This annual round-up analytically summarizes the key Direct and Indirect Tax Judgments of the Supreme Court and all High Courts of India reported at Taxscan.in during 2024.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has ruled that the service tax must be levied considering contract-specific basis between the service provider and the recipient. The bench was dealing with levying tax on assignment of certain rights in the cinematograph films as representing temporary transfer or permitting use or enjoyment of intellectual property i.e., copyright in the instant case.
Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq observed that “the question as to whether a particular transaction would attract the levy of Service Tax as constituting a taxable service within the meaning of 65(105)(zzzzt) prior to 01.07.2012 or Section 66B read with Section 65B(44) and Section 66E(c) w.e.f. 01.07.2012 ought to be determined on the basis of the contracts entered into between the service provider and the recipient. One cannot generalize the transactions nor determine the liability without examining the contracts individually for the rights/ obligations flowing therefrom may vary from contract to contract.”
The court set aside the observations made by the Judge that imposed restrictions on the adjudicating authority’s powers. It remanded the cases, allowing the petitioners to submit fresh objections within four weeks. The adjudicating authority was directed to independently and objectively adjudicate the matters, free from the earlier court’s observations, and issue a fresh order within four weeks of receiving the objections.
The Chhattisgarh High Court while dismissing the petition of J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd, challenging constitutional validity of clauses (c) & (d) Of Section 17(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST Act), 2017 held that clauses (c) & (d) Of Section 17(5) of CGST Act relates to works contract services and goods and services received for construction of immovable property respectively. J.K. Lakshmi C
The division bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal dismissed the writ petition qua the constitutional validity of clauses (c) & (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act and liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to raise the issue whether the construction of immovable property carried out by the petitioner amounts to plant within the meaning of Section 17(5)(d) (plant) of Act of 2017.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bar Code India Limited vs Union of India held that the GST Number of purchasers in GSTR-1 return cannot be rectified after expiry of the limitation period. The bench held that merely because of an error being committed by a particular company, which causes loss to the purchaser company, the provisions of the Act need not be interpreted to suit them.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that merely because of an error being committed by a particular company, which causes loss to the purchaser company, the provisions of the Act need not be interpreted to suit them. The law is settled that a person who is engaged in business has to be well versed with the provisions of law including the time frame provided under the said provisions. Both the companies, long and if as asserted by the respondents, have committed an error, are engaged in business since the law cannot be changed for giving them any such benefit.
In a ruling in favor of BMW India Pvt. Ltd, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Input Tax Credit is Available to Demo vehicles and quashed the ruling given by Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) which is contrary to the same.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that the circular discussed the availability of Input Tax Credit on demo vehicles, which are motor vehicles for transportation of passengers having approved seating capacity of not more than 13 persons in terms of clause(a) of section 17(5) of Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused uploading fake bills on GST Portal and wrongfully claiming Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) worth Rs. 25 Crores.
The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill has directed that “the petitioners be released on interim bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.”
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the ‘water tax’ and ‘water benefit tax’ can be levied by the municipal corporation even if the water is not consumed by the owner or the occupier. However, if they consume the water, they have to pay the water charges in lieu of tax.
The bench, comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar, Justice Manish Pitale, and Justice Sandeep V Marne, ruled on the issues raised in the petition. They clarified that the expression “for providing water supply” under Section 140(1)(a)(i) of the M.M.C. Act does not require actual water supply to the owner/occupant, and water tax can be levied regardless of whether water is consumed.
In a significant case, the Kerala High Court held that prior notice is not necessary to adjust refund amounts towards service tax dues as there is no such provision under Finance Act, 1994.The court held that there was no illegality in the appropriation of the refund amounts by the department, towards the outstanding dues of the proprietary concern.
