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.
The Madras High Court ordered a reconsideration of a case involving timely payment of GST dues, addressing discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B. Despite acknowledging prompt payment, officers overlooked this fact. The petitioner received intimation and a show cause notice, replying duly. The court observed errors in the respondent’s conclusions, particularly regarding timely payments and reversal of Input Tax Credit. Upon review, the court found contradictions in the respondent’s assertions and set aside the contested order, remanding the matter for reconsideration. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Madras High Court directed AVS Tech Building Solutions to file a reply to the GST intimation regarding the Seigniorage Fee Paid to Government within four weeks. The petitioner challenged the intimation and cited a Division Bench judgment, which directed petitioners to submit objections within four weeks and suspended adjudication until a Nine Judge Constitution Bench decides on royalty issues. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy disposed of the petitions on similar terms, allowing the petitioner to submit a reply within four weeks.
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding a pre-deposit requirement for interest linked to a 100% penalty imposed despite the discharge of GST liability. The petitioner settled the GST liability on three occasions before the show cause notice. The court allowed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, despite the time limit expiring, upon fulfilling the condition of remitting Rs.2.5 lakhs within three weeks. No costs were awarded.
The Madras High Court ruled that ignorance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) uploaded on the GST portal is not an excuse. Despite the petitioner’s failure to respond to the notice, the court set aside the order for interference. The petitioner agreed to remit Rs.10,00,000/- as a condition for remand. The court directed the petitioner to pay the amount within three weeks and allowed them to respond to the notice within the specified timeframe. Upon receipt of the reply and payment confirmation, the respondent must provide a fair opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months.
The Madras High Court granted the petitioner the opportunity to file a statutory appeal contesting the penalty imposed after discharging full GST and interest liability. Allegations of wrongful ITC availment led to the impugned order. The petitioner argued that no appeal was filed earlier because they discharged the tax and interest liability. Receipts showed payments made by the petitioner, settling the entire tax and interest liability stated in the order. The court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal addressing only the penalty imposed within two weeks from receiving the court order. If filed within the specified period, the appellate authority will consider it on its merits without considering the question of limitation.
The Madras High Court set aside the GST assessment order and recovery notice due to the denial of a mandatory Personal Hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the orders violated this section, which requires a personal hearing after a taxpayer’s response to a notice. The court agreed, finding that the respondent failed to provide the required hearing. Consequently, the challenged orders were overturned, and the matters were remanded for reconsideration with instructions to afford the petitioner a personal hearing. The recovery notice associated with the orders was invalidated, and the stay of recovery for pending appellate proceedings remained in force. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Madras High Court overturned a GST order due to the authorities not considering certificates from the supplier and Chartered Accountant, leading to a disparity in GSTR 3B & GSTR 2A. The order, dated 29.12.2023, stemmed from a Show Cause Notice issued on 29.09.2023, to which the petitioner responded on 16.10.2023, citing a discrepancy between their GSTR 3B return and GSTR 2A. Technical issues prevented the reply’s upload, leading to the impugned order. Despite submitting certificates from the supplier and CA, recent rectification attempts were rejected. The court noted the petitioner’s efforts and additional evidence but emphasized that these were not considered in the impugned order.
Consequently, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted 15 days to submit a reply with relevant documents, and the respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within two months.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the mandatory pre-deposit condition under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot be waived in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, aggrieved by an order from the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad, sought waiver of pre-deposit or relegation to appeal jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the court emphasised that pre-deposit cannot be waived in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner had already filed an appeal, making the writ petition an afterthought to evade pre-deposit liability. The court noted that amendments to the law preclude High Courts from exercising discretion in waiving pre-deposit. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), stating that the assessee made a true and full disclosure of income. The dispute centered around the character of a receipt, with the petitioner alleging it to be an accommodation entry. The ITSC settled the total tax liability for the respondent-assessee, M/S Trent East West LPG Bottling Ltd, for the block assessment period of 1995-96 to 25 May 2000, granting immunity from prosecution and penalties. The petitioner challenged the settlement order, alleging the respondent failed to disclose income related to a land parcel purchase. However, the court found that the ITSC considered both sides and made its decision within its adjudicatory function, warranting no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
The Orissa High Court ruled that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) doesn’t apply if alleged crime proceeds are under Rs. 1 Crore, in a case concerning exemption from personal attendance under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Bibekananda Nayak, Special Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, represented the case. The petitioner sought to quash an order denying exemption from personal attendance in a PMLA case. Initially rejected by the trial court, the petitioner appealed under Section 482 of CrPC.
