This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key tax judgments of the Supreme Court and all High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from November 11 to November 17, 2023.
Application to Rectify Inadvertent Error in Shipping Bill: Madras HC directs to Inspect Document K.G.Denim Ltd vs The Commissioner of Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1739
The Madras High Court directed to inspection of the document filed along with the application to rectify the Inadvertent error in shipping bills.
A single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation and thereafter, to verify the documents of the petitioner within a period of 30 days.
Three years Limitation is Applicable u/s 8 of Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, Even If Return under Income Tax Act is not Filed: Madras HC M/s.Indian Ocean Sands Company (P) Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2626
The Madras High Court has held that a three-year limitation is applicable under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles Act, 1990 even if a return under Income Tax Act is not filed.
In light of the Judgement, the single bench of Justice S Srimathy held that the three-year limitation is applicable, even if a return is not filed. Further quashed the impugned order while allowing the Writ Petition.
Mere Closure of Shop alone not a Ground for Cancellation of GST Registration: Delhi HC VAB APPAREL LLP vs COMMISSIONER, DELHI GST AND ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1741
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that, merely because the petitioner’s shop was found closed, absent anything more, is not a ground for cancellation of petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration, directing the department to restore the registration, while the order of cancellation of registration was set aside.
Thus, the two-judge bench held that, “The impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the same forthwith.” However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in accordance with law if the petitioner is found to be in violation of any statutory provisions.
Withholding of Gold Imported without Customs Duty Payment: Madras HC directs to Release Goods after paying Duty Mudra Precious Metals Pvt. Ltd vs Principal Commissioner of Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1740
In a significant case, the Madras High Court directed the customs authority to release the detained gold Imported without Customs Duty Payment after paying 100% duty.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed the Authority concerned to consider the petitioner’s request and release the goods subject to payment of 100% duty by the petitioner within a week from the date of payment of 100% duty made by the petitioner by law. The petitioner, after making the payment of 100% duty, is at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking the release of the goods, which shall be considered by the Authority concerned. Further, the respondents are also directed to adjudicate the matter relating to the issue of exemption of duty for import of gold by the petitioner by law after affording ample opportunities to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months.
Tax Evasion through Misuse of Login ID and Password: Madras HC stays Recovery Proceedings under TNGST till the Completion of Investigation M/s.Shewil Trading Company vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1738
The Madras High Court stayed the recovery proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax (TNGST)Act, 2017 till the Completion of investigation on tax evasion through misuse of login ID and password.
A Single bench of Justice C Saravanan observed that the petitioner has also filed a complaint before the Cyber Crime for the alleged misuse of the login ID of the petitioner from 01.01.2014 to 31.08.2015. The status of the investigation under the above FIR registered based on the complaint of the petitioner is not known. “The Commercial Tax Department shall coordinate with the rest of the respondents and the 4th respondent and investigate the complaint of the petitioner. The exercise shall be completed within eighteen (18) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”, the court held. Further, the bench held that all revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, till the completion of the investigation.
Deduction of TDS at a rate of 0.01% satisfying Mandate of Rule 28AA denied due to Non-Application of Mind by DCIT: Delhi HC directs fresh Adjudication SHREYASH RETAIL PRIVATE LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE 77(1) & ANR. 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1737
The Delhi High Court directed fresh adjudication because the deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) at a rate of 0.01% satisfying the mandate of Rule 28AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 denied due to non-application of mind by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT).
The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela perused the Impugned Order read with the Impugned Letter and found that the reasons furnished by the Respondent No. 1 qua the Application, as to why the Petitioners’ request that TDS should not be deducted at a rate of 0.01%, hinges on broad generalizations in relation to the propriety of projected estimations of revenue and tax liability, and accordingly has been had been issued mechanically reflecting non-application of mind. Thus, the court set aside the Impugned Actions and remand the matter back to Respondent No. 1 to conduct a fresh determination of the Application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Stay Order passed by KVAT Tribunal Requiring Deposit of 20% of Tax, Kerala HC dismisses Writ Petition Citing No Jurisdictional issues or Abuse of Process SHAFEER U. H vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER-I 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2621
The High Court of Kerala has dismissed a writ petition challenging the Stay Order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Appellate Tribunal requiring the deposit of 20% of the tax demand on the observation that there is no jurisdictional issues or abuse of process on the part of the Tribunal.