The division bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice K. V. Jayakumar upheld the decision of single bench wherein it was held that in the absence of any provision in the Finance Act, 1994 requiring the issuance of any notice prior to adjusting refund amounts, the action of the department in appropriating the refund amounts due to the appellant towards the outstanding dues of the proprietary concern could not be said to be illegal.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed an attachment order issued by the GST Department after observing that the department failed to serve the assessment order at the petitioner’s newly registered office despite being informed.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the petitioner had repeatedly requested a certified copy of the assessment order through communications dated 29.11.2022 and 19.12.2022 stating the change of address and these requests were ignored by the GST authorities.
The Kerala High Court set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) order dismissing appeal under Income Tax Act, 1961 on failure to cure certain defects pointed by authority. It was held that if the petitioner does not cure the defects within one week the appeal will stand dismissed as already directed by the Appellate Authority.
A single bench of Justice Gopinath P. viewed that since the petitioner before the court is seeking a limited relief, the writ petition can be disposed of setting aside and directing that if the petitioner cures the defects pointed out by the Appellate Authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, appeal will stand restored to the file and shall be disposed of on merits by the Appellate Authority.
In a recent case, the Kerala High Court upheld the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cancellation order against Steel India due to submission of false details at time of migration of registration under Value Added Tax (VAT) to GST.
A single bench of Justice Gopinath P viewed that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned orders. A perusal of order of the original authority will show that the contentions taken by the petitioner had been considered by the original authority, and there was a specific finding that the petitioner was not conducting business in the premises mentioned in the certificate of registration.
The Kerala High Court set aside the order passed under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the court observed that the reply to show cause notice ( SCN ) issued not submitted on permitted time but before passing order need to be considered.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P set aside the order and consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act and direct that fresh orders be passed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 148 A (d) of the 1961 Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
The Kerala High Court permitted one opportunity to upload Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) as it failed due to technical glitches. It was directed that the 5th respondent shall ensure that the portal is enabled for the purposes of filing FORM.
A single bench of Justice Gopinath P disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to upload FORM, if necessary, by enabling the Portal. The 5th respondent shall ensure that the portal is enabled for the purposes of filing FORM. If the FORM is uploaded within one week from the date on which the Portal is enabled, any input tax credit due to the petitioner shall not be denied on account of the fact that FORM was not filed on or before 08.05.2024.
In a case related to issue on identifying payee of rent which restrained deduction of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) and payment before Income Tax dept, the Kerala High Court permitted TDS as unclaimed.
The Court disposed of the petition by stating that “ If there is any statutory time limit for claiming the benefit of the tax deducted and so paid by the petitioner in the manner indicated above, it is open to the persons who may be aggrieved by non-receipt of the credit (to the extent of tax deducted) to apply to the competent authority under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
The Supreme Court expunged the tentative Opinion of the Gujarat High Court in its interim order on the good faith clause in Section 157 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act may not be available to the officers of the State as their conduct.
The bench pressed that such tentative opinions, if left unaddressed, could undermine the fairness and impartiality of subsequent adjudications, adversely impacting both the prosecution and the defence.
The Madras High Court, in the Ford India’s case, clarified that Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) credited in the Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ) can be utilised for the mandatory pre-deposit for GST Appeal Filing under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( TNGST ) Act, 2017.
The court observed that the statutory appeal form APL-01 includes a mechanism to pay the pre-deposit using the ECRL. Additionally, a circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC prescribed a special procedure for filing appeals beyond the time limit under Section 107 of the TNGST Act.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that it cannot interfere in factual examination of the material produced or not produced by an assessee-company to explain the share capital and premium received as it is beyond the scope of the an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya ruled that examination of the factual position as sought for cannot be done in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act and it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to have done such an exercise.
The Gauhati High Court has held that filing of turnover in a tender process would not exempt from furnishing the income tax return ( ITR ). The court held that the words “Turnover” and “Income Tax Return” are different.
