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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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 articulat
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
The Delhi High Court in a recent case upheld the loss dependency calculated by the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal (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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has held that no deduction under Section 80HHC of theIncome Tax Act is allowable for gains from foreign exchange fluctuations.
It was thus held that, “Hence, for the above reasons, we hold that the gain from foreign exchange fluctuations from the EEFC account does not fall within the meaning of “derived from” the export of garments by the assessee. The profit from exchange fluctuation is independent of export earnings, and the impugned judgment correctly answers the point.” In conclusion, the Apex Court affirmed that Section 80 HHC deductions are specifically intended for profits from the business of exporting goods, and including other income would be counterproductive to the section’s purpose.
The Madras High Court struck down the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular which fixed 12 12-month time limit on filing applications for compounding offences.
A single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the order passed by the respondent, rejecting the application for compounding of offences on the sole ground that it is barred by limitation, is liable to be set aside. Further remitted the matter back to the Authority concerned and the respondent is directed to decide the same on its own merits. The court held that the said Clause 7(ii) of the circular is beyond the scope of the Act and hence, the same is liable to be struck down.
The Kerala High Court allowed the settlement of tax liability under Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) on depositing amounts under the amnesty scheme.
Considering the said submissions, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- on or before 06.11.2023. If the petitioner deposits Rs.1,25,000/- on or before 06.11.2023, the petitioner would be deemed to have discharged the tax liability as settled under the Amnesty Scheme and no further demand in respect of the tax liability shall remain to be discharged by the petitioner.
The Kerala High Court directed to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance until disposing pending stay application by the Income Tax Appellate Authority.
A division bench of Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice KauserEdappagath modified the impugned judgment of the Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the delay condonation application, stay application or appeal whichever is earlier, by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.
The Delhi High Court in a recent case held that cash seized on search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be treated as advance tax. The department had seized 50 Lakhs Cash from the premises of the assessee during the search.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that “seized cash was offered by the assessee, under the regime which was prevailing then, to be treated as the advance tax and thus there was no default in payment of advance; although its payment /adjustment was triggered due to a search action. Lastly, for the same reason, it cannot be said there was a deferment of payment of advance tax.” Further held that “Since the petition has been pending for the last four years, we expect the amount due to be remitted to the petitioner, once computed as indicated above, at the earliest though not later than six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment by the respondents/revenue.”
The Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Authority to pass an appropriate order within 2 months as the appellant already filed an Income Tax appeal before the appellate authority.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law on the stay application of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two months. Further held that “for two months, no recovery in pursuance to the impugned assessment order shall be enforced against the petitioner.”
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgement has directed the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Appellate Tribunal to pass an Appropriate Order application to extend an interim order against sales tax demand.
A single bench of Justice Basant Balaji disposed of the writ petition by directing the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode to take up the petition and pass appropriate orders within three weeks.
The Kerala High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction parallelly when the Income Tax Appellate Authority seized the recovery proceedings.
When the appellate authority seized the matter, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh would not like to exercise its writ jurisdiction parallelly. It would be sufficient to direct the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal pending before it by the law within two months, and if it is not possible to decide the appeal finally within two months, the stay application be decided within two months from today by the law.
The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petitioner to withdraw the petition to file an Income Tax appeal within the extended period.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with the liberty to file an appeal against the order. It was directed that the impugned revenue recovery notice shall not be enforced for fifteen (15) days.
The Kerala High Court stayed the recovery Proceeding under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the demand of Income Tax against Kadavallor Co-operative Society.
The division bench of Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice KauserEdappagath disposed of the writ appeals, by making the interim orders absolute, and by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench to consider the appeals or the stay applications preferred by the appellant as indicated in the notice of the Tribunal after hearing the appellant. “There shall be a stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by the orders impugned in the writ petitions, pending disposal of the stay applications/appeals, whichever is earlier, by the Tribunal. As already noticed in our order dated 8.11.2023, the appellant shall also ensure that the amounts recredited in their account are retained as fixed deposits in the bank, pending the passing of orders by the Tribunal in the stay applications/appeals, as the case may be.”, the bench held.