The single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh dismissed the writ petition and clarified that the judiciary cannot intervene in such matters without clear evidence of jurisdictional issues or an abuse of legal procedures.
Typographical Error Not a Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings u/s 135 of Customs Act: Madras HC Naveen Kumar S/o. D. Fedrick Samuel vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1735
The Madras High Court has held that the typographical error is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan observed that “the petitioner is prosecuted for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act and not for the offence under Section 132 of the Customs Act. Further, there is a typographical error, instead of Section 9(c) of the NDPS Act, it has been typed as Section 8(c) of NDPS Act in the complaint and it is nothing but a curable defect and it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner.” The court refused to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
Assessment Order u/s 148 of Income Tax Act passed without considering merging of Transferor Company: Madras HC sets aside Assessment Order Shapoorji Pallonji Samalpatti Operator Services Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1736
The Madras High Court set aside an assessment order under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed without Considering the Merging of Transferor Company.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “There was no material evidence to show that the petitioner Company had concealed any investment because once the petitioner Company/Transferor Company is merged with the Transferee Company, the entire investment will stand transferred in the name of the Transferee Company and same also got reflected in the Book of Accounts of the Transferee Company.” While allowing the petition, the court set aside the assessment order.
Penalty on Customs Officer for abetting Gold Smuggling; Challenge on Not Providing Mandated Opportunity u/s 112 (a)(i)of Customs Act: Madras HC Directs to Seek Statutory Remedy Vikas Sharma vs The Additional Commissioner of Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1733
The Madras High Court directed the customs officer to file an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 In the case where a one crore penalty was imposed for Abetting Gold Smuggling. The challenge before the court was that the penalty was imposed without providing a mandated opportunity under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq viewed that cross-examination is also a part of/ facet of natural justice, however, there is no absolute right for cross-examination, for it would depend on the facts of each case. The Court found that when there is an available alternate remedy, Courts would exercise restraint in entertaining the writ petitions. It was found that the Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternate remedy. The Court directed the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days.
Madras HC directs GST Dept to Grant GST Registration Number as Assessee going to Run its Business M/s.Bio Med Ingredients Pvt. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1734
The Madras High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to grant a GST registration number as the assessee going to run its business.
In case, if there is no demarcation of the property, the petitioner-Company is directed to demarcate the property within one (1) week time from the date of issue of the GST number. The petitioner shall demarcate the property and file the demarcation report on 27.11.2023. The court disposed of the Writ Petition with aforesaid direction.
Imported Gold Detained under Customs Act as Mis Declared Country in Origin Certificate: Madras HC directs to Release Goods after Paying 100% Duty M/s.Precious Metals Refiners Private Limited VS The Principal Commissioner of Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1732
The Madras High Court directed the customs authority to release the detained gold after paying 100 % customs duty. The imported gold was detained under the Customs Act, of 1962 due to the misdeclaration of country in origin certificate.
Since the petitioner has come forward to pay 100% duty under protest, the single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed to consider the petitioner’s request and release the goods subject to payment of 100% duty by the petitioner within a week from the date of payment of 100% duty made by the petitioner by law. Further held that “The petitioner, after making the payment of 100% duty, is at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking the release of the goods, which shall be considered by the Authority concerned. The respondents are also directed to adjudicate the matter relating to the issue of exemption of duty for import of gold by the petitioner by law after affording ample opportunities to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months.”
Denial of Legitimate ITC Solely based on GSTR 2A & 3B difference, Kerala HC directs Assessing Authority to reconsider Petitioner’s Contentions relying on GST Circular No.183 RAJU JOSEPH vs BY ADVS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1731
The High Court of Kerala has directed the Assessing Authority to reconsider the contentions of the petitioner relying on Circular No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 issued by the Government of India, Department of Revenue on the observation that the petitioner was denied the legitimate Input Tax Credit (ITC) solely based on the difference in the ITC depicted in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Returns GSTR 2A & GSTR 3B.
