This Annual Case Digest analytically summarizes the key stories related to Tax judgements of various High Courts in India reported in Taxscan.in during the year 2023. These stories include judgements and observations of High Courts related to Income Tax, Goods and Service Tax(GST), Excise Duty, Service Tax, Customs Duty, etc.
The Calcutta High Court in a recent ruling while dismissing the writ petition filed by the assessee held that the court’s interference in each and every case would defeat the purpose of Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The Single bench of MD. Nizamuddin held that the Writ Court should not exercise the writ jurisdiction to substitute the findings of an assessing officer. The bench also observed that the assessment order was not final and the petitioner had the option to drop the order after issuing notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act 1961
In a recent ruling the Calcutta High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked as the order under Section 148A(D) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not a final assessment order.
The bench of MD. Nizamuddin observed that the court had no jurisdiction to substitute findings and reasoning of the assessing Authority as it had been passed by observing principles of natural justice and by not committing any procedural irregularity or in contravention of any statutory provision or was without jurisdiction.
The Delhi High court recently issued notice to the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes in a civil Application filed by the M/S Pawan Hans Limited. The appeal was filed by the appellant to seek whether the hiring of helicopters to their customers in terms of agreement executed is covered under Section 2(g) (iv) Central Sales Tax Act 1956
The Delhi High Court has held that the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) could be deducted under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The division bench of Rajiv Shakder and Tara Vitasta Ganju allowed the CSR expenses as deductible expenditure under S. 37(1) of the Act and held that explanation 2 inserted in Section 37(1) was prospective in nature and therefore not applicable in the assessment years in issue. The bench accordingly allowed deduction of CSR expenditure under Section 37 of Income Tax Act 1961.
The Bombay Bench of High Court has held that the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) circular prescribing limitation to decide application for compounding of offence would be violative of Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The Bombay High Court Bench of Valmiki Sa Menezes and Diraj Sing Thakur held that the application for compounding of offence, under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act 1961, was filed beyond twelve months, as prescribed under the CBDT Guidelines dated 14th June 2019, were contrary to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 279.
GST Evasion: Rajasthan HC grants Bail to Accused– Vikas Bajoria vs Union Of India-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 184
The Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has recently granted bail to GST evaded accused on deposit of Rupees One lakh.
The bail application was filed by the accused for seeking regular bail Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offense under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 .The Accused was arrested for evading rupees Rs.43 crores.
Contended that the alleged tax evasion amount has already been deposited by the recipient. He has been in custody since 08.11.2022, and the offences in the charge sheet are compoundable; the maximum sentence awardable is five years.
The Allahabad High Court has recently stayed the GST Demand, granting an interim relief to Paytm (One97 Communications Limited) from the liability to furnish ₹1081 Crore in relation to the supply of DTH Recharge Vouchers and Mobile Recharge Coupons.
It was observed that, “In view of the fact that the amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid and only dispute is whether it is to be treated as intra-State sale or inter-State sale, recovery of the demand raised vide order dated December 3, 2022 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing”.
The Division Bench that heard the case adjourned the matter, while giving the next date of hearing as April 27th and stayed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Demand in lieu of supply of mobile recharge coupons and Direct To Home (DTH) recharge vouchers to recipients, who are located in other States.
The Income Tax Department was ordered to Issue tax certificate by the Delhi High Court (HC) bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju after ruling that the Indo-UAE treaty does not mention Fees for Technical Services (FTS).
The Writ Petition (WP) was filed to seek direction for issuance of a certificate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The bench observed that the petitioner, who is a non-resident and does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, claims that the subject income is “business income”.
The Delhi High Court (HC) division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan granted relief to Amazon Seller by dismissing the appeal against the order of Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) which allowed benefit on Import of Fire TV sticks.
The Court decided that it has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the ruling of the CAAR as it was filed beyond the further period of thirty days, which can be condoned in case appeal is filed after sixty days of the communication of the said ruling. Govt.
The Court observed that in the present case, the appeal was filed on 14.07.2022. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned ruling was communicated to the concerned appellant on 22.03.2022. Additionally, even while the concerned Commissionerate in Mumbai received a copy of the judgement on December 9, 2021, the Commissionerate in Delhi received it much later, on March 22, 2022.
A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court has recently allowed the provisional Bar Council enrolment of Sandeep, a Senior Assistant in the Delhi Jal Board.
It was held that provisional enrolment cannot be denied on the sole basis that the applicant is an employee. The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh further observed that, “the BCI ought to encourage lawyers, who have qualified the LLB examination, to appear in the All-India Bar Examination, while having the flexibility to either practise or keep their enrolment under suspension.”
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in cases where full-fledged investigation is required.
The Single bench clarified that writ petition shall be filed in cases where impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction or there is violation of any principle of natural justice or there is any procedural irregularity or the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of any statutory provision of the statute.
Justice Kamal Khata and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of Bombay High Court decided that Income Tax deduction under section 80IA (4) is available without a certificate from the concerned port. The Tribunal, allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance upon the judgement in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JWC Logistics Park P. Ltd.
