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 September 30 to October 6, 2023.
The Supreme Court has recently allowed an appeal, directing the written statements filed by the defendants after the extended period of limitation during record to be taken on record and proceed with the court/tribunal proceedings.
The Apex Court bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan observed that, “When the whole world was in the grip of devastating pandemic, it could never have been said that the parties were sleeping over their rights. It is, at this juncture, that this Court stepped in and after taking suo motu cognizance passed orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India extending the deadlines. The extraordinary situation was dealt with rightly by extraordinary orders protecting the rights of parties by ensuring that their remedies and defenses were not barred.” The Apex Court thus allowed the written statement filed belatedly by the appellants/defendants to be taken on record.
Expressing its view against the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Supreme Court of India commented that the actions of ED should be fair and not vindictive thereby granting bail to M3M Directors Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 (PMLA) case.
Granting bail to the M3M Directors, the Apex Court remarked that “On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002 of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”
The Supreme court dismissed the special leave petition of income tax department against the Karnataka renewable energy development which was filed with a delay of 104 days.
The Court held “the direct income and expenses under the power generation from Wind Mills alone is to be taken into I consideration while arriving at profit to be claimed as deduction under the Section 80IA of the Act.” Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act provides tax benefits to businesses that operate in infrastructure, power, telecommunication, and other specified sectors. This provision offers tax deductions and exemptions to encourage businesses to invest in the mentioned sectors. Investments in these sectors help our country’s economic growth, thus, the Income Tax department encourages it by providing tax exemptions. Even though the Court condoned the delay, Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to interfere in the matter.
The Supreme Court of India upheld the order of the Customs and Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) as no service tax demandable on additional service of mounting of printed material or boards already paid.
Taxable services are specified in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act,1994. Generally, the liability to pay service tax has been placed on the ‘service provider’. However, in respect of the taxable services notified under Sec.68(2) of the Finance Act,1994, the service tax shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in Sec.66 of the Act and all the provisions of Chapter-V shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax. There is no provision to demand service tax additionally once the assessee already paid it. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah didn’t find any infirmity in the final order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
A Two-judge bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of Supreme Court have restricted the ruling of Bombay High Court on the prevailing time limit of Rs. 153 over Section 144C of the Income Tax Act as the precedent until further orders.
The Supreme Court stated that “We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel Shri J.D. Mistri for the respondent-assessee. Having heard the respective senior counsel for the parties, we observe that the impugned judgment shall not be cited as a precedent in any other subsequent matter until further orders.” The apex court also clarified that that the operative portion of the judgment shall apply only insofar as the respondents herein are in question.
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the First Information Report (FIR) against a Chartered Accountant firm related to the GSLDC scam. The court noted that the firm’s involvement in the matter was limited to auditing vouchers and records and was not directly linked to the misconduct in the fieldwork of the Khet Talavadi project, which was the subject of the allegations.
The High Court observed that officers and staff of the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation had filed fraudulent applications to benefit from the ‘Khet Talavadi’ Scheme initiated by the State Government. Importantly, the court found no direct connection between the applicant, the Corporation’s officers/staff, or the contractors, and there were no financial transactions other than the firm’s fees involved. Additionally, provisions within the Chartered Accountant Act address the appointment of unqualified personnel for audit work. Based on these considerations, the court found no prima facie evidence of an offence by the applicant and consequently quashed and set aside the FIR against the CA firm.
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the appeal before the statutory authority as the order was passed without considering the document due to the failure of the assessee to submit on Re-adjudication process under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act,2003.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that “However if the petitioner files appeals before the Appellate Authority within fifteen days from today against the impugned Assessment Orders, the Appellate Order shall proceed to decide the appeals on merit by the law without going into the question of delay if any. For fifteen days, no coercive measures shall be taken in pursuance of the recovery notices.”
The Kerala High Court granted one month to file an Income Tax Return (ITR) as the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds of concealment of income and the assessee failed to file an ITR.
The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that these petitions may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the return of income and take all the pleas which are available to them under the law in respect of their claim for their income being jumped under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Considering the plea, the single bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that “If the petitioners file their return of income within one month from today, the assessing authority will examine the return by the law and pass the final assessment orders expeditiously.”
