This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in from June 8, 2024 to June 14, 2024.
HIGH COURTS
The Delhi High Court directed to obtain instructions in the matter relating to the dismissal of the revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Division Bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that “We note that insofar as the issue of maintainability of a revision application under Section 264 against an intimation under Section 143(1) is concerned, it has chosen to rest its view on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited”.
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the review petition on the ground that there was no case for the exercise of review jurisdiction.
The court found that the information provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act from the Nilambur police station was incorrect. Justice Gopinath. P concluded that the only ground for the review petition was baseless and that the petitioner had not established any case for the exercise of review jurisdiction.
The Kerala High Court has directed a stay on recovery proceedings against the assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, until the authorities consider and pass orders on the stay petition, filed alongside a statutory appeal, within a period of two months.
Justice Murali Purushothaman disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition expeditiously. The respondent was directed to decide on the stay petition within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of judgement.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the matter for hearing on the matter dealing with the violation of Section 151 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a provision for faceless assessments to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability.
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra listed the List to the week commencing on 01.07.2024.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court granted reconsideration of 10% pre-deposit requirement of a case involving petitioner’s inability to participate in the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) personal hearing due to personal reasons.
The bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on perusal of the order, observed that the tax proposal came from a mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B returns. However, it found that the petitioner’s inability to respond to the show cause notice had led to the confirmation of the tax proposal. Thus, the court deemed it just to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, albeit subject to certain conditions.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court allowed the provisional release of used or second hand Digital Multifunction Printers on payment of enhanced customs duty.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the writ petition on the same lines decided in the previous cases. Mr.N.Viswanathan and Mr.G.Meganathan, Junior Standing Counsel represented the petitioner and respondents respectively.
The Gauhati High Court has directed the appellate authority to decide on the petitioner’s request for a waiver of the 25% pre-deposit under Section 33(6) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 ( AGST ) Act within six months.
A single bench comprising Justice Vijay Bishnoj directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeals filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period of 6(six) months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The Karnataka High Court permitted continuation in service despite the suspension order issued by the Commercial Tax Department for illegal gratification, while disciplinary proceedings were to continue.
A single member bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman directed that the suspension orders which were under challenge before the Tribunal shall not be given effect to. The petitioners shall be permitted to continue in service, disciplinary proceedings to continue.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) to decide customs appeals on their merits, setting aside the previous remand orders.
the division bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, found that such remand orders were not justified and directed CESTAT to decide the appeals on merit, including the question of jurisdiction, without being influenced by the pending decision in the Mangali Impex case, whose operation had been stayed by the Supreme Court.
In a recent ruling, Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition against GST (Goods and Services Tax) order with regards to the breach of natural justice principles. The court has directed the matter for reconsideration as Rs. 90,000 were paid towards tax demand.
The bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitioner’s failure to respond to the show cause notice or attend the personal hearing. However, the petitioner provided evidence that their electronic credit ledger was debited by Rs. 90,000/-.
The Karnataka High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the accused in a 17-year-old excise case. The case relates to an offence committed in December 2007 under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
The SIngle Bench of Justice M G Uma, dismissed the petition pointing to the long absence of the accused from the case and his failure to comply with previous bail conditions.
The Karnataka High Court noted the seriousness of the charges and Rajesh’s conduct after getting the anticipatory bail earlier in the case, while dismissing the bail plea.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the statutory framework of the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR) does not exclude solar power generation under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. This judgement brings significant relief to the solar industry.
The division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the activities undertaken by the petitioners support the country’s transition to renewable energy. The court noted that this objective is vital and undeniable, even to the respondent department.
The Madras High Court found fault in the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order which ignored petitioner’s GSTR 1 returns and GSTR 9 returns statements. Thus, the court set aside the order and remanded for reconsideration without any pre-spoist.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy stated that “In spite of the petitioner’s GSTR 1 statement and the annual return in GSTR 9 being available, no reasons are specified as to why the petitioner’s explanation was rejected.”