The bench referred the case Continental Warehousing Corporation and held that there is no substantial question of law. Thus, the bench unanimously dismissed the appeal submitted by the department.
The Delhi High Court has quashed the eviction order of the co-owner of the joint property as the appeal was pending and the order was contrary to the rule 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering rules 2013 (PMLA rules).
The Petitioner- Sanjay Jain filed a petition challenging the notice by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate which sought eviction of the present owner and the occupants of the other property to which petitioner was the co-owner. The notice was issued in consequence of a provisional attachment order of the properties of Pankaj Jain who was the brother of the petitioner.
The Delhi Bench of justice Prabhitha Singh held that the notice served to petitioner was contrary to Rule 5(3) and Rule 5 (5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules 2013 Rules (‘PMLA rules’) and Petitioner’s family and occupants of the premises could not be dispossessed or evicted until the Appellate Tribunal had heard and passed the orders in respect of the impugned notices or the appeal filed by Pankaj Jain.
The Bombay High Court (HC) chaired by Justice Valmiki SA Menezes and Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur decided that without new tangible material there shall be no re-assessment.
The division bench highlighted the case Jindal Photo Films Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax where it stated that “a case of mere change of opinion which does not provide jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.”
The Madras High Court quashes charge memo against former VAT officer on the ground that there is no loss of revenue to the department.
The counsel for the Petitioner, P. Vijendran contented that the respondent did not suffer any revenue loss and the petitioner is acted only with his official capacity moreover the assessee who already paid the outstanding dues as per the assessment carried out by the petitioner. The Madras bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose allowed the writ petition and quashed charge memo against the petitioner.
In an assessee-friendly ruling, the Delhi High Court has observed that the incorrect reflection that GSTN registration is suspended, might be a technical error on the GST portal and the department cannot withhold the GST refund in such cases.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan directed the GST department to examine whether the form GSTR 2A, as visible at the petitioner’s end, reflects all relevant details. “If it does, it would be apparent that there is a technical error in the respondents’ system,” the High Court said.
“If it is found that such a problem exists, the respondents are directed to address the said technical problem within a period of one week from today and, in any event, process the petitioner’s application for refund within a period of two weeks, on the basis of forms already filed. In the event the respondents cannot process the petitioner’s application for refund, the respondents shall indicate the same to the petitioner within the aforesaid period,” the Court added.
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court ruled that the late fee for delayed filing of TDS under section 234 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied for the year 2012-13 as the amended provision is prospective in nature with effect from 01.06.2015.,
Justice Gopinath P observed that “Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and being in full agreement with the view taken by this Court in W.P. (C.) No.1259 of 2022, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P1, P2 and P3 intimations are quashed to the extent, they demand fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act.”
A Single Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed the order rejecting refund of stamp duty as being barred by limitation on the ground of non-execution of document under consideration.
In this case that the stamp duty of an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs have been purchased by the Petitioner, which has not been used as the development agreement was not executed in view of the five co-owners refusing to execute the same.
The Bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that “In the circumstances, holding the application for refund of stamp duty to be time barred requires to be set aside.”
In a recent ruling the Bombay High Court quashed notice for re assessment issued after six years without approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT).
The High Court held that the service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely ‘Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence’ issued under the Act.
Bombay HC quashes notice for re assessment issued after six years without approval of PCIT– MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 169
In a recent ruling the Bombay High Court quashed notice for re assessment issued after six years without approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT).
The petitioner, MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt Ltd challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16, inter-alia, on the ground that since the same has been issued beyond the period of four years, approval for issuance of the same ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in terms of section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Kamal Khata observed that “We accordingly hold that the approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 ought not have been obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but from the authority specifically mentioned under Section 151(ii) of the Act.”
The Telangana High Court (HC) the search, seizure and seizing of cash, and jewellery by the Enforcement Department without reason are contrary to Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The respondents failed to provide the details of the date and time for the recording of the ‘reasons to believe as per Section17 (1) of PMLA, 2002 and also failed to provide the contents of the reasons further the respondents also failed to provide the dispatch details of the postal acknowledgement.
While allowing the petition, the Court set aside the impugned order and the respondents are directed to release all the jewellery, cash and other articles seized.
The Bombay High Court confirmed deletion of disallowance under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on satisfactory discharge of burden of proving genuineness of transactions. The respondent in the present matter is Sanjay Dhokad.
The Coram comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes observed that the respondent had satisfactorily discharged the initial burden of proving the genuineness of the transactions.”
In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) dismissed the writ petition when a statutory Remedy was available.
Rama Phosphates Limited, the petitioner sought to quash the order number passed by the Additional Commissioner. “When the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties” the court observing this dismissed the petition.
A division bench of the Orissa High Court has pronounced an assessee-friendly ruling wherein the Court allowed the assessee to correct GSTR-1 in order to get the Input Tax Credit (ITC) as there was a Bonafede mistake of filing of Form-B2B instead of B2CThe Petitioner, Shiva Jyoti Construction approached the Court seeking a direction to the department to permit the Petitioner to rectify the GST Return filed which was wrongly filed.
Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman “The fact remains that by permitting the Petitioner to rectify the above error, there will be no loss whatsoever caused to the Opposite Parties. It is not as if that there will be any escapement of tax. This is only about the ITC benefit which in any event has to be given to the Petitioner. On the contrary, if it is not permitted, then the Petitioner will unnecessarily be prejudiced.”
The bench observed that,’ if it is not permitted, then the Petitioner will unnecessarily be prejudiced.”
The Calcutta High Court (HC) held that consideration for advisory services does not amount to FTS and cannot be treated as Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The Court thus upheld the ITAT’s order setting aside the additions made to the foreign assessee Company’s income for the compensation received by it for rendering advisory services to its Indian subsidiary.
The bench Compriseof Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyyaobserved that there was no evidence to show that the technical skill, knowledge etc. were made available to TIL by the assessee. Furthermore, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) scrutinised the details of reimbursements while examining the international transaction of reimbursement by TIL to the assessee under Section 92 of the Act and found that the assessee made no profit on such reimbursements and that the reimbursements were at Arm’s Length.
It was found that the agreement is purely advisory services and such advisory services cannot be treated as fees for included services under Article 12(4)(b) of the Indo-US Treaty since there is no technology which is made available.
In an order favouring assessee, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court has quashed an order raising GST demand without granting personal hearing to the assessee and directed the department to issue a physical notice apart from the notice reflected on the GST portal.
The personal hearing had not been granted in the instant case nor hard copy of the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The court held that the notice had been served only through portal and thus directed the service to be also affected physically through RPAD and pass order after affording the reasonable opportunity.
In a major setback to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the appellant, a Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) compensation assessment after statutory deduction of Income Tax Return (ITR).
The claim petition was filed, on account of death of Vinay Kumar Agarwal in a motor accident as pillion driver and his widow filed the petition in which the insurance company denied liability. The HC upheld the contention of the petitioner consider the income of the deceased in terms of Income Tax Return showing income of the deceased while he was alive.
The Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that “After careful scrutiny of all Income Tax Return, it appears that income of deceased increased every year and lastly income of the deceased has been reflected in the Income Tax Return only submitted by the widow of the deceased. Therefore, the Income Tax Return submitted by the wife of the deceased shows the income of the deceased prior to his death. I am unable to interfere with judgment and award passed by the Learned Tribunal in connection with Motor Accident Claim Case.”
The Bombay High Court (HC) held that certificate from Port Authority is mandatory to avail of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The revenue department challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),whereby it was held that Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, the assessee was eligible for deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, The Assessing Officer, however, denied the benefit on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish a certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port, which it considered mandatory in view of the Board’s notification
A Coram comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur & Justice Kamal Khata upheld the order of ITAT in light of the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JWC Logistics Park P. Ltd. and in Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal of the assessee got dismissed.
Penalty u/s 96ZP of Excise Act not justifiable when Revenue Department delayed Computation of ACP: Orissa HCM/s. Purvi Bharat Steel Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Bhubaneswar-1 & Others 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 159
In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court (HC) held that the penalty under section 96ZP of the Central Excise Act was not justifiable when Revenue Department delayed the computation of the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP).
M/s. Purvi Bharat Steel Ltd. questioned whether the levy of penalty was justifiable when the Revenue Department itself had delayed the computation of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) which is the basis for computing the tax payable penalty imposed under Rule 96 ZP of the Central Excise Rules.
The court answered the questions in favour of the Appellant-Assessee and against the Department. Further, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the CESTAT and the corresponding orders of the First Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer which imposed the penalty.
In a significant ruling, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has stayed the action of the IBBI disqualifying a Registered Valuer on account of the scam relating to PMC Bank. The Petitioner, Vishwanatha Sridhar Prabhu is a Chartered Accountant.
He is highly qualified with a Doctorate, an LLB, and a BBM.Justice G.S. Patel &Justice S.G. Dige“On the face of it, it is difficult to comprehend the reasoning, logic or rationale in this order, especially in paragraph 4.7. Anyone may set the criminal process in motion against anyone.
There may be an FIR. There may even be a charge-sheet. But, except in certain specific statutes, the presumption in criminal jurisdiction in this country is still that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty.Today, even charges have not been framed.
Justice G.S. Patel &Justice S.G. Dige“On the face of it, it is difficult to comprehend the reasoning, logic or rationale in this order, especially in paragraph 4.7. Anyone may set the criminal process in motion against anyone. There may be an FIR. There may even be a charge-sheet. But, except in certain specific statutes, the presumption in criminal jurisdiction in this country is still that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty.Today, even charges have not been framed.”
In a major relief to Wipro, the Karnataka High Court has held that the bonafide mistakes in GSTR-3B can be rectified and allowed the Company to revise the return for the last three years permissible under the recent circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) as the correction was due to bonafide and inadvertent error in the invoices.
The petitioner-Company relied on the Circular bearing No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and contended that the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the directions issued in the said Circular with regard to the errors committed in the Invoices.
Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar observed that a perusal of the Invoices at Annexure-C will indicate that while supplies are made by the petitioner to M/s.ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, the GSTIN Number mentioned in the Invoices has been incorrectly shown as that of ABB India Limited, which is a completely different and independent juristic and legal entity from the latter.
The Patna High Court (HC) quashed the Order cancelling the GST registration which was passed without stating the reason.
Manoj Kumar Sah, the Petitioner prayed for directing the respondents to restore the GST registration of the petitioner with immediate effect as the petitioner is ready to furnish the returns of earlier years within 1 month of the order of the Court.
A Coram comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice ParthaSarthy held that “the order dated 12/09/2019 passed by the respondent no.2, namely the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani, Bihar is quashed with the petitioner’s registration restored, with a further direction to the respondent no.1, namely The State of Bihar through Commissioner of State GST, New Secretariat, Patna to finalize the petitioner’s assessment and/or pass appropriate orders, by law.”
‘The transport/supply does not fall within the ambit of transfer of goods as defined in “sale” – ruled the Tripura High Court bench consisted of Chief Justice (Acting) T. Amarnadh Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh.
The bench observed that when a transaction has taken place in Assam, the respondent authorities cannot have any jurisdiction over Interstate.
The bench further quashed and set aside the Assessment Order and two Demand Notices on the grounds of jurisdiction, the right to sell the goods, and the location of the contract’s execution because, given that the sale was conducted in Guwahati, the State of Tripura lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner with respect to the imposition of tax by the respondents.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the re-assessment passed after 4 years merely based on a change of opinion without any tangible material would be time-barred under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that “a clear perusal of the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act makes it clear that reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can only be initiated in case, there is tangible material with the A.O. to show that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.
This Court, after analysis of material facts available on record, is of a categoric opinion that the assessee disclosed all material facts truly and fully while furnishing the return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and hence, there was no justification for invoking the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act so as to initiate reassessment proceedings after a period of 4 years.
Thus, the reassessment notice is definitely time barred. In addition thereto, the reassessment notice has been issued only on account of ‘change of opinion’, plain and simple, without any tangible fresh material being available to the ITO for reopening the assessment proceedings.”
The Bombay High Court chaired by Justice A S Doctor and K R Shriram directed to re-adjudicate the case and ordered a personal hearing before passing necessary orders.
The bench agreed with the petitioner Ramani Suchit Malushte’s arguments and noted that, under the current situation, the time for filing an appeal would open only the day the issuing authority made the signature.
The HC observed that Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules) and it is parimateria with Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires orders issued under Chapter III of the rules to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or through E Signature or by any other mode of signature or verification notified in that behalf.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that an unsigned re-assessment notice under section 147/148 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid.
While quashing the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes observed that “the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner.
Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and order dated 02.04.2022 issued under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, would be without jurisdiction, and therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, we quash and set aside the notice dated 02.04.2022 issued by the respondents u/s.148 of the Act, order dated 02.04.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act.”
In a recent case, the Telangana High Court (HC) held that the Subsumption of service tax will not absolve liability to pay GST if service tax was agreed to be paid as per agreement and ordered that the Petitioner is liable to pay the GST on the license fee in place of service tax as the Petitioner was paying service tax separately under the terms of Deed of License.
The petitioner prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in levying GST on the licence fee payable by the petitioner in respect of the licence granted to her to carry on the business in the premises of the respondents, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
A division bench of the Orissa High Court has held that the deemed dividend is taxable in the hands of the individual director only and not from the Firm under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A bench comprising Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that “a plain reading of the above provision indicates that the taxing of the deemed dividend has to be in the hands of the shareholder of OSL. In the present case, admittedly it is Mr. Mishra in his individual capacity who holds 36.95% of the paid-up share capital of the OSL. On the other hand, M/s. Mahimananda Mishra, the Firm, does not hold any shares in OSL.”
Reversing the ITAT order, the High Court held that “the ITAT in the impugned order has, in the considered view of this Court, needlessly remanded the matter to the CIT (A) on the ground that it was not clear whether deemed dividend should be taxed in the hands of Assessee’s partner or in the hands of the Assessee. Since the plain reading of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act makes it clear that the deemed dividend is to be taxed in the hands of individual shareholder and not an entity which does not hold shares in OSL, the question of remanding the matter to the CIT(A) did not arise.”
The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling, held that the VAT department cannot suspect the genuineness of the purchases due to minor discrepancies in the Books of Accounts.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that “It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has reduced the quantum of tax imposed by the assessing authority from Rs.10,34,000/- to Rs.2,82,125/-. From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that finding recorded is contradictory.
On the one hand, the Tribunal has accepted that there were minor discrepancies in the books of accounts submitted by the assessee from the survey report and on the other hand, had accepted the partial finding recorded by the assessing authority.
Once the Tribunal has recorded finding that there was a minor discrepancy in the stock which was there at the time of survey and it tallied with the books of accounts then there was no occasion to take a different view.”