The Delhi High Court has held that Customs House Agent (CHA) cannot be held liable for illegal acts of importer firms after clearance of goods from the customs station.
“A penalty of revocation of license for failing to collect the KYC forms unjustly restricts the Appellant’s ability to undertake the business CHA for the entire life.”, the court viewed. Keeping in view the proportionality doctrine and keeping in view that the Appellant has already been unable to work for 4½ years, the division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the order-in-original.
The Kerala High Court directed to decide refund application in the matter of excess tax amount paid under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), 2003.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the aforesaid submission, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 1st respondent to decide Ext.P7 application for refund within a period of three weeks, in accordance with law.” The Counsels Narayani Harikrishnan, R Jaikrishna, CS Arun Shankar and Anish P appeared for the petitioner and Reshmita Ramachandran, Government Pleader appeared for the State.
In a recent decision the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition as there was delay of 9 years in filing appeal against assessment order.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “The petitioner had filed appeal against the assessment order with inordinate delay only on 11.08.2023. The appellant authority has not taken any decision till date on the application for condonation of delay. considering the inordinate delay and filing the appeal, this Court cannot grand any relief in this Writ Petition.” “However, the appellant authority is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay in accordance with law within a period of one month. For a period of one month, no further proceedings may be initiated in pursuance to the impugned notice” the Bench concluded. Counsels Muhammed Kabeer S and C Sheeba appeared for the petitioner and Jasmin.M.M, Government Pleader, appeared for the state.
The Kerala High Court directed the Commissioner Goods and Service Tax to process refund claim in the matter of refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on shipping bills.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 4 th respondent to take into consideration of Exhibits P-5 and P-6 and process the claim of the petitioner for refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax in respect of the shipping bills in accordance with law.” “The petitioner may be afforded an opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax for the exports reflected in the shipping bills. The necessary order should be passed within a period of two months” the Bench concluded.
The Kerala High Court dismissed writ petition as there was relinquishment of right to prove claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the assessee, Ansil Ibrahim.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “If there is a difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, then it is for the assessee/dealer to prove his claim of input tax credit by leading cogent and credible evidence for his claim regarding input tax credit.” “In the present case, the petitioner, despite show cause notice, chose not to provide any evidence in respect of his claim for the input tax credit, nor did he appear for a hearing on the date fixed. When the petitioner himself has given up his right to prove his claim for the input tax credit, this Court cannot help such an assessee by entertaining this writ petition.”
The Calcutta High Court ordered for refund of penalty as the time between expiry of the e-way bill and the interception of the vehicle in question was proved.
A Single Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin observed that “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appears from record and considering the aforesaid two orders of this Court, this writ petition being WPA 22612 of 2023 is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty in question subject to compliance of legal formalities.” Counsels Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal, Jitesh Sah appeared for the petitioners and counsels A. Ray, T. M. Siddiqui, T. Chakraborty appeared for the state.
The Kerala High Court set aside the assessment order passed in violation of section 75 (4) of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The section mandates an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
Considering the aforesaid provision and facts, the single judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh found that “there has been violation of Sub Section 4 of Section 75 of the GST Act and, therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 1st respondent for passing fresh assessment order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 20.09.2023 and make his submission with respect to the Show Cause Notice issued to him for finalization of the assessment order. It is made clear that no notice of hearing shall be given to the petitioner.” The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
In a major ruling the Calcutta High Court observed that the land once vested with State cannot be de-requisitioned and no further acquisition proceedings lie under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that “We find from the records that, NHAI issued a notification under Section 3C of the Act of 1956 did not proceed to include the plots involved in the subsequent notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956. NHAI, therefore, corrected themselves with regard to the plots concerned. Land once vested with State cannot be derequisitioned nor any further acquisition proceedings lie. In the present case, land stood vested under the Act of 1894 and as such revocation of the Act of 1956 was non-est. No right flows from the revocation of the Act of 1956.”