The single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh concluded that the legitimate claims of ITC shall not be denied solely based on differences between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, provided they have complied with all the necessary conditions for availing ITC as contemplated under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Delhi HC Disposes Petition on Parallel Agri Urea Diversion and ITC Claim Investigations by Jurisdictional Commissionerate and DGGI AMIT GUPTA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1730
In a recent case, the Delhi high court had disposed of a petition on parallel Agri Urea diversion and Input Tax Claim (ITC) claim investigations conducted by the Jurisdictional Commissionerate and Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
The bench observed that the petitioner’s insistence on the authority which should conduct the investigation is unjustified. The petitioner’s complaint concerned the way in which concurrent procedures were handled. Thus, the DGGI was allowed to continue the investigation from the point where it had obtained prior to the CGST Commissionerate’s agreement to end the aforementioned grievance.
Excise Duty Evasion: Gujarat HC quashes Criminal Proceedings in Absence of Legally Enforceable Debt on Date of Issue of Cheque ANIL GOVINDBHAI METALIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1468
The Gujarat High Court quashed criminal proceedings on excise duty evasion in the absence of legally enforceable deb on the date of issue of cheque.
A single bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt held that “there is no legally enforceable debt is found and considering the above judgment which is passed in identical facts and the ratio laid down on the aspect that there should be legally enforceable debt existing on the date of issuance as well as presentation of cheques and accordingly considering the ratio laid down in the judgments of M/s Indus Airway Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao (supra) and Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel (supra), all these applications are allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case Nos.18 of 2011, 613 of 2012, 614 of 2012 and 615 of 2012, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.36, Ahmedabad and consequential proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed qua the applicants.”
Amputation of Right Hand due to Accident Caused by UPSRTC Resulted in Appointing Driver: Delhi HC upholds MACT Order Granting Compensation U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs JITENDER KUMAR RANA & ANR 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1728
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) granting compensation as the accident caused by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘UPSRTC’) resulted in the amputation of the right hand of the claimant which resulted in engaging the driver for his travelling.
A single bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that the Claimant has been able to prove that as the Claimant could not, by himself, drive the vehicle/car due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he was forced to hire the services as a driver to take the Claimant and his children around. This is an additional expense that the Claimant has been forced to incur due to the injury suffered by him and he deserves to be compensated for the same. The same cannot be said to be a duplication of the conveyance charges granted for the period of treatment; the two relate to different periods. The Court directed to release the amount deposited by the UPSRTC in favour of the claimant as per the scheme of disbursal stipulated in the Impugned Award by the Tribunal.
HRA not Paid to Deceased due to Allotment of Govt Accommodation: Delhi HC Upholds Addition of Allowance to Income UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SONIA & ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1727
The Delhi High Court upheld the addition of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to Income as the HRA was not being paid to the deceased due to the allotment of government accommodation.
The amount so deposited shall be released in favour of the claimants by the terms and conditions of the Impugned Award. Further held that the statutory amounts deposited by the Insurance Company shall be released in favour of the Insurance Company along with interest accrued thereon.
Non-existent Entity and Non-Payment of due amount as per Invoices within 180 days is Articulated: Delhi HC directs Re adjudication OMKARA FOOTWEAR vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ANOTHER 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1729
The Delhi High Court directs re-adjudication for a non-existent entity and non-payment of the due amount as per invoices within 180 days is articulated.
The court has given liberty to the petitioner to respond to the said allegations and provide all relevant material as the petitioner considers necessary. He shall also furnish a reconciliation statement showing the date of invoices and the dates on which the payments have been made. The same may be filed before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of four weeks from the date. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Documentary Evidence is Sufficient for Claim of Income in ITR: Delhi HC Dismisses UPSRTC Writ Petition U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs JITENDER KUMAR RANA & ANR 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1728
The Delhi High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (‘UPSRTC’) challenging the compensation claim for an accident awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal held that documentary evidence is sufficient for a claim of income in Income Tax Return (ITR).
A single bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that the Claimant was able to prove his claim of working as a typist. Further viewed that the Supreme Court in Kalpanaraj v. T.N. State Transport Corpn. has held that even if the only documentary evidence available in support of the claim of income is an Income Tax Return, it is sufficient and must be given due weightage. In light of the judgement, the Court viewed that the act of the Tribunal placing reliance on the Income Tax Return of the Claimant proximate to the date of the accident to determine his income cannot be faulted. The Court rejected the challenge of the UPSRTC.