The Gujarat High Court chaired by Justice Sonia Gokhani and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt allowed deduction under section 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 as there is direct nexus between manufacturing activity and foreign exchange gain from export.
The Court went to an extent of saying that even assuming that the refund does not amount to an income in the hands of the assessee, it is a profit or gain directly derived by the assessee from its industrial activities. The Gujarat High Court argued that the case CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand, is directly related to the issue and holds that the excise duty refund was dependent on the activities conducted by the assessee.
As a result, it has been determined that both paying central excise duty and receiving a refund have a direct connection to manufacturing activities.
The Orissa High Court has held that the amendment in the Finance Act, 2009 amending section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the definition of “charitable activities” has no retrospective effect.
Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman disregarded the plea and observed that “The Court is unable to agree. The very text of the Finance Act, 2008 and in particular Section 3 thereof which inserts the amended Section 2(15) clearly states that “the following clause shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009.” Clearly, therefore, the amendment is prospective. Consequently, the Court declines to frame this question either.”
In an order considering a petition seeking GST liability of the contractor to pay additional GST after the rate changes, the Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the department to consider the representation by the petitioner-assessee.
Justice P. Sam Koshy observed that “Given the said facts, the present Writ Petition as of now stands disposed of, directing the Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the representation filed by the Petitioner on 6.11.2022, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 90 days.
While deciding the representation, the Respondent Authorities shall take into consideration the Order dated 30.9.2022 whereby Clause 2.17.1 stood amended. In addition, the Petitioner would also be at liberty to make a fresh representation along with the supporting documents showing the proof of the additional tax liability incurred by the Petitioner which would facilitate the Respondents in taking a decision. Subject to the representation being decided favourably, the Respondents shall also take steps for reimbursing the amount forthwith.”
In an assessee-favouring ruling, a division bench of the Orissa High Court headed by the Chief Justice S Muralidhar has held that the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme cannot be denied to the taxpayer merely on ground of erroneous interpretation of the relevant tax statutes.
Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman analyzed the relevant provisions and held that “the above interpretation placed by the Department on Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance Act, 2019 appears not to be correct.
No doubt that the Petitioner’s product (Process Oil) falls under the Fourth Schedule to the CE Act but as far as the rate of duty is concerned, as already noticed, what is indicated is ‘…..’. The said ‘…..’ has been defined as indicating that in respect of the goods against which the above ‘…..’ is found, excise duty is not leviable at all. Therefore, there is no question of the Petitioner’s product being outside the purview of the SVLDR Scheme read with the Fourth Schedule to the CE Act.
The Court, therefore, rejects the plea of the Department that the Petitioner would be ineligible for the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme.”
The Gujarat High Court issued a returnable notice for final disposal of the deletion of the addition made by the Appellate Tribunal under section 68B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on Unexplained Investment.
The appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) survey operation under Section 133A of Income Tax Act was carried out on the premises of M/s. Neotech Education Foundation.
While overruling an order passed by the Single Judge, a division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the alternative statutory remedy cannot be an absolute bar when there is a violation of natural justice principles irrespective of the fact that the assessee has filed the reply or not during the GST proceedings.
The petitioner-appellant approached the division bench against the order of the Single bench contending that the Single Judge did not consider the provision contained in Section 75(4) of the Central GST Act of 2017, which provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person.
Drawing attention of the Court to letter dated 20.08.2021 it was contended that the petitioner had specifically prayed for grant of personal hearing and yet, no personal hearing was provided to the appellant.
The Coram of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S A Menezes of Bombay High Court held that “the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa”.
Further the Court viewed that there is no illegality in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The HC observed the decision of the Tribunal held that after the CIT had passed an transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the AO at Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the assessee on the date when the Order of assessment came to be passed on 24 December 2014.
The Tribunal rejected the argument of the revenue that the AO would continue to exercise the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only 29 December 2014. It was held that the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa.
The Delhi High Court, in a case where goods detained by the customs department was abandoned by the importer, directed the buyer/petitioner to bear 50% of detention charges under the provisions of the Customs Act.
Analyzing the provisions of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that “though the out-of-charge process was undertaken by the importer way back in August, 2022, the said importer has not paid the customs duty and taken clearance of the goods.
In effect therefore he has abandoned the goods. The importer has also not paid the detention/demurrage charges and till date the goods are lying with the customs authority. The Petitioner has already received the original bill of entry and other documents from the Bank, which would therefore show that the title of the goods has, in fact, passed to the Petitioner.”
A division bench of the Orissa High Court headed by the Chief Justice has held that the tyre, tube and flaps when sold along with tractor-trolley as a single unit to be taxed separately @ 12.5% and 13.5% [after 01.04.2011] and tractor-trolley without tyre, tube and flaps will be sold @ 4% under the provisions of the Orissa VAT Act.
The bench comprising Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Murahari Sri Raman upheld the impugned order of Tribunal and held that the Tribunal was legally justified to tax tyre, tube and flaps when sold along with tractor-trolley as a single unit to be taxed separately @ 12.5% [up to 31.03.2011] and 13.5% [after 01.04.2011] and tractor-trolley without tyre, tube and flaps will be sold @ 4% is answered in the positive, i.e., in favour of the opposite party-Revenue and against the petitioner-dealer.