The court, after considering relevant judgments and provisions, concluded that the trial court’s order was unsustainable. Arguments centered on Section 205 CrPC’s applicability in PMLA cases and the court’s discretion in granting exemption. The Orissa High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. Justice A.K. Mohapatra concluded the ruling, setting aside the impugned order.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a SCN lacking specific details regarding Goods and Service Tax (GST) demands is invalid. Represented by Dayaar Singla, the petitioner challenged the defective notice proposing the cancellation of their GST registration. The notice failed to specify the issuing authority or provide details of alleged infractions. The court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, found the SCN deficient, merely citing legal provisions without detailing the alleged violations. Consequently, the court quashed the notice, allowing the authorities to issue a proper one with specific infractions and providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court allowed time for M/S JVN Traders Pvt Ltd to furnish details requested by the proper officer, as failure to do so caused a delay in processing their application for GST cancellation. The petitioner sought direction for the respondent to process their cancellation application, stating closure of their business. The respondent had sought clarifications and future communication address, which the petitioner agreed to provide within one week. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to furnish the details within one week. The proper officer was directed to decide on the application within four weeks thereafter.
The Delhi High Court observed that the validity of a provisional attachment order under section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, is one year. In the case of M/S Krish Overseas, the petitioner challenged a communication from 2019 directing HDFC Bank to seize their account funds. Since one year had passed, the court directed the bank not to restrain the account’s operation, as the order had ceased to be effective. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja declared the order from 2019 invalid and instructed HDFC Bank not to restrict the petitioner’s account based on it.
The Delhi High Court directed the re-adjudication of two show cause notices (SCNs) demanding GST for the same tax period, finding that they should be clubbed and re-adjudicated by one proper officer under the law. Dinesh Kumar Varma challenged an order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, where a demand of Rs. 15,53,240/- was created against him. The court observed that both SCNs pertained to the same tax period and raised identical demands by different officers of the same jurisdiction. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the petition, instructing the petitioner to reply to both SCNs within 30 days. The proper officer shall then adjudicate the notices within the prescribed period.
The Delhi High Court ruled that GST registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively solely due to non-filing of returns for six months. Kalpana Cables Products Pvt. Ltd challenged the retrospective cancellation of its registration. The court modified the impugned order, declaring the registration cancelled from 30.04.2019, the date petitioner sought cancellation, rather than from 01.12.2017. The court emphasized that registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically and must be based on objective criteria. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the decision, considering the circumstances and the petitioner’s application for cancellation.
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to pay interest to Tarapore & Co. for the unexplained delay in refunding an amount under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The court ruled that the petitioner would receive interest at a rate of 1.5% per month on the refund amount of Rs. 20,18,729/- for three years preceding the filing of the petition until the refund is disbursed. This decision was made by a division bench consisting of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja.
The Delhi High Court directed M/S Satbir Filling Station to receive simple interest at 6% on the delayed refund allowed under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. Despite the delayed sanctioning of the refund without any interest, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing Section 42(1) of the Act, which mandates the grant of simple interest. The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja disposed of the petition, instructing the respondents to consider and disburse the interest to the petitioner within four weeks. If the proper officer decides interest is not payable, they must provide a reasoned order within the same timeframe.
The Delhi High Court invalidated the retrospective cancellation of GST registration due to lack of substantial reasons. The court found deficiencies in both the Show Cause Notice and the order. Sumeet Singh, the petitioner, challenged the dismissal of their appeal primarily on the grounds of limitation and contested the retrospective cancellation of GST registration effective from 01.07.2017. The petitioner, representing M/s Saran Singh & Sons, engaged in spice and dry fruit supply, was registered under the Goods and Service Act, 2017. The Show Cause Notice lacked clarity and failed to notify the petitioner of the retrospective cancellation. The subsequent order lacked reasoning and arbitrarily set the cancellation date without specifying dues. The court modified the order, cancelling registration effective from Mohinder Mohan Singh’s demise on 16.10.2020.
The Delhi High Court overturned the retrospective cancellation of GST registration due to procedural irregularities. M/S. Vishal Chem, the petitioner, contested an order disposing of a Show Cause Notice proposing a demand of Rs. 34,51,018.00. The court noted that despite the petitioner’s detailed reply submitted and uploaded, the subsequent order failed to consider it adequately. Furthermore, the proper officer declined to accept additional documents tendered by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant. The court found that the officer did not adequately assess the petitioner’s reply and failed to provide an opportunity for clarification or further submission. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja directed the matter to be reconsidered by the proper officer.