The Calcutta High Court observed that GST payment should be made on receipt of payment against execution of work contracts.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that “The impugned order is well reasoned and categorically records that the petitioner has received the entire payment against execution of work contracts in the post GST regime. Hence, the petitioner was obliged to pay GST on such payment and the same ought to have been made after filing the proper form. The plea of the appellant that the tax has not been paid by the Department, is also not tenable in law and non-payment of GST by the petitioner is in contravention of the provision of the Act.”
The Kerala High Court stayed recovery proceedings as appeal and stay application pending before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the aforesaid facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/3rd respondent is directed to take up the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously and decide the same within a period of three months. However, if it is not possible to decide the appeal within the period of three months, at least the stay application of the petitioner should be decided in accordance with the law within the said period of three months. “Counsels Divya Ravindran and C.A. Jojo appeared for the petitioner and Jose Joseph SC-IT appeared for the respondents.
In a significant case, the Kerala High Court quashed the reassessment order as the 4 days time allowed to file the reply to the show cause notice (SCN) is not valid as per mandatory provision under Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh viewed that only four days’ time was granted to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. While allowing the petition the court quashed the assessment order and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 148A(b), giving seven days or more time to the petitioner, but not more than thirty days’ time as prescribed under Section 148A(b) for filing the reply and hearing.
The Kerala High Court granted one week time as the assessee failed to file appeal. As the assessee opted to file appeal using reference number of Penalty order under Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the officer concerned to get the reference of the order imposing penalty and file the appeal thereafter within a period of fifteen days which shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
In a significant ruling the Delhi High Court observed that the High Court has writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to waive statutory pre-deposit for filing appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that “We find ourselves unable to hold that his case would fall in the category of rare and exceptional cases. Prima facie, and solely for the purposes of examining whether waiver is merited, we have delved through the relevant record and find that the conclusions drawn by the respondents insofar as the petitioner is concerned can neither be said to be wholly perverse or unsustainable. The Court thus concluded by noting that the circumstances do not warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution.” Counsels Deepak Gandhi and Bhavneet Arora appeared for the petitioner and Senior Standing Counsel along with Ms Vaishali Goyal appeared for the respondent.
In a recent case, the Kerala High Court stayed the recovery proceeding against the cooperative society which was initiated after rejecting the claim of exemption under section 80(P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee failed to prove as a cooperative society which follows the Kerala Co-operative Society Act Rules.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd and 4th respondents to take the hearing appeals and dispose of them expeditiously within two months. The disposal of the appeals is subject to the cooperation of the assessee or the petitioner. For two months, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner for realization of the tax assessed in this Writ Petition.
The Calcutta High Court ordered to file statutory appeal as the contract executed for West Bengal State Rural Development Agency (WBSRDA) did not provide for GST payment.
The Court of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that “In view of the subsequent events which have transpired after the filing of the writ petition and more particularly in view of the final order dated 18 September, 2023, the instant writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy against the order dated 18 September, 2023 by way of preferring a statutory appeal.”
The Kerala High Court quashed the order passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 denying the opportunity to file an objection on Show Cause Notice (SCN) as sending real-time alert is a mandatory requirement under the Income Tax Act.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh quashed the notice and assessment order and directed to serve the petitioner with a fresh notice following the mandate under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
The Calcutta High Court directed the petitioner to file appropriate representation for the reconsideration of the matter before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal in respect of the additional Goods and Service Tax (GST) liability for execution of government contracts.
The Court disposed the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks and held that the Finance Department should take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned. A single-member bench comprising Nizamuddin. J directed the petitioner to file representation for reconsideration of the additional tax liability.
The Kerala High Court directed the Income tax department to decide the condonation application for 277 days in filing the Income tax Appeal and the stay application.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to take up the application for condonation of delay and if the delay is condoned, then decide the application for staying the demand in pursuance to the assessment order. The third respondent is granted one month to decide the application for condonation of delay and application for stay.
The Kerala High Court directed the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to consider interim stay order before initiating the recovery proceeding under Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with the following directions “(i) The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, to provide a link to the petitioner within two weeks allowing the petitioner to upload the interim application for staying the demand notice (Ext.P4) dated 23.09.2022. (ii) The petitioner should upload the interim application on the same day when the link is provided. (iii) The National Faceless Appeal Centre or the appellate authority dealing with the appeal is directed to decide the application in accordance with the law within two weeks thereafter. (iv) For a period of one month, the impugned demand notice (Ext.P4) dated 23.09.2022 and Ext.P6 dated 20.07.2023 shall not be enforced.”