No Material to Challenge Interest on Compensation to Deceased Person: Delhi HC directs Oriental Insurance Company to pay Interest on Compensation from the Date of Filing To Realization of Compensation UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SONIA & ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1727
The Delhi High Court directed the Oriental Insurance Company to pay interest on compensation from the date of filing to the realization of compensation as directed by the Tribunal as the insurance company failed to submit material to challenge the interest rate fixed.
“ As the compensation amount would now stand enhanced, the Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining and the enhanced amount along with interest accrued thereon at the rate and for the period as stipulated in the Impugned Award, with the learned Tribunal within eight weeks from today. While depositing the amount, the Insurance Company shall also file with the learned Tribunal, the detailed calculation of the same. In case of any challenge by the claimants to the amount so deposited, the learned Tribunal shall determine the same.”
Father of Deceased Person can be treated as Dependent even though he lives Separately: Delhi HC upholds Deduction Towards personal expense UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SONIA & ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1727
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that the father of the deceased person can be treated as dependent even though he lives separately and upheld the deduction towards personal expense.
The single bench of Justice Navin Chawla rejected the challenge of the Insurance Company to the deduction from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.
Delhi HC Sets Aside Deduction of Tax Exempted Allowance in Insurance Amount Awarded By MACT UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SONIA & ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1727
The Delhi High Court set aside the deduction of tax exempted allowance in the insurance amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).
The single bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that “merely because certain allowances are not taxable, the same would not warrant their deduction from the annual income of the deceased to determine the compensation payable to the claimants towards Loss of Dependency. It is to be remembered that for determining the Loss of Dependency, what is relevant is the ‘income’ of the deceased and not the ‘taxable income’ of the deceased.” The Court set aside the deduction of Rs. 11,640/- from the income of the deceased for purposes of awarding Loss of Dependency.
Delhi HC upholds Loss Dependency Calculated by MACT as Every Police Person Entitled to 13 Months Annual Salary As per Govt Circular UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs SONIA & ORS 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1727
The Delhi High Court in a recent case upheld the loss dependency calculated by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) as every police person is entitled to 13 month’s annual salary as per the circular.
In light of the Circular, the single bench of Justice Navin Chawla has held that the loss of dependency has rightly been determined by the Tribunal based on the income of the deceased that he would have drawn for thirteen months. The Court rejected the challenge of the Insurance Company.
Disciplinary Proceedings against Income Tax Commissioner on allowing Unsubstantiated claims of sub-contract expenses by wrong finding: Delhi HC upholds CAT’S Order ALKA RAJVANSHI JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1725
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which confirmed the disciplinary proceeding against the Income Tax commissioner for allowing unsubstantiated claims of sub-contract expenses by wrong finding.
A division bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta instead of deciding the pleas itself, held that the disciplinary authority should first consider the same by keeping in view, the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Further held that “If the disciplinary authority agrees with the pleas of the petitioner, then it shall close the proceedings. But if the disciplinary authority is of the view that the Charge Memorandum has been rightly issued, the disciplinary authority shall pass a reasoned order in the manner directed by us in that regard, so also on the Inquiry report.” Without interfering with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the Court disposed of the writ petition and dismissed the application.
6.04 Crores loss to State Exchequer through Fake Tax Payer’s Firm: Allahabad HC grants Anticipatory Bail Madhur Marwah vs State Of U.P. And Another 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1726
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the case which caused 6.04 Crores loss to the state exchequer through a fake tax payer’s firm.
A single bench of Justice Krishan Pahal held that “In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant Madhur Marwah shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; and (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.” The Court granted two weeks for the informant to file a detailed counter affidavit and further held that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
Delhi HC directs Central Government to increase strength of Commissioner (Appeals) for Speedy Disposal of Income Tax Appeals ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTIONERS vs UOI AND ANR 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1724
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court, while observing a delay in the disposal of Income Tax Appeals, directed the central government to increase the strength of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Therefore, the court directed to take appropriate measures for filling up all the posts lying vacant for the disposal of the pending appeals. Also, the bench held that the Union of India may consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) substantially, at least to the extent of 570 such posts, to achieve the aims and objectives of the Central Action Plan formulated every year.”