The Jharkhand High Court held that delay in filing the appeal due to the issuance of notice on incorrect address and rejection of appeal memo was not tenable Global Construction, the petitioners challenged the garnishee notice dated 30th September 2021 issued under Section 79 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby the respondent Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi had frozen the bank account of the petitioners.
A Single bench of Justice Deepak Roshan observed that notices were issued on the incorrect or inadequate address and that too of the Proprietor of M/s Global Construction. The presumption of proof of service of notice is a rebuttable piece of evidence and the track consignment report having an incomplete address of the petitioner, valid service of notice of the order in original cannot be presumed.
The Orissa High Court held that the Re-opening of the Assessment merely on the objection of AG without framing Independent Opinion is not Valid. M/s. R.K. Industries, the petitioner filed the revision petition against the order dated 26th February 2021 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack in dismissing the dealer’s appeal for the period 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2014.
A bench comprising Chief Justice M S Raman observed that AO mechanically opened the assessment to the objection of the audit party. While allowing the petition, the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the JCST.
The Gujarat High Court quashed notice issued to amalgamating company under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issues raised in reopening assessment already considered during assessment proceedings.
By the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening of the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
The Delhi High Court (HC) rejected the petition seeking the presence of an Advocate during the statement recording by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence(DGGI) HQ.
Ramesh Jethi, the petitioner prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the officers working under the charge and subordinate to the Respondent to permit the presence of the Petitioner’s counsel while interrogating in conformity with the law propounded by the Supreme Court.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed reopening of assessment as there was non supply of material referred to as “reasons to believe”.
The petitioner, Micro Marbles Private Limited is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of marble slabs and tiles. It filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-2018 and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an intimation regarding acceptance of ‘nil’ tax liability was issued to it by the Centralized Processing Centre of the Income Tax Department.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rekha Borana observed that “The non-supply of the material referred to in the reasons to believe would be enough to render the proceedings bad, even though the material for forming the opinion may be sufficient.”
In the case of Paradeep Port Trust, the Orissa High Court (HC) held that interest in the replacement rehabilitation and development fund must be directly taken into Profit & Loss account.
The Revenue challenged the order dated 9th August 2017 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) which deleted the addition of Rs.25 Crores under the “provision for Pension Fund” and deleted the addition of Rs.20,86,903/- under the head “Employer’s Contribution to Provident Fund”, the approval for which was not granted at the time when the contributions were made.
There is a mandatory requirement that interest should follow the funds so created and it is therefore directly taken to the balance sheet and not shown in the Profit and Loss (P & L) Account. Once there is a diversion at source as a result of there being a statutory obligation on the Assessee to set aside a certain sum, the Assessee was justified in not showing the interest income in its P & L Account and taking it directly to the balance sheet.
While quashing the VAT orders demanding tax on textile fabrics, a division bench of the Orissa High Court has held that the exemption from Additional Duties of Excise Act provided to textile fabrics does not result into levy of VAT on the said items.
A bench of Chief Justice Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman quashed the impugned demand and held that “However, the fact remains that the Government of India issued a clarificatory circular on 3rd May, 2006 whereby it was made clear in para 2 that the notification dated 1st March, 2006 “does not change the earlier position in any manner whatsoever, as far as the issue to levy of VAT/Sales Tax of AED Items by the State is concerned”.
In other words, if prior to 1st March 2006, no sales tax was leviable on Textiles by virtue of the AED Act that position would continue notwithstanding the exemption from the applicability of the AED Act on the Textiles. The STO does not appear to have taken note of the above clarificatory circular issued by the Government of India.”
A division bench of the Orissa High Court has held that surcharge under Section 5A of the OST Act is to be levied before deducting the entry tax paid by the dealer pursuant to the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999.
A bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman was considering an appeal by the department against the Tribunal’s decision favouring M/s Dua Auto Agency wherein it was held that surcharge is to be levied after giving set off- of the entry tax paid by the dealer, when on the conjoint reading of Section 5 of the OST Act, Section 4 of the OET Act and Rule 18 of the Rules, the surcharge under Section 5A is to be levied before deducting the amount of entry tax paid by the dealer.
In a petition challenging the non-action on the part of the Motor Vehicles department withholding the cancellation of the certificate of registration due to the pendency of the disputes relating to tax arrears under the Odisha Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975.
The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Bhuyan’s vehicle was has been destroyed for which the Petitioner made an application in proper format for cancellation of registration certificate under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is yet to be considered.
In a recent case, the High Court( HC ) of Orissa directed the Tribunal to check the validity of the audit assessment given the delay in the Audit Visit Report(AVR) under the entry tax act Jay Kishan Dasmall Jute Products (P) Ltd., the petitioner filed the revision petition arising from an order dated 23rd February 2016 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) dismissing the Assessee’s application.
The question before the court was whether the imposition of freight charges at the rate of one per cent of the purchased value on overall turnover based on the market value without examining the individual vouchers and considering the contention of the Petitioner that the purchased materials at the market rate are inclusive of freight charges sustainable in the eye of law.