The Delhi High Court directed the re-adjudication of two orders rejecting Spinclabs Private Limited’s claim of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to alleged improper calculation/reconciliation. The court found that the proper officer failed to adequately consider the detailed replies submitted by the petitioner. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja observed that the officer did not apply due diligence in assessing the replies, which lacked proper calculations/reconciliation and relevant documents. Consequently, the court remitted the matter to the proper officer for re-adjudication. The petitioner is instructed to file replies to the Show Cause Notices within 30 days. The proper officer is required to re-adjudicate the notices, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, and issue a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law within the prescribed period under Section 75(3) of the Act.
The Kerala High Court directed Diana Peter Alias Diana Gomez to remit 15% of the total demand within one week. Diana filed an appeal, stay application, and application for condonation of delay against an assessment order under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. Despite a 150-day delay in filing the appeal, the court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and decide on the delay condonation and stay application within two months. The demand remains pending until a decision on the delay condonation and stay petition, provided 15% of the total demand is deposited.
The Kerala High Court directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to decide on a stay petition within two months while the assessment order remains stayed. Reji Krishnan filed an appeal against an assessment order before the CIT(A), which was partially relieved. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the ITAT and filed a petition for stay of proceedings. After considering both sides, Judge Shoba Annamma Eapen instructed the ITAT to decide on the stay petition within two months from the receipt of the judgment copy.
In a significant case, the Delhi High Court directed re-adjudication due to the petitioner’s inability to attend the hearing fixed by the Show Cause Notice (SCN) following her husband’s death. Anita Bansal, Proprietress of M/S A.B. Enterprises, filed a writ petition against the order and SCN proposing a demand of Rs.21,11,088.00. The petitioner’s counsel, Rajesh Jain, explained that she couldn’t respond to the SCN because her husband passed away on the scheduled hearing date. The court observed that the petitioner’s inability to respond was due to her husband’s serious illness, thus entitling her to an opportunity to reply. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja set aside the order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, directing re-adjudication.
The Delhi High Court directed re-adjudication after finding that an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act lacked clarity and failed to consider the petitioner’s detailed reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner, Decolene Fibers Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order proposing a demand of Rs. 88,34,701.00. The court noted that the petitioner’s reply was not properly considered and no opportunity was given to clarify or provide further details. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja set aside the order and directed re-adjudication.
In a significant case, the Delhi High Court directed re-adjudication, noting that an order passed without considering the petitioner’s detailed reply to a Show Cause Notice regarding Input Tax Claim was cryptic. The petitioner, Kaycee Polymers Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The court observed that the order failed to consider the petitioner’s reply and lacked justification. Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja directed the petitioner to file a reply within 30 days and ordered the Proper Officer to re-adjudicate, allowing for a personal hearing and a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law.
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that no late fee can be imposed for the late filing of GSTR-9C for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. This decision offers significant relief to taxpayers facing challenges with late filing. The ruling also highlighted anomalies in the application of an amnesty scheme, retroactively benefiting those who had already filed their returns. Understanding these nuances is crucial for businesses, as late filing incurs penalties. This precedent ensures that compliant taxpayers are treated fairly, providing hope for those navigating GST regulations.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that no addition can be made to net profit without recomputing trading results under Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (A.O) had estimated wastage percentages without proper justification, leading to an erroneous addition to the assessee’s income. The court emphasized that if the books of account, including the valuation of closing stock, are accepted by the A.O, additions to net profit cannot be made without re-computation. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 34,28,414/- for excessive shortage was deemed unsustainable by the court.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the Proper Officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can grant up to three adjournments if sufficient cause is shown. The petitioner challenged an order disposing of a Show Cause Notice and imposing a demand. Despite the petitioner’s requests for time and personal hearing, the order did not consider these requests. The court noted that while Section 75(5) allows for three adjournments, it is not mandatory, and the officer’s discretion depends on the circumstances of each case.
The Madras High Court granted interim stay on proceedings due to the discharge of tax liability, as challenged notifications under Section 168A of applicable GST laws are contested in the writ petition. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that tax liability was indeed discharged, albeit under the wrong tax head. The court observed that Section 168A of the CGST Act allows the government to extend time limits in special circumstances, overriding conflicting provisions. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy ordered an interim stay on further proceedings until the matter is heard again, scheduling it for June 10, 2024.
The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that CENVAT credit is permissible on items like welding electrodes and welding wire used for laying rail lines outside the factory. The case revolved around whether the respondent assessee is entitled to such credits. The Commissioner initially denied the credit, arguing that these items were not used directly in manufacturing petroleum products. However, the CESTAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that these items were indeed utilized in the manufacturing process. The court upheld this decision, stating that items like M.S. Gratings, although not directly involved in manufacturing, are essential for plant operations and thus qualify for credit.