Relief to Parle Agro, GST Council cannot impose a wrong classification of “Flavoured Milk” as a “Beverage Containing Milk” under Customs Tariff Act: Madras HC M/s.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Union of India 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1723
The Madras High Court in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Council cannot impose a wrong classification of “Flavoured Milk” as a “Beverage Containing Milk” under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
A single bench of Justice C Saravanan viewed that “Since these Notifications classified “Flavoured Milk” / “Flavoured Milk of Animal Origin” as “Beverage Containing Milk” under Sub-Heading 2202 90 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were never contested by Assessees, as they benefited them, it cannot mean “Flavoured Milk” in fact did fall under Heading 2202 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975”. Further observe that these classifications adopted in the respective Notifications issued by the Central Government under the older regime under the Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are not relevant for determining the correct classification under the new regime. “Flavoured Milk” has to be classified only under Heading 0402 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under Heading 2202 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. While allowing the petition, the Court held that the 3rd respondent GST Council cannot impose a wrong classification of “Flavoured Milk” as a “Beverage Containing Milk” under the residuary item as “Non-Alcoholic Beverages” under Sub Heading 2202 90 30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. “The Central Government can either tweak the rate on the recommendation of the 3rd respondent GST Council or by itself.”, the bench concluded.
GST Council Cannot Classify Goods under Customs Tariff Act: Madras HC rules in favour of Parle Agro Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Union of India 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1723
In a ruling in favour of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., the Madras High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Council cannot classify goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
A single bench of Justice C Saravanan held that “The recommendation of the GST Council is recommendatory. It is not binding on the Government as evident from a reading of Article 279-A(4) of the Constitution of India. “ Further held that “The impugned recommendation of the 3rd respondent GST Council cannot be upheld. Classification ought to have been independently determined by the Assessing Officer. The power of the 3rd respondent GST Council is merely recommendatory. It is for the Government to fix appropriate rates on the goods that are classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.”, the court concluded. While allowing the Writ Petition, the court left it open for the Government to issue a fresh Notification for amending Entry Nos.8 & 50 to Notification No.1/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 to tweak the rate of tax.
Challenge Against Cancellation of Registration u/s 12 A of Income Tax Act by Suppressing Material Facts: Delhi HC dismisses Writ Petition ENVIORNICS TRUST vs THE DEPT COMMESSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1722
In a significant case, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenged against cancellation of registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by suppressing material facts.
Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that an individual seeking to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of a High Court must approach this Court displaying bona fides. The Petitioner has unquestionably suppressed material facts to the cancellation of its registration under Sections 12A, 12AA and 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The Petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting the interference of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Refund of Unutilised ITC due to Inverted Duty Structure Denied Based on Misclassified Supplier Invoices & Excess ITC Claims; Delhi HC Remands Matter SIMRAN CHANDWANI vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH AND ORS. 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1721
The High Court of Delhi has remanded a matter involving the denial of the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to an inverted duty structure based on the issue of misclassified supplier invoices and excess ITC claims.
In conclusion, the division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for further consideration of the petitioner’s claims regarding excess ITC in light of the quarterly returns filed by some suppliers and the ‘relevant period’ along with the opportunity for the petitioner to provide his claim with supporting documents. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to issue a fresh order within eight weeks.
Relief to Mitsubishi Electric India, Failure to Consider Tax Paid on Salary Received in Indian Currency: Punjab and Haryana HC Stays Proceedings under GST Act M/S Mitsubishi Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & others 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1719
In the case of Mitsubishi Electric India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed proceedings under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017 as the department failed to consider tax paid on salary received in Indian currency.
It was contended that a similar issue has also come up for consideration before the High Court of Karnataka in M/s Alstom Transport India Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka and an interim order has been passed on 02.11.2023 keeping in view the fact that the writ petition would be rendered infructuous if there is no interim protection. A division bench comprising Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji stayed the proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice.
Extension once made to Period of Limitation to issue order u/s 73 of GST cannot be further extended: Gujarat HC M/S. SRSS AGRO PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1718
The Gujarat High Court has held that an extension once made to the limitation period to issue an order under section 73 of Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be further extended.
Since the notice issued to the respondents was returnable on 30.11.2023, the petitioner asked for time to reply to the show-cause notice. A division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Mauna M Bhatt granted time to file a reply to the show cause notice.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