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition citing gross delay as the penalty order passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), 2003 was challenged with a delay of 9 years.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “This Court does not find any ground to entertain such a belated petition, whereby the penalty order has been challenged before this Court.” “This Court finds that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of gross delay and laches in filing this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed” the Court concluded. E.P Govindan, counsel appeared for the petitioner and Jasmin M.M, Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.
The Kerala High Court directed Income Tax Commissioner to decide the stay petition expeditiously in the matter of challenge on assessment order and stay petition.
A Single Bench of Justice CS Dias observed directed the 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax to consider and dispose of the stay petition, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It was also made clear that if the 2nd respondent proposes to pass any conditional interim order of stay, the Commissioner of Income Tax shall state reasons for the same and until such time orders are passed on the stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment order and the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer shall stand deferred. Anil D.Nair, the Counsel appeared for the petitioner and Christopher Abraham, the Counsel appeared for the respondents.
The Kerala High Court directed to Income Tax Returns (ITR) as there was non-filing of the income tax returns on bonafide belief of the exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Single Bench comprising observed that “The present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file returns of their income within a period of one month from today. If the petitioners file their return of income within a period of one month from today, the assessing authority will examine the return in accordance with the law and pass the final assessment orders expeditiously.”
The Calcutta High Court dismissed an income tax appeal on the ground that the challenge of the final order passed by Settlement Commissioner was made after 9 years.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi observed that “A period of nine years elapsed since the final order was passed by the Settlement Commission without the same being assailed by the parties thereto. In such circumstances, we are not minded to interfere with the appeal. Points of law raised are kept open.”
The Kerala High Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide matter within 3 months in the matter of demand of 20% of tax for the conditional stay on a Primary Agricultural Credit Society.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “I find that this writ petition to be disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal, within a period of three months without insisting upon pre-deposit of 20% of the assessed tax. The petitioner should co-operate in deciding the appeal expeditiously.”
The Kerala High Court allowed one-month time to file an appeal under sales tax as the notice demanding sales tax was issued after a three-month limitation under section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 when the assessee prepared a sales tax appeal.
Considering the circumstance the single judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh petitioner was granted one month to file an appeal against the order. It was further held that “for one month from today, the impugned notice shall not be implemented.”
The Kerala High Court has directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department to issue the authenticated copy of the assessment order as the recovery proceedings are initiated under the central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), 2017 through telephonic intimation.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondents to issue an authenticated copy of the order in original dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Ernakulam Division, Cochin, within five days. The petitioner is free to take any statutory remedy applicable to him.
The Kerala High Court set aside the assessment order under Central goods and Service Tax (CGST) passed without providing opportunity of hearing. The assessment order was based on the mismatch found in GSTR -1 and GSTR -3B.
Considering the aforesaid fact and admitted position, the single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order in along with the notice. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent on 29.09.2023 at 11.00 a.m. with all the records in his possession for finalising the fresh assessment order in accordance with the law.
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court set aside the penalty imposed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing a hearing. The penalty was imposed on the act of wrongful claim of 200% income Tax deduction instead of 100%.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that “since personal hearing was not granted, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and the consequential notice.” The Assessing Officer (AO) was granted liberty to pass a fresh order after according personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. Further added that “the AO will pass a speaking order which will deal with all contentions of the petitioner, including the contention that this was not a case of misreporting.”
The Kerala High Court directed to decide the stay application expeditiously as the appeal against the income tax assessment order was filed along with the stay application.
A single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh directed the 2nd respondent to take up the Ext.P3 application for stay and decide the same expeditiously within a period of two months. For a period of two months, recovery proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P1 shall not be carried out against the petitioner.
The Kerala High Court enhanced the number of instalments to make payment in the matter of confirmation of differential tax demand on not being entitled to concessional rate of tax against ‘C’ Forms.
