that âThe show cause notice does not even state that the registration is liable to be cancelled from a retrospective date. The petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 07.04.2022, order of cancellation dated 13.07.2022 and the order in appeal dated 29.12.2023 are accordingly set aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored, subject to petitioner filing requisite returns upto date.â
The Delhi High Court observed that GST registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that âIn terms of Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper officer may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the circumstances set out in the said sub-section are satisfied. Registration 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.â
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declared the reassessment notice issued under Section 148
of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a deceased individual as ‘Null and Void’. However, the court has given the department the liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner or legal heir of the deceased if deemed necessary.
The bench of Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari and Justice Devanaryan Mishra decided that the notice issued in the name of the deceased, Kamal Kumar Saxena, is unenforceable in the eyes of the law. âThis requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not a merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in lawâ. This was observed by the Mumbai HC in the case of Balkrishna Gupta Vs. Asstt. CIT, 2019.
The Delhi High Court ( HC ) directed the Director General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) to issue an export obligation discharge certificate based on the direction of the policy relaxation committee.
The petition is disposed of, directing the Director General of Foreign Trade to implement the directions of the Policy Relaxation Committee issued in its meeting dated 05.12.2023, preferably within three months from today. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the petitioner shall furnish such documents and clarifications as may be called for by the Director General of Foreign Trade from time to time. Once the order of the Director General of Foreign Trade is passed, the customs authorities shall expeditiously process the case of the petitioner. The right of the petitioner to avail of further remedy in case aggrieved by any further action of the respondents is reserved
The Kerala High Court allowed refund of input tax credit ( ITC ) accumulated on account of payment of higher rate of tax on input supplies received for bottling of LPG.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âThe present writ petitions
are allowed and the petitioner is held to be entitled for refund of the credit accumulated on account of payment of higher rate of tax, i.e. @ 18%, on input supplies received by him for bottling of LPG for domestic supply, when the rate of tax is only @ 5%.â
The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued notice in the matter regarding the extension of time limit to pass demand order under Section 73(10) for wrongful availment of input tax credit (ITC) under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justices GS Sandhawalia and Lapita Banerji observed that âIt is accordingly, submitted that the show cause notices dated 27.12.2023 now issued would be time barred and thus, he has distinguished the earlier set of cases wherein stay was not granted. Notice of motion. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl.A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 & 4 and prays for time to file reply. To come up for service of respondents No.2, 5 & 6 by way of dasti process for 25.01.2024. In the meantime, proceedings may carry on but the final order may not be passed.â
The Kerala High Court quashed the order of the GST Commissioner rejecting claim for interest on tax amount ordered to be refunded.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âIn view of the above, Ext.P5 order rejecting petitionerâs claim for interest on the tax amount ordered to be refunded is quashed and the respondents are directed to calculate the interest on the amount, which was refunded/credited to the petitionerâs cash credit ledger, as directed above, and disburse the same within a period of two months from today.â
The Kerala High Court directed to file income tax returns (ITR) as the acceptance and payment of loan in cash in violation of Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âConsidering the aforesaid fact that the petitionerâs alleged acceptance of Rs. 1,87,69,000/- in cash and repayment of the same was in clear violation of Section 12AA and the assessing authority has been of the opinion that prima facie the said amount was an income of the petitioner which had escaped assessment from payment of the tax.â
The Telangana High Court has held that administrative circular will not operate as a fetter on the commissioner of Income Tax and remanded the matter to be afresh. The Court allowed the operation of bank accounts as an interim measure.
Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice N Tukaramji held that due to the potential impact on students’ academic careers, and to prevent hindrance in participating in examinations if the petitioner’s bank account remains frozen, it is urged that, as an interim measure, the respondents should allow the petitioner to operate the bank account solely for the purpose of paying the examination fees for students from whom fees have already been collected. This directive is hereby granted. Regarding the interim application, the authority is expected to make a decision on its merits promptly, preferably before January 31, 2024
The Kerala High Court directed to extend the benefit of order to all applicants in the matter concerning the upgradation of pay scale of Income Tax Inspectors and Income Tax Officers.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that âHaving considered the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that since the issue has been concluded, the Union Government shall extend the benefit of its order dated 22.9.2023 to all applicants. However, nothing prevents the Union Government from constituting an Anomaly Committee to verify the individual cases if so warranted. The entire process in this regard shall be completed within a period of three months.â
The Kerala High Court directed to approach the appropriate authority in the matter concerning the passing of order under Section 271AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âAdmittedly, there is statutory appeal provided under the provisions of the Income Tax Act against the impugned order passed by the assessing authority. This Court has already dismissed W.P.(C) No. 2136 of 2023 impugning the assessment order for the same assessment year and, therefore, there is no ground to entertain this writ petition. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority against the impugned order, if he so advised.
The Supreme Court issued a stay on the Securities Appellate Tribunalâs (SAT) order following a petition filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in the Karvy Stock Broking case.
The bench comprised of D.Y.Chandrachud(Chief Justice), J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.âThis process was not done, and like a highway robber, NSDL, through illegal directions from SEBI, transferred the pledged shares (which were fungible) to the clients of Karvy, an action taken without any authority of law,â
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a case involving Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. The bench ruled that interest must be paid promptly after the lapse of three months from the dates on which applications were submitted for filing interest.
Revenue was represented by N. Venkatraman, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, V.C Bharathi, Prantap Singh, Kritagya Kait, H. R. Rao and Sarthak Karol.The respondent was represented by Pawanshree Agrawal, Priyanka Rathi, Ashwini Chandrasekharan, Shubhangi Gupta and Shubhangi Negi
A two-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the import of the “Concrete batching plant” by Gammon cannot be regarded as an import by M/s GammonAtlanta JV, the entity awarded the contract for road construction in India.
The bench noted that a joint venture has the potential to adopt the form of a corporation, where two or more individuals or companies come together. This requires a shared interest in the performance of the subject matter, the right to direct and govern policy in connection with it, and a duty, alterable by agreement, to share both profits and losses.
A two judge bench of the Supreme Court put a stay on the imposition of fine under section 42(5) of the OVAT Act on Anant Automobiles. The Court is due to hear a Special Leave Petition on the matter. A Special Leave Petition on this matter is scheduled for a hearing, during which the bench will determine the appropriateness of imposing fines.
The Orissa High Court had upheld the Revenueâs imposition of penalty under Section 42(5) of the OVAT Act. The two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Abhay S Okha and Ujjal Bhuyan imposed a stay on implementing the order of the Orissa High Court.
The Supreme Court quashed deposit of additional amount as condition precedent for continuation of stay as there was deposit of 15% of the outstanding dues.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that âIn that view of the matter, we find that it was not necessary for the High Court to have directed the appellant to deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-( Rupees One Crore Only ) for continuing the stay.â
2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 263
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the time limit prescribed for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax (APGST) Act, 2017 was not unconstitutional.
The division bench of the court comprising Justice Durga Prasad Rao and Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao observed that without serving a proper show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 and without granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner U/s 74(5) of the CGST Act, and not considering the petitionerâs submissions and COVID-19 limitations r/w Amnesty Notifications, but confirming the demand of tax, interest, and penalty by restricting the credit with erroneous facts, despite collecting a late fee of Rs.10,000/- for the delay in filing the returns, was not only violated of principles of natural justice but also arbitrary, improper, illegal, and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Tax Tribunal as there was explanation related to the sufficient cause for delay of 1365 days.
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that âI am of the view that the delay is explained by the authorities and the appeal is required to be heard by the Tribunal, as so much time has already elapsed. I am also of the view that the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the appeal within four months from date.â
The Bombay High Court instructed the Income Tax Department to acknowledge the declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act) due to a negligible delay of only 11 days.