A single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that Annual Turnover refers to the total revenue generated from the sale of goods or services during a financial year before deducting any expenses. It is a measure of business activity and operational performance. It is focused solely on the sales and revenue generated in the normal course of business. It does not factor in expenses, taxes, or other financial liabilities.
In a significant case, the Calcutta High Court declined to apply Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case where the scrutiny notice issued in an amalgamating company’s name, despite the Assessing Officer being aware about the company’s amalgamation.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the fact of amalgamation was well within the knowledge of the assessing officer. It thus dismissed the Department’s appeal which sought to contend that notice issued in the company’s previous name was a curable defect.
Telangana High Court in a recent case has held that for purposes of taxation,depreciation as granted with rates prescribed by Income-Tax Act, 1961 would have to be deducted for ascertaining the accumulated profits.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. SreenivasRao allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards the Appellant’s income tax return for the relevant assessment year.
The Kerala High Court directed to treat income from sale of immovable properties owned by assessee as ‘Capital Gains’. It was viewed that the requirement of ensuring uniformity and consistency in tax assessments cannot be overlooked, especially while categorizing the nature of the activity carried on by an assessee to earn its income for the purposes of taxation.
The bench noted that the assessee has been consistently seen as deriving income from letting out house property owned by it. It is on that basis that it has been assessed in all the assessment years prior to, and subsequent to, the assessment years under consideration in these appeals.
In a ruling in favour of Bhima Jewellery, the Kerala High Court held that assessment cannot be re-opened by the department if the limitation period expired before amendment extending timeline for reopening. It was viewed that in those cases where the erstwhile period of limitation of five years had already expired before the date of the amendment of Section 25(1) in 2017, the Revenue would not be permitted to re-open assessments that had been settled.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and K.V. Jayakumar observed that in those cases where the erstwhile period of limitation of five years had already expired before the date of the amendment of Section 25(1) in 2017, the Revenue would not be permitted to re-open assessments that had been settled, through a fresh notice issued thereafter invoking the six-year period of limitation.
The Gauhati High Court directed the application under section 249(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as tax dues mentioned under income tax return ( ITR ) were paid. It was observed that as per section 249(4) where an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority it shall not be entertained unless the assessee has paid the tax due on the income return by him wherein return is filed and where no returns are filed the assessee shall pay an amount equal to the amount of tax payable by him.
The court held that any application that may be filed by the petitioner will necessarily be required to be considered appropriately in terms of the provision to Section 249(4) of the Income Tax Act and pass appropriate orders. The contentions raised by the writ petitioner before the Court can also be raised before the Appellate Authority which is presently in seisin of the matter. The petitioner is granted liberty to file necessary applications before the Commissioner, Income Tax Appeal, raising all grounds to assail the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Kerala High Court refused to condone delay as the assessee’s medical condition is not sufficient grounds to justify condoning a four-year delay in filing the appeal. It was viewed that the contention of the assessee that he was sick and advised bed rest due to fatty liver disease has to be taken with a pinch of suspicion.
A single bench of Justice Gopinath P. ruled that “the assessee has not made out any ground for grant of relief in the writ petition. Admittedly, the assessee filed appeals against the orders only in the month of February 2024 i.e., four years after the date on which the orders against which the appeal was sought to be filed had been issued.”
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court ( HC ) ruled that co-insurance premiums and reinsurance commissions are not taxable under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) following the inclusion of Items 9 and 10 in Schedule III of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.
A single bench led by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy heard both sides and observed that the amounts deposited were not voluntary payments but made under its directions so they could not be treated as tax payments. The court explained that the deposits could only be utilized for tax payments following the final adjudication of the petitions.
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has ruled that the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claims are permissible in the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) returns filed on or before 30th November 2021 for the Financial Years ( FYs ) 2017-18 to 2020-21. The court ruled this in light of the Finance Act, 2024.