A Division Bench comprising Dr Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that “Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal that required the appellant to pay 20% of the disputed demand as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the balance amounts pending disposal of the Second Appeal, we merely modify the judgment of the Single Judge to increase the number of instalments to six equated successive monthly instalments instead of the three instalments granted by the learned Single Judge.” “We uphold the judgment of the Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal. We make it clear that if the appellant pays the amount, directed to be paid by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the writ petition, in six equal and successive monthly instalments commencing from 01.10.2023, then the said payment shall be treated as in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in the order aforementioned, and the Tribunal shall thereafter proceed to hear the appeal on merits” the Court concluded.
The Kerala High Court directed to process the refund within one month as there was a months delay in refunding excess Value Added Tax (VAT) paid under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
A single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh disposed of the writ petition with direction to the 1st/2nd respondents to process Exhibit P-2 application of the petitioner for refund of the excess tax amount paid by him as per Exhibit P-1 order within one month.
The Kerala High Court directed to refund Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) which was deducted and deposited by the Insurance Company from the compensation paid to the petitioners as no Income Tax liability arose on compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).
A single-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh granted liberty to the petitioners to apply to the 1st respondent within ten days from today and the 1st respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kerala shall process the said application and refund the TDS amount deducted and deposited by the Insurance Company from the compensation paid to the petitioners. Such refund should be processed within one month after applying by the petitioners.
In a major relief to Lulu International Shopping Malls Private Limited, the Kerala High Court quashed an assessment order passed in the absence of consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “The liability of the tax is a civil liability. Principles of natural justice ought to be adhered to, while finalizing the assessment proceedings in respect of tax.” “I am of the view that the assessing officer has proceeded in a hurried manner to some extent, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to open the window for uploading objection to the show cause notice. No further time will be granted to the petitioner for the purpose” the Bench concluded.
The Kerala High Court directed to release of cash as the department retained the seized cash which included a demonetised 2000 Rs note for 6 months without issuing a show cause notice(SCN).
Considering the aforesaid facts, the single judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release the cash seized from the petitioners and credit the same to the account of the petitioners within five days.
The Delhi High Court set aside the order passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the Assessing Officer failed to inquire about documents of foreign purchase which led to the foreign remittance of 9 Crores.
The Division comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia bench comprising viewed that before passing the impugned order dated 01.05.2023, the AO could have called upon the petitioner to submit not only the SPA but also perhaps a letter of confirmation from IDFC. The Court set aside the impugned order, with liberty to the AO to pass a fresh order after he has called upon the petitioner to submit the requisite documents in support of its defence about the commencement of reassessment proceedings.
The Kerala High Court quashed a rectification application filed by the Income Tax Department with a delay of 6 months.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “In view of the above, I find that the application filed by the Department seeking rectification of the order dated 14.03.2017 in respect of the petitioner was not maintainable and it was filed much beyond the six months’ period of limitation prescribed under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
The Kerala High Court directed to file the income tax returns within 1 month in the matter regarding non- filing of income tax returns on belief of exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “The present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file returns of their income within a period of one month from today. If the petitioners file their return of income within a period of one month from today, the assessing authority will examine the return in accordance with the law and pass the final assessment orders expeditiously.”
The Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to decide matter regarding consideration of rectification application for 4 years.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the instruction on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is granted ten days time from today to file rectification application before the 1st respondent physically and the said rectification application shall be considered and order in accordance with law shall be passed by the 1st respondent expeditiously. Till the rectification application is decided by the 1st respondent, all proceedings in pursuance to Exhibit P-3 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance.”
The Delhi High Court has held that provident fund (PF)and Employee State Insurance (ESI) amount paid after due date due to National Holiday is amenable to deduction.
The division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia relied on the decision of the court in the case of Pepsico ltd, wherein it was held that “ since the due date fell on a date which was a National Holiday, the deposit could have been made by the respondent/assessee only on the date which followed the National Holiday. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act would help the respondent/assessee to tide over the objections raised on behalf of the appellant/revenue.” The question of law, as framed, is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondent/revenue.
The High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, has struck down a penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST)/Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 on the finding that there is no taxable supply effected by the petitioner.