In a major relief to the Indian Oil Corporation, the Madras High Court has set aside the orders of the VAT department reversing input tax credit (ITC).
Allowing the writ petitions, Justice Anita Sumanth quashed the impugned orders and observed that “None of the Notifications in this case touch upon the aspect of Input Tax Credit in the hands of the selling dealers, and had they done so, the officer would perhaps have been right in stating that the grant of ITC even in the place of such express provision for reversal in the Notification, was an error apparent on record.
Since the Notification did not mention anything about ITC or reversal, the impugned proceedings would also have to be tested in the context of whether at all Section 84 could be applied in this case, and thus fail.”
The Rajasthan High Court has sought response from centre and state, regarding the treatment of manpower supply while it was challenged in a petition.
The petitioner, Skylark Infra Engineering Private Limited, on the supply of the aforesaid manpower service, deposited 18% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) treating the aforesaid supply of manpower to be inter-state services, inasmuch as it had its office at Delhi/Gurgaon and the manpower was supplied at Jaipur in Rajasthan.
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Shubha Mehta and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that “the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered by it twice”, granting interim relief to the petitioner.
However, the petitioner was directed to deposit 65% of the demanded Goods and Services Tax (CGST and RGST) in preferring application for refund. It was also directed that the petitioner’s accounts that were attached to be released on the instance of receiving the application for refund.
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to an income tax officer convicted by the CBI Special Court last month for three rigorous years for accepting a bribe of Rs. One lakh during the pendency of appeal against the CBI Court’s order.
Justice Sarang V. Kotwal was considering a bail application by the applicant, Shekhar Madhukar Khomane was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50000/- and in default of payment of fine.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the timeline Prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 is mandatory and stayed the order of revocation of the Customs Broker license.
A Single member bench comprising Justice Md. Nizamuddin observed that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for an interim order for the Inquiry Officer himself has given his finding that the allegation of violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) of CBLR, 2018 against the petitioner as “not proved”. The Tribunal has already set aside the permanent suspension of the petitioner’s license by its order dated 19th August 2022.
The High Court of Calcutta quashed an order under West Bengal Goods and Service Tax (GST) for violation of the Natural Justice Principle. M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited, the petitioner challenged the order by which the Single Bench declined to grant any interim order till the disposal of the writ petition and directed affidavits to be filed.
A two-member Bench comprising Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the matter has to be re-examined by the authority themselves instead of directing the appellants to approach the appellate authority.
The Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and the matter was remanded back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration.
In a significant case related to an allegation of tax evasion, the Rajasthan High Court ( HC ) granted bail as the assessee paid the amount under Rajasthan GST Act, 2017. Vikas Bajoria, the petitioner has been arrested in connection with a case registered at Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for the offence under Section(s) 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
In a major setback to the Congress Leader Kamal Nath, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition by the former Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh seeking transfer of income tax proceedings to Delhi from Kolkata.
Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata has clearly delineated the reasons of the transfer under Section 127 of the Act in the Impugned Order for a detailed and coordinated investigation of the petitioner. “It is to be noted that the files of several other persons have also been transferred under Section 127 of the Act.
The petitioner is the only one whose file is still not being transferred because of the writ petition filed before the Calcutta High Court,” the Court said.
The Calcutta High Court has recently condoned the delay of assessee-Aditya Saraf (HUF) in an appeal by the revenue against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The Division Bench of Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed that, “had the appeal been preferred within the period of limitation the assessee could have filed an application well before the time stipulated under the Scheme.”
The Court further noted that, “the assessee should not be non-suited for the default committed by the revenue in nor preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.”
The Orissa High Court chaired by the Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Customs Department after 16 years.
The bench quashed the SCN dated 11th March, 1999 issued by the Department to the Petitioner in relation to the alleged violations of Rules 9(1), 52A, 173B and 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act)
The Bombay High Court ruled that the clause printed in tax invoice to Sole Arbitrator is Arbitration Clause. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present Arbitration Application is, whether a clause contemplating reference of disputes and differences arising out of or in relation to a contract or order of advertisement, bill or otherwise breach thereof, to be referred to Sole Arbitrator, printed at the back of the tax invoice would amount to an arbitration clause.
In a recent judgment a Division Bench of the Madras High Court expressed its grief in the mushrooming of tax evasion cases in the country and held that Tax Evasion attracts criminal liability.
The Bench comprising Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice C Saravanan observed that if the contention of the petitioner that Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Hotel and SreeAnnapoorna Sweets are independent entities is accepted, then the term “sister concern” will become diluted and all the firms will adopt the same tactics of creation of one or more sister concerns under one umbrella with different names and claim the benefit of tax. In that event, it will defeat the real intention of the legislature.
The Calcutta High Court (HC), division bench of Justice T. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya set aside the order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148A(d). Further, the bench directed the AO to initiate the fresh proceedings on the same.
The bench remarked that the AO should examine the correctness of the stand taken by the appellants, which according to the appellants, was an inadvertent mistake.