The Madras High Court annulled the ITC mismatch demand due to the failure to consider a certificate from the supplier. The challenged order dated 29.12.2023 was based on a show cause notice from 29.09.2023, to which the petitioner responded by citing a delay in the supplier’s GSTR 1 filing. The petitioner also submitted certificates from the supplier and their Chartered Accountant, but the rectification petition was rejected. The court noted that these documents were not considered in the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted 15 days to submit a reply with all relevant documents, and the respondent was directed to issue a fresh order within two months after considering the petitioner’s submission.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court stated that denying input tax credit (ITC) to customers is a consequence of retrospectively cancelling GST registration. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their appeal on grounds of limitation, as well as the retrospective cancellation of their GST registration and the show cause notice issued for it. The court emphasized that registration cannot be cancelled retrospectively without proper objective criteria being met, and mere non-filing of returns does not justify such action, especially if the taxpayer was compliant. The bench noted that cancelling registration retrospectively affects customers’ ability to claim ITC and should only be done if warranted by circumstances.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Emery Cloth, considered a cotton-coated fabric, qualifies for sales tax exemption. The Appellate Tribunal compared Tarpaulin to Rexine Cloth, which was previously exempt from tax, and exempted Tarpaulin under the same category. The Government Pleader argued that Emery Cloth, being sand-based and used for shining wood, shouldn’t be treated as cloth, while Tarpaulin falls under taxable item-174. However, the respondent’s counsel contended that both items are exempt under Entry-5 of the Fourth Schedule. The court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, stating that Tarpaulin’s inclusion in item-174 doesn’t affect its exemption, and Emery Cloth’s exemption under item-59.03 stands due to its liability under additional duties of excise.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the GST Department cannot impose a penalty exceeding the invoice value without proper evidence. The case involved a challenge to an order imposing a penalty for an expired e-way bill. While the appellant argued a breakdown caused the delay, they failed to provide supporting documents. The court noted the importance of considering intent to evade taxes in imposing penalties. It found the penalty exceeded the invoice value without sufficient evidence and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,00,000, with the balance refunded within three months, without interest.
The Gujarat High Court reiterated that pre-deposit for filing GST appeals can be made using the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). In a case concerning a raised valuation of goods and tax evasion, the court noted a circular allowing ECL utilization for pre-deposit. Justices Bhargav D Karia and Niral R Mehta quashed the impugned order and restored the appeal, instructing the petitioner to utilize ECL for the disputed tax amount within two weeks.
The Kerala High Court clarified that the exemption under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applies only when parties explicitly agree in writing to waive it. A petition sought to replace the sole arbitrator due to alleged bias. The court rejected the argument that waiver applied, stating there was no express agreement in writing. It also dismissed claims of estoppel and acquiescence, noting that adherence to arbitration procedures does not imply waiver of rights.
The Delhi High Court overturned the rejection of M/S Shoppers Home’s GST registration cancellation application due to procedural irregularities, emphasizing the importance of a fair opportunity for a personal hearing. The court found that the petitioner was not properly notified about the requirement for a personal hearing, depriving them of the chance to address discrepancies and provide clarifications. Despite uploading all necessary documents, the petitioner was unfairly dismissed solely for non-appearance at the hearing. The court stressed the need for transparent administrative procedures and adherence to natural justice principles. The matter was remitted back to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case in accordance with the law.
The Telangana High Court ruled that disputes regarding insolvency and winding-up of partnerships are arbitrable. An application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between the parties as per Clause 19 of a Partnership Deed. Despite objections from some respondents, the court invoked Section 16(1) of the Act, empowering the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. The court appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, a former Supreme Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, emphasizing that the issue falls within the realm of arbitrability under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
The Kerala High Court directed the release of a residential property that was attached due to pending revenue arrears. The appellant, a registered dealer under the KVAT/KGST Act, faced arrears amounting to Rs 1,38,73,601/-. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against him, leading to the attachment of his residential property. However, the appellant offered three other properties as substitutes, valued at Rs 72,56,403/- for land and Rs 1,03,17,323/- for the building. The court ordered the release of the attached property upon acceptance of the offered properties as security for the due amount.
The Kerala High Court ruled that the Appellate Authority under the GST Act has the power to conduct further inquiry after deeming an order erroneous. The petition challenges an appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner (appeals) under the CGST/SGST Act. It pertains to the confiscation of gold transported without proper documents. The State Tax Officer confiscated the gold due to lack of valid documents. The petitioner seeks relief under Article 226, as the Tribunal to entertain appeals is not constituted yet. The respondent argues the discretionary nature of fines in lieu of confiscation. The court observed that the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to conduct further inquiry and decide the issue afresh. Therefore, it upheld the authority’s power to interfere with the discretion exercised by the adjudicating authority.