The single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur directed the proper officer to consider the response submitted by the petitioner on February 13, 2023, and to issue a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The petitioner has been instructed to maintain the bank guarantee they had furnished in compliance with an interim order dated June 16, 2023. This bank guarantee is to remain in force until the final resolution of the representation, the bench directed. The judgment underscores the importance of providing transparent and robust reasoning in the orders and decisions, ensuring that the taxpayers’ objections are adequately considered before imposing penalties.
The Kerala High Court directed the GST Department to decide payment of GST dues in instalments in the matter of challenge of assessment after 4 years.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “This Court does not find this writ petition as maintainable against the assessment order that was passed in 2019. If the petitioner wants to deposit the tax in instalments, the petitioner may approach the Commissioner within a period of seven days from today, and then the Commissioner should decide the application within another period of seven days thereafter for granting instalments for payment of arrears of tax as assessed by the assessing authority.”
The Kerala High Court directed re-adjudication in the matter of blocking electronic credit ledger without granting the opportunity of hearing.
The Court further directed that if the decision making process is delayed or the first respondent, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, is unable to take a decision tomorrow, the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger shall be unblocked to enable the petitioner to file its return. The first respondent shall make earnest efforts to pass fresh orders as above tomorrow itself.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition on availability of digitally signed copy in the matter of allegation of uploading non-signed assessment order in the GST Portal.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the aforesaid submission of Government Pleader, I find no substance in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to avail any other alternate remedy, if it is available in accordance with law.” Harisankar V. Menon, counsel, appeared for the petitioner as well as Reshmitha Ramachandran, Government Pleader, appeared for the respondents.
The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT (A)) has the power to Annul the Assessment Order under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia prime facie viewed that the appeal was not maintainable and held that “the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] had wide powers, whereby, if he was convinced of the case set up by the assessee, he could annul the assessment order, which would include the power to set it aside. Annulment of the assessment order would lead to its cancellation. In other words, the assessment order would cease to exist, relegating parties to the position obtained before the order was passed.”
The Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of the appeal in relation the assessment of income by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) without considering the deposited amount.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months. It is made clear that if Exhibit P2 appeal is not taken up for final hearing within three months as directed above, the second respondent should make every endeavour to decide the application for condonation of delay and also stay petition.”
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal on the issue of an Income tax addition of 6 crores on income derived from house property under the Income Tax Act, 1961 abutting the assessee’s hotel. The appeal was dismissed as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
The court Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia held that if the appellant/revenue is to succeed in the said SLP, parties will abide by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in these appeals as well.
The Delhi High Court in a recent case directed the Income Tax department to refund the amount which was not given to the assessee even after a delay of 2 months. The court was also directed to do as needed after an inquiry by the CBDT (Central Board of Direct Tax).
“If this position is correct, certainly CBDT needs to inquire, as the determination qua AY 2021-22 was made as far back as 27.12.2022, whereas the determination about the refund qua AY 2020-21 was made on 08.02.2023, as the interest that has accrued in the meanwhile is a drain on the public exchequer.”, the division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed. The Court directed the respondents/revenue to ensure that the refund amount is remitted to the petitioner within two (2) weeks.
The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment as alleging a Bogus Purchase, the claim of expense denied without corroborative evidence.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Anish Dayal viewed that the AO did not consider bank statements and tax invoices to be relevant evidence. It also appeared that the petitioner placed on record documents to demonstrate that the transactions had been made through a banking channel. “Despite these documents having been placed by the petitioner/assessee before the AO, the AO concluded that the petitioner had nothing to submit by way of a proper explanation regarding the transactions in issue. It was viewed by the court that if AO had material to demonstrate that the sellers were dubious or non-existent, that material/information should have been put to the petitioner.”, the Court held. The Court set aside the impugned order, with the liberty to AO to pass a fresh order.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 170 days in re-filing the Income Tax Appeal by Amadeus IT group and disposed of the petition as there was no question of law to be considered.