Directing the Income Tax Department to accept the petitionerâs declaration, a Division Bench comprising Justices M. S. Sonak and Valmiki Sa Menezes observed that âAs noted above, even if the contention about technical glitches is kept aside, this is a matter where the Respondents themselves committed several errors in processing the Petitionerâs declaration in Form 1, which was made within the prescribed period and by due compliance with the prescribed procedure. This is a matter where the Petitioner withdrew her pending appeal.
The Allahabad High Court noted that the imposition of penalties within the realm of tax laws should not solely rely on insignificant technical errors without any financial consequences.
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that âThe imposition of penalties within the realm of tax laws should not be based solely on insignificant technical errors devoid of any financial consequences. The foundational principle guiding this approach is the commitment to maintain a tax system that is characterized by fairness and justice, where the severity of penalties corresponds to the gravity of the offense committed.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ).
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that âThe Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is trite law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. Section 107 of the Act specifically provides for the limitation and in the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provisionâ.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that 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 a retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.
In light of these considerations, the court modified the cancellation order, determining that it shall operate with effect from 01.02.2019, aligning with the date of the petitionerâs business discontinuation. The petitioner was directed to furnish necessary details for a comprehensive assessment by the respondents, who are not precluded from taking lawful steps for tax, penalty, or interest recovery.
The Delhi High Court, led by a bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, rendered a verdict on Monday affirming the validity of legal provisions associated with the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA).
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) serves as the statutory mechanism within the GST law, tasked with scrutinising unfair profiteering activities carried out by registered suppliers under the GST law. The primary responsibility of the Authority is to verify that the benefits arising from the reduction in GST rates on goods and services, as determined by the GST Council, and the utilisation of Input Tax Credit, are passed on to the recipients. This is to be accomplished through a proportional reduction in prices by the suppliers, ensuring that consumers receive the intended advantages of these measures.
A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that granite stone blocks and pieces attract 5% sales tax.
The judgment carries far-reaching implications for the taxation of granite stone, establishing a precedent for interpreting similar entries in tax schedules. It was thus held by the Allahabad High Court bench that, â In light of the above findings, there is no scope of interference in the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.â
The Allahabad High Court granted benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for appeal filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that âI find merit in the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and accordingly, I quash and set aside the impugned order dated October 15, 2019 and direct the respondent no.3/Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal afresh. If after granting the benefit of Section 14 the petitionerâs appeal is filed within time, the appeal shall be heard on merits.â
MANISHA GUPTA PROP VARUN ENTERPRISES vs UNION OF INDIA 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 276
The Delhi High Court observed that the order of cancellation of GST Registration is to take effect from date on which business was last carried.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that âRecords clearly demonstrates that petitioner had submitted an application seeking cancellation of the GST registration on 03.08.2022 and thereafter, vide order dated 07.10.2022, the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled. We note that the cancellation of registration has been done with retrospective effect.â
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in the matter relating to Rs 195 crores GST fraud. During the course of investigation, it was found that M/s Radiant Traders, the manufacturers of smoking mixtures, had supplied the smoking mixture to M/s Harsha International. Upon search, it was found that no business activity was being conducted from the registered premises of M/s Radiant Traders and no goods or plant or machinery was found at their premises.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that âFrom the material on record, it appears that Jitender Kumar was not the main player involved in the GST fraud and was acting on instructions from the main accused Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel. It is the case of the DGGI itself that out of the receipt of GST refund of Rs.198 crores by M/s Harsha International, Rs.195 crores were transferred to M/s Radiant Traders. Even otherwise, Jitender Kumar has clean antecedents and has been co-operating in investigation and has given his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
The Allahabad High Court observed that the opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act) before imposing the tax or penalty.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Vivek Chaudhary observed that âSince in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as âNOâ in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed.â
The Delhi High Court observed that non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates cannot be ground for cancellation of bail under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ).