The single bench stated that the amended Section 16(5) of the CGST Act explicitly permits taxpayers to claim ITC in returns filed within the new deadline. This amendment overrides the limitations imposed by the original Section 16(4). It was observed that the petitioners had filed their GSTR-1 returns on time but faced delays in submitting GSTR-3B due to extraordinary circumstances. Considering the retrospective amendment, the court ruled that denying ITC claims based on the earlier timeline was unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court observed that the activities undertaken by charitable institutions were prima facie not classified as “supply” or “business” under the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act.
The judges, Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that the respondents (tax authorities) did not question the charitable status of AROH Foundation, which is properly registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. This registration confirms that the AROH Foundation is a charitable entity and should be eligible for tax exemptions.
The Delhi High Court recently remitted matter back to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observing that a jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) may initiate reassessment proceedings of an Assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of connected findings uncovered by another AO during search conducted on a third-party.
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court composed of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that when Search or Requisition of another person under Section 132 or 132A points towards the conduct of an Assessee, and such information are handed over to the AO of the Assessee, the concerned AO may conduct assessment or reassessment of the income of the Assessee under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provided that the the jurisdictional conditions are met.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to accused of passing unauthorised Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) worth Rs. 63.37 crores based on fake bills. It was found that the evidence in the matter of Ishan Gupta and no incriminating evidence has been recovered.
It was observed that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, Chief Justice , Shri Ramesh Sinha granted regular bail to the applicant.
The Orissa High Court has stayed the notice issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) which consolidated multiple assessment years following the single bench’s decision of the Karnataka High Court.
The court stated that as the petitioner relied on the view taken by the Karnataka HC, the writ petition requires hearing and the department was directed to submit the counter by 17th December 2024.
In a recent case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana set aside Income Tax Notice issued and proceedings initiated without conducting faceless assessment under section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that the notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961.
The Patna High Court has recently ruled that the GST department cannot evade the requirement of issuing a notice for personal hearing, even if the party does not formally request one.
The court upheld the extension of limitation periods under Section 168A, recognizing the unprecedented disruptions caused by the pandemic. However, it noted that extensions could not continue indefinitely.
In a landmark ruling in favour of Lloyd Insulations India Limited, the Kerala High Court set aside the order denying Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) without considering newly inserted provision under section 16 (5) of Central goods and Service Tax Act ( CGST ), 2017. The Court directed the competent authority to pass fresh orders, after taking note of the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the CGST/SGST Acts within a period of three months .
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P observed that on account of notification of Sub-Section (5) of Section 16 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the petitioner will be entitled to input tax credit, which has been denied to the petitioner by order.
In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed the Income Tax notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and granted the petitioner a chance to submit replies before the income tax department as the omission was due to bonafide reasons.
The bench observed that the impugned order revealed that the petitioner did not submit a reply or documents in response to the Section 148A(b) notices. The bench, by considering the claim of the petitioner that the omission to file a reply was due to bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, and that they are now prepared to submit the reply with documents if given another opportunity, set aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and related notices and orders.
The Madras High Court granted an opportunity for hearing to the assessee who received notices and the orders on discrepancy on the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) and the Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ) liability in the ( Goods and Services Tax Returns ) GSTR 3B Returns.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, instructing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. Upon compliance, the order would act as a show-cause notice, allowing the petitioner to submit objections with supporting documents. The respondent was directed to review the objections and issue a fresh order after granting a fair hearing.
In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court ruled that the increased 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act applies prospectively from 01.04.2017 and ordered reassessment at the earlier 30% tax rate.
The court observed that the use of the word “again” in the legislative intent indicated the focus was on preventing future misuse not penalizing past transactions.
In a recent judgment, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking recovery from a third party under Section 79(1)(c ) of the Goods and Services Tax Act ( GST Act ). The court ordered the department to consider the representation.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, addressing the limited scope of the prayer, directed the department to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding recovery from a third party. The court further instructed the department to pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with the law, within four weeks, after granting the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.
In the recent ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-compliance with the mandatory faceless assessment process under Section 144B of the Act.