Since this aspect was not argued before the statutory authorities, a division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the petition in the absence of a question of law.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal by the commissioner of customs as no provision in CETA or CEA which is akin to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
All the relevant documents which could have been filed at the time of exports, were available as it is in original form and format without any change as such and were submitted along with the application for amendment of the shipping bills etc. on 14 March 2017. The respondents specifically stated in the application that no claim would be made by them under Paragraph (3) of the Relevant Notification. Resultantly, there was no reason to hold otherwise and nothing more was required to be done on the part of the respondents. Therefore, we find no legal infirmity, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned CESTAT in passing the impugned orders dated 24 February 2020 thereby allowing the respondents the benefit of STR based on the exports made during the relevant period.”, the Court viewed while dismissing the appeal.
The Delhi High Court directed to process refund as Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund was filed within the time prescribed under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan observed that “The notification no. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 expressly provides that the period commencing from the 1 st day of March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, would be excluded, inter alia, for the purposes of filing the refund application under Section 54 or Section 55 of the CGST Act. Undisputedly, the petitioner’s application for refund was within the time limit as prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, if the said period is excluded.” The Court further directed the respondents to process the petitioner’s refund application along with the applicable interest within a period of two weeks from today.
In a recent ruling the Delhi High Court quashed Form 3 issued under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) to re-calculate on the basis of the counter affidavit filed and thereby grating major relief to Rolls Royce industrial Power (India) Limited.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia observed that “Accordingly, as agreed by counsel, the impugned forms issued to the petitioner are set aside. Liberty is however, given to the respondents/revenue to rework the calculations on the basis of stand taken in the counter-affidavit and thereafter, issue fresh forms, as deemed fit. After fresh forms are issued, if still aggrieved, the petitioner will have liberty to assail the same in accordance with the law.” An interim direction requiring the petitioner to deposit a cumulative amount of Rs.7,33,15,591/- with the designated authority. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this amount was deposited. Hence the Court directed that the said amount will be released to the petitioner within the next six (6) weeks.
The Calcutta High Court directed to pay 1.5 lakhs to West Bengal (WB) Legal Services Authority and observed that suppression of material facts during income tax proceeding in obtaining interim order is contempt of the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Md Nizamuddin observed that “The act and conduct of the petitioner in suppressing the material fact and misleading the Court in obtaining the interim order even by not disclosing the aforesaid fact to his lawyer is highly depreciable and amounting to contempt of Court also. It is also the matter of record that the very same assessee petitioner has committed similar offence in respect of the earlier assessment year 2015-16 and had obtained an interim order and taking note of such conduct of the petitioner, the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed with exemplary cost.” “This type of petitioner who dare to commits such offence before the highest Court of the State deserves to be prosecuted for repeatedly misleading and suppressing before the Court in obtaining the interim order. However, this Court is sparing him with a warning that in future if one more such type of case is found against him, he will be prosecuted and in this case he is spared from any prosecution on condition of making payment of costs of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within a week from date and to file receipt of payment of the same before the Court on 3rd October, 2023” the Court noted.
The Delhi High Court directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to furnish relevant material to support allegation in the matter of the availment of fictitious loan of Rs 40 lakhs.
A Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia and observed that “Since the principal allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he had availed a fictitious loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from BKR, the AO will furnish the relevant material which will establish the said allegation. In case any fresh material is furnished, the petitioner will be given an opportunity to respond to the same.”
The Delhi High Court quashed notice issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was only 2 days time to file response to the income tax notice.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia observed that “Therefore, we would be entering into an area of uncertainty if we were to accept that in this case, the two (2) days granted to the petitioner via the notice dated 27.03.2023 was sufficient. The statute, as indicated above, provides a specific timeframe and therefore, that leeway would have to be granted to the assessee. Having regard to the fact that the responses to notices form part of the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, in our view, the best way forward would be to set aside the said order with liberty to the AO to pass a fresh order.”
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the consignee is deemed owner if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanying the goods.
A Division Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi observed that “It is hereby clarified that if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanying the consignment of goods, then either the consigner or the consignee should be deemed to be the owner. If the invoice or any other specified document is not accompanying the consignment of goods, then in such case, the proper officer should determine who should be declared as the owner of the goods.” “We are of the view that the department ought to have considered the petitioner’s prayer for release of goods and vehicle upon compliance of the provisions contained under Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. A direction accordingly is issued to the respondents to act in terms of the above circular and release the goods upon compliance of the condition stipulated under Section 129(1)(a)” the Bench noted.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