The division bench continued by asserting that because the order was issued in non-speaking, they were inclined to interfere with it, remand the case back to the AO for new review, and keep the directive of the single bench for the appellants to submit a representation.
The Gujarat High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri recently held that, no remedy can be availed under writ jurisdiction against reopening of income tax assessment when alternate statutory remedy by way of appeals exist.
The bench headed by the Chief Justice thus observed that, “we find no such eventuality has arisen to assume that authority will not examine or petitioner will not have any opportunity to put forth his case during the proceedings post-issuance of notice impugned”, and dismissed the writ petition.
In a major ruling, the Telangana High Court (HC) held that period extended by Court during Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ) Proceedings shall be excluded to compute 180 Days for provisional attachment.
The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction to grant extension of time to the petitioners to prepare a reply to the show cause notice, for a further period of two months and consequently exclude two-month period from the computation of 180 days under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The Calcutta High Court, while allowing a writ petition, has directed the VAT department to grant refund along with interest as the department was withholding partial refund in the light of existing CST dues. The petitioner, Alkem Laboratories Limited &Anr was aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents Authority concerned in refunding the admitted refundable amount of approx. Rs.5,58,54,103.61.
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (HC) ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be Denied due to Cancellation of GST Registration with retrospective effect. The respondents in the writ petition is LGW Industries Limited &Ors. The intra court appeal is against a common judgment and order passed by the Single Judge though there spondents /writ petitioners, had sought for a larger relief in the writ petition mainly for issuance of writ of declaration to declare Section 16(2) (c) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act as unconstitutional.
The High Court (HC) of Gujarat has held that extending the warehousing period of Baroda Rayon Corporation is not permissible when CESTAT finalised the payment of penalty and duty under Customs Act,1962.
A Coram comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J Shastri observed that the owner of the goods would be liable to pay the full amount of duty with interest and penalty if the goods are to be cleared from home consumption.
Further observed that the owner of the goods has not complied with this statutory mandate. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 72 mandates where warehoused goods have not been removed from the warehouse at the expiry of the period, then the proper officer would be empowered to demand and the owner of the goods would be liable to pay the full amount of the duty chargeable on account of such goods together with interest, fine and penalty.
The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to Chartered Accountants and ten others in the bank fraud case filed on the basis of a complaint by the General Manager of Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), Mumbai. The accused had allegedly acquired a loan from the IOB to the tune of Rs. 292.20 Crores.
The Bombay High Court Single Bench further observed that “When the charge sheet is carefully perused, it becomes apparent that the investigation is largely premised on the documentary evidence. The accusation of criminal conspiracy levelled in the charge sheet will ultimately have to be established by the prosecution during trial.”
A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court has held that mere expiry of the time period of six months prescribed under Section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 while rejecting the argument of a resigned director of M/s Grapco Industries Limited, in the alleged contravention of provisions of Sections 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
The Bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that, “last day of the prescribed six months period is only the outer limit, that is the cut off date, within which the company or any responsible person holding office of the same should not refrain from doing as necessary to repatriate the sale proceeds of exported goods.”, in the issue of the repatriated exports.
A Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court headed by Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal has granted bail to Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion accused, allegedly evading tax to the tune of ₹20.83 Crores.
The accused had been arrested and placed in custody on 01.08.2022. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet had been filed on 30.09.2022 and he had already deposited 10 percent of the alleged evaded tax amount.
Observing that, “the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2022, charge-sheet has been filed on 30.09.2022 and he has already deposited about 10 percent of the amount of alleged evaded tax duty”, the Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court granted bail to the petitioner, Khem Chand Thathera.
The Patna High Court (HC) ruled that Ex parte assessment order passed in violation of principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sajay Karol and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that “We form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing.
No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case(b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee.”
A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently dismissed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) exemption claim of Godrej Consumer Products Limited as the notification withdrawing exemption of GST was a policy matter and not a vested right available to the assessee.
Observing that the withdrawal of exemptions was in public interest, the bench of Justices Mohan Lal and Tashi Rabstan held that, the assessee-petitioner, Godrej Consumer Products Limited is not entitled to GST exemptions as contended and thereby dismissed the Writ petitions.
The Allahabad High Court (HC) has held that assessment under section 153 A of the Income Tax Act is invalid in absence of independent application of mind by JCIT before granting Approval. The Department-Revenue challenged the order dated 7.10.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench ‘A’, Lucknow whereby the appeals filed by the assessee have been allowed to quash the assessment orders and the consequent orders of CIT (A).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, quashed a patently wrong enhanced sentence which was passed without making out special case, the petitioner, Muneesh Suneja, being found guilty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.
The Allahabad High Court (HC) lashed against the Commercial Tax Tribunal and commented that Taxing authorities and Tribunal should understand concept of remand before applying it. Setting aside the remand back proceedings a Bench of Justice Rohit Agarwal observed that “The officials and the members of the Tribunal who are dealing with the tax matters should be sensitive of the fact that business matter should be dealt and tried with strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest.