A Single Bench of Amit Bansal observed that âI am in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of Manish Goyal that non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates cannot be ground for cancellation of bail. It is an admitted position that after grant of regular bail, Manish Goyal did appear before the authorities pursuant to summons received by him on various occasions. Therefore, the order dated 15th September, 2023, passed by the Sessions Court cancelling bail on account of non appearance on one or two dates is harsh and is accordingly set aside.â
The Calcutta High Court quashed the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) as proper scrutiny conducted by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) on allegations of under valuation of the closing stock.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that âIn the preceding paragraphs, we have noted as to the exercise conducted by the assessing officer in the scrutiny assessment which was examined by the tribunal and found that the due enquiry conducted by the assessing officer and after perusal of the documents, stock register etc. the assessment was completed. The tribunal also re-appreciated the factual position and found that the CIT while exercising power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act has not recorded a specific finding that it is as case of no enquiry by the assessing officer rather the observation was there could be a possibility of understatement of the closing stock.â
The Kerala High Court directed to file appeal in the matter relating to extension of time for filing appeal against orders passed under Section 73/74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ).
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âConsidering the aforesaid fact, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 against the assessment order 20.06.2022, before 31.01.2024 and if the petitioner files appeal before 31.01.2024 against the assessment order, the appeal should be heard and decided on merits.â
The Delhi High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail in the case relating to fraudulently obtaining input tax credit (ITC) worth Rs.200 crores by projecting transactions.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed that âIn the present case, the accused persons are involved in fraudulently obtaining Input Tax Credit worth Rs.200 crores by projecting transactions only on paper and without the actual purchase or sale of goods. As a result, they have duped the government exchequer and the taxpayers of a huge amount of money.â
The Delhi High Court observed that the prosecution initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is liable to be quashed when accused is acquitted/discharged in a predicate offence.
A Single Bench of Dr Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that âIn view of the aforesaid legal position, the complaint filed by the respondent/ED and the consequential proceedings cannot survive. Considering that the co-accused Dr. Jeevan Kumar has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 22.03.2013 and that the said judgment has not been challenged till date, there can be no offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA against the petitioner. Accordingly, the ECIR bearing no. ECIR/7/DZ/2008 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom stated to be pending before the concerned court.â
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition claiming refund of excess payment of tax. A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that âI do not find any ground to entertain such a writ petition, which has been filed seeking for a direction to consider order dated 17.12.2020 afresh by filing an application as late as on 9.3.2022. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.â
The Allahabad High Court observed that penalties should be reserved for cases where intentional act to defraud tax system is evident.
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that âA penal action devoid of mens rea not only lacks a solid legal foundation but also raises concerns about the proportionality and reasonableness of the penalties imposed. The imposition of penalties without a clear indication of intent may result in an arbitrary exercise of authority, undermining the principles of justice. Tax evasion is a serious allegation that necessitates a robust evidentiary basis to withstand legal scrutiny. The mere rejection of post-detention e-Way Bills, without a cogent nexus to intention to evade tax, is fallacious.â
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has granted the liberty to a dealer to amend the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Return â GSTR-1 to enable its client, Mahindra & Mahindra to claim Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).
The Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla thus directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to amend and rectify form GSTR-1 for the period in question for financial year 2018-19, either through online or manual means, within a period of four week
The Supreme Court of India has halted the sales tax recovery proceedings pending the final hearing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a sales tax demand. This SLP stems from a contested judgment issued by the High Court of Orissa on March 15, 2023, regarding notices issued under the Odisha Entry Tax (OET) Rules.
The Court deemed the notices non-compliant with statutory procedures and quashed them, emphasizing that since the petitioner-dealer had filed a nil return for the relevant period, issuing a demand notice was unjustified. The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit the unpaid entry tax, with 9% interest per annum, during the period covered by interim orders. The Court also allowed the petitioner to appeal assessment decisions within 30 days and ordered a stay on recovery proceedings pending further hearings.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