The division bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ( Judge ) and Sanjay Vashisth ( Judge ) allowed the writ petition, set aside the notice and proceedings, and applied the principles from the previous judgments mutatis mutandis to the present case.
Recently, the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the Madhya Pradesh government for its delayed filing of a second appeal concerning a land dispute.
In its ruling, the Court noted that delays in legal proceedings, especially by state entities, should not be excused as a matter of generosity. It reiterated that the rules of limitation are rooted in public policy and must be applied strictly to maintain the credibility of the judicial process.The State has been directed to deposit the imposed fine within two weeks. If the amount is not deposited, the Supreme Court Registry will take necessary legal steps to recover it.
The Madras High Court has ruled that the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) can be blocked even with zero ITC balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). It was clarified that the negative blocking can continue up to the stage of accumulation of ITC to the extent of wrongful availment of credit in the ECL.
Thus, the court concluded that State Authorities are empowered to block ITC equivalent to the fraudulently availed amount, regardless of ECL balance at the time. In this case, they could block up to ₹13.10 Crores. The decisions of the Gujarat and Delhi High Courts were not followed as they did not consider the latter part of Rule 86A.
The State GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) proceedings are valid even after the search conducted by the Central GST department if the quantum of amount and period of demand is different from the Central GST’s, ruled the Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court observed that the State Authorities acted within their jurisdiction in this case, and it is premature to determine whether the principle of cross-empowerment applies.
The Bombay High Court has granted conditional bail to a Customs House Agent ( CHA ) accused in a high-profile drug case involving the seizure of 191.60 kg of heroin. The applicant had been in custody for over three years without significant progress in the trial.
The court observed that Sending documents for consignment clearance is part of the applicant’s role as a clearing agent and cannot be presumed as participation in illegal activities.
In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has held that the department cannot initiate the proceeding consequent to delayed audit report under section 41(4) of Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held that with the time limit not having been adhered to as far as the present case is concerned, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that all proceedings consequent including the assessment order are unsustainable in law. The court set aside the assessment order and all proceedings.
In a recent case related to the wrongful use of Integrated Goods And Service Tax(IGST) , the Kerala High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) not reversible when claim IGST instead of CGST and SGST. The bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the Writ Petition by quashing order and declaring that the appellant shall not be seen as having availed excess credit for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The court of Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar & Justice K. V. Jayakumar copied the order passed by Shri.Hareendran K, IRS, Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, East Division-6, Bengaluru, which considered an identical issue regarding the availment of input tax credit as CGST and SGST instead of IGST. The bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the Writ Petition by quashing order and declaring that the appellant shall not be seen as having availed excess credit for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the responsibilities of a Proper Officer to apprise the auditee of ‘objections’ that may arise during audit conducted in respect of Assessment of imported or exported goods under Section 99A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2010), the Court echoed the “need for notices issued by any statutory authority to consist of reasoning as opposed to a simpliciter recordal of definitive conclusions and which would thus lead the noticee to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that a right of representation would be an empty formality.”
In the recent ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, quashed a show cause notice ( SCN ) issued to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. ( BHEL ) for alleged non-payment of stamp duty, finding it was issued without jurisdiction and applied to an unregistered agreement, which falls outside the purview of Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
In short, the Court quashed the impugned notice as it was issued without jurisdiction and allowed the appeal, ordering that there would be no costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Recently, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court clarified that the 3rd Proviso of the Section 161 of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act mandates personal hearing if the decision on rectification application filed by the assessee affects him adversely.
Thus,the impugned rectification order was set aside, for failing to follow the procedures mentioned under the GST Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the rectification application and pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their case.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and held that an audit report is not an order of determination under Section 106 (1) of the Finance Act, 2013.
The high court, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and held that the taxpayer cannot be deprived of the benefit of VCES as the SCN did not cover any of the dues in respect of which the declaration was filed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