The Kerala High Court directed the respondent to keep recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 still the disposal of stay application or appeal.
A division bench of Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice KauserEdappagath modified the impugned judgment of the Single Judge to the limited extent of clarifying that pending disposal of the stay application or appeal whichever is earlier, by the appellate authority, the recovery proceedings against the appellant for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.
In a recent judgement, the Kerala High Court set aside an order passed under section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was passed without providing the opportunity to be heard.
While allowing the writ petition, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the file of the respondent to pass fresh orders by the law after giving notice of hearing to the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court proceedings under section 153 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not valid in the absence of incriminating material.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the question of law as framed in the above-captioned appeals will have to be answered against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondents/assesses having regard to the finding returned by the Tribunal on the second issue.
The Delhi High Court has quashed the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the suspicion and conjecture cannot form a basis for triggering the reassessment proceedings.
After analyzing the facts, the division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalla held that the Assessing Officer had no tangible material available with him to form a belief that income, otherwise chargeable to tax, had escaped assessment. The phraseology used by the Assessing Officer reveals that he “suspected” that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer did not carry forward the enquiry process once he had received communication from ITO. Thus, the bench quashed the impugned notice issued to the petitioner/assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeal shall not be allowed when there is no substantial question of law involved.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia closed the appellant’s/revenue’s appeal, as according to them no substantial questions of law arose for their consideration. Since the issues in the instant appeal are the same, an identical result will follow. The appeal was therefore closed.
A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court has held that the company is liable to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for personal guarantees furnished by the director of a company.
The Division Bench of Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty observed that, “A plain reading of the notification referred to in the preceding paragraphs would clearly give an indication that the Central Government vide the said notification had specifically notified that the services provided by the Director of a company to the said company or the body corporate be leviable of tax on reverse charge basis and in the said event, the company would become liable to pay the tax for the said services. The said notification is also not under challenge and the same still holds good.” Thus it was held that the services provided by the director of a company as personal guarantee by providing the personal properties as securities to bank for the company or body corporate is liable to Goods and Services Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism, dismissing the writ petition against the assessee.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition as the assessee failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act on the excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under CGST.
Since the appellant failed to respond, the respondent finalised the assessment as per the available records. The division bench comprising of Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr Justice KauserEdappagath held that rectification under section 161 of the GST Act is permissible only when there are errors apparent on the face of the record, in a situation where the show cause notice was contested. When a show cause notice is not contested, the resultant order passed assumes the nature of an agreed order and a rectification application will not lie to correct a factual mistake therein. The Court dismissed the appeal.
The Kerala High Court has held that the Court under Writ Jurisdiction cannot direct a Private Person to Issue a C Form on Compliance with formalities under Central Sales Tax (Regulation and Turnover) Rules, 1957.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that exercising powers of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct a private person to issue C-forms. The court dismissed the writ petition and pending interlocutory applications.
The Delhi High Court directed to consider the application for compounding offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was rejected on non-filing of a complete bank statement.
The petitioner had furnished the bank statements in November 2019 as well, albeit after the impugned order was passed. A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the best way forward would be to direct the concerned officer to decide the petitioner’s compounding application afresh, since, in any event, the bank statements are now available with the respondents/revenue. The court set aside the impugned orders. The concerned authority will adjudicate the petitioner’s compounding application dated 22.02.2016 afresh. The petitioner and/or his authorised representative will also be accorded a personal hearing in the matter by the concerned officer. Further directed to dispose of the compounding application at the earliest, though not later than eight (8) weeks.
The Kerala High Court directed the assessing authority to consider the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 along with relevant document.
A division bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order and notice. The petitioner is directed to appear before the assessing authority within ten days with all relevant documents. The assessing authority will examine the documents and if satisfies that the petitioner’s claim for the Input Tax Credit is bonafide, a revised order should be passed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