The Delhi High Court is set to hear a dispute on July 26, 2024, concerning a non-communicated extension and the lack of required approval in an order under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench comprising Justice Vishwanath Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has scheduled the writ petition to be heard again on July 26, 2024.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the auction proceedings based on a quashed ex-parte income tax appellate tribunal ( ITAT ) order by the tax recovery officer are void ab initio.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted that the ex parte order passed by the ITAT was set aside by the ITAT. When it recalled the ex parte order, any action based on the order dated July 23, 1979, or the certificate of recovery issued on the said basis dated December 14, 1979, would be thus void ab initio.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has decided to scrutinize the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ‘s reliance on an investigation report without adhering to ITAT Rule 29 compliance, and has consequently issued a notice to the Income Tax Department.
The bench comprising Justice Dharam Adhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh has ruled to issue notice to the respondent, with the condition of payment of process fees within seven working days through RAD mode. The notice is to be made returnable within four weeks.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has put a halt on the passing of final orders in a case concerning the violation of provisions related to Income Tax Faceless Assessment, with the case scheduled for listing on July 1, 2024.
The case was scheduled for hearing by the bench, which includes Justice Vivek Agrawal and Justice Devanarayanan Mishra, during the week commencing July 1, 2024.
In a recent ruling the Delhi High Court restrains the Income Tax Department from taking further steps pursuant to the order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav found to sustain the reassessment action bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the earlier search assessment came to be annulled with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal resting its decision on the judgments rendered in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Abhisar Buildwel wherein it has been held that If no incriminating material is discovered during a search, the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot reassess or adjust the completed or ongoing assessments based on other materials.
The Delhi High Court will hear the case on the applicability of Income Tax – TDS for External Development Charges ( EDC ) and interest payments to Haryana Urban Development Authority ( HUDA ) /Director of Town and Country Planning ( DTCP ) on September 11, 2024.
the bench of Delhi High Court Justice Yashwanth Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav upheld the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, bearing in mind the judgment rendered in Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the bail application in a case involving the misappropriation of scholarship funds meant for SC, ST, and OBC students, citing a lack of satisfaction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ).
the Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh dismissed the bail application, emphasising that observations made by the court shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations.
The Delhi High Court directed the proper officer to dispose of the application of the petitioner for GST registration cancellation within four weeks from the date of the order.
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja disposed of the petition, directing the proper officer to dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court, considering the decision of this court in another case, deferred the orders of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) adjudication on Seigniorage Fee, Mining Lease until the Supreme Court Ruling of the Nine-judge bench on nature of Royalty.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that “In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to either the issue of seigniorage fee or mining lease. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of.
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a show cause notice issued by the State Goods and Service Tax ( SGST ) department to Tushar Anand, which proposed to cancel his GST registration.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed the department to adjudicate the show cause notice within four weeks and provide an opportunity for a hearing to Mr. Anand
The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ) filed by an individual alleging money laundering and tax evasion by a group of companies and individuals.
The bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja noted that the prior investigation by the Income Tax Department into the transactions made further investigation unnecessary. In results, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL and related applications.
In a recent case, the Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing on very short notice is violative under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.
The division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that the purpose of confining the total number of adjournments was not to deny the opportunity of hearing to the notice but to regulate how the adjudication proceedings were to be conducted.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment of Income tax act interesting the Sub-section 3A to the Section 71 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Together with the constitutionality challenge, the case also dealt with the cap of Rs. 2 lakh on Income from House Property set off.
The bench of Justices Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav and Yashwant Varma observed that “… the alteration in the manner of imposing tax in the present case cannot be said to deprive the taxpayer from a benefit, rather it tantamounts to a realignment of the existing provisions bearing in mind the broader economic and policy considerations, which the Legislature is duly empowered to do.”
The Gauhati High Court has invalidated a reassessment order passed under Section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax ( VAT ) Act, 2003 citing late filing of tax returns rendering the self assessment incomplete under Section 35 and the lapse of five year assessment limitation under Section 39.
The Gauhati High Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention regarding the procedural irregularities surrounding the reassessment order.
The single bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami quashed the impugned reassessment order and notice of demand.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Genius Ortho Industries challenging the order dated February 27, 2023 issued by the Joint Commissioner, C.G.S.T. (Appeal), cancelling its GST registration. The writ petition was dismissed due to the suppression of a material fact by the petitioner.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s failure to disclose the new registration, which led to unnecessary verification proceedings, and cited legal precedent emphasising the importance of full disclosure and clean hands in approaching the court.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