The Kerala High Court ordered re-adjudication due to a delay in producing audited balance sheets caused by the delay of statutory auditors. The petitioner, a government-controlled apex body of Consumer Co-operative Societies, received a show cause notice alleging non-payment of service tax. Despite contesting the notice, the demands were confirmed. The petitioner argued that it didn’t have an adequate opportunity to present its case, especially since audited accounts weren’t available during the adjudication. The court noted the delay was primarily due to statutory auditors. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the adjudication of the show cause notice was restored to the respondent’s file.
The Kerala High Court directed the re-export of seized gold ornaments, considering the petitioner’s bedridden condition and the execution of a special Power of Attorney. Customs Authorities had seized gold items from the petitioner, but in the adjudication order, they were released in her favor with permission for re-export. As the petitioner couldn’t appear due to being bedridden, she appointed someone through a special Power of Attorney for re-exporting the gold. The court directed the authorities to allow re-export based on the Power of Attorney, with the petitioner providing necessary details.
The Kerala High Court directed the respondent to pass orders on the application for rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act before the appeal filing deadline of March 29, 2024. The petitioner sought rectification of mistakes in an order of adjudication dated December 30, 2023. The court ordered the respondent to consider the application and provide an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the respondent on March 13, 2024, with a copy of the writ petition and the court’s judgment.
The Delhi High Court ruled that an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim should be considered on its merits if filed within the statutory period of three months, as per Section 12(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The case involved Pramod Kumar Tomar, proprietor of M/S Paramount Steel, challenging the rejection of his refund claim under the CGST Act, 2017. The rejection was based on alleged delay in filing the appeal due to a technical glitch. The petitioner demonstrated that the appeal was filed on time, meeting the requirements of Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Despite initial disputes over the filing date, the court ruled that the appeal, filed within three months, should be considered. The division bench directed the Appellate Authority to assess the appeal on its merits, overturning the rejection based solely on the grounds of limitation.
The Supreme Court upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) order affirming that amounts covered by security deposits under agreements constitute financial debt. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal held in alignment with NCLAT’s perspective, recognizing these deposits as financial debt under sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ( IBC ), thereby designating the depositor as a financial creditor.
The bench held that the view taken by the NCLAT under the impugned judgments and orders is correct and has to be upheld. Therefore, confirming the impugned judgments, the apex court dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition submitted by Micro and Small Enterprises ( MSEs ) challenging the 45-day payment rule outlined in Section 43B(h) of the Income Tax Act, during its session on Monday (May 6).
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from today until June 1 in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. He has been directed to surrender to prison authorities by June 2. The bench indicated that they will soon issue a detailed order on this matter.
The Kerala High Court recently held that the assessing authority adjudicating issue afresh on remand from the Appellate Authority, cannot ignore time limit under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench observed that the time limit specified in Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act is also intended to ensure that amounts due to the Government, if any, are received at the earliest point in time after the remand.
The Kerala High Court directed to file appeal manually before the Appellate Authority as payment was not reflected in the Central Excise Portal, observing that interest of justice will be served by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal manually before the Appellate Authority together with 10% of the amount required to be paid by the petitioner after giving credit to the sum of Rs.54,70,716/- , which has already been paid by the petitioner.
The Kerala High Court quashed the assessment order under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) for not following procedure for compounding scheme.
The bench observed that, without there being an order rejecting the application of the petitioner, notice under Section 73 has been issued and this case is a complete violation of the Scheme of the Act. The court directed to file a reply to the show cause notice for rejection of the application under the composition scheme within a period of ten days.
The Kerala High Court directed the Faceless Appellate Centre (FAC) to consider appeal as the rectification form 26AS was issued by the bank.
The court noted that the Bank has already modified Form 26 AS and letter has been issued which would suggest that no TDS was deposited by the Bank and no interest income accrued to the petitioner, The court disposed the writ petition with direction to the Faceless Appellate Centre to consider and dispose of appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within period of two months.
The Kerala High Court dismissed review petition in the matter regarding the remission of GST as per time extended for filing return by the bar attached hotels.
The review petition has been filed seeking review of the Judgment and Order passed in the batch of writ petitions. The Court held that in cases where the return was filed on or before 31.03.2022 and turnover tax was cleared on or before 30.04.2022 by the FL3 license, for the period from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to 25.09.2021 for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, they would not be liable to pay interest for delayed filing of the returns and payment of turnover tax @ 5% on their parcel sales authorized by the Government during the Covid lock down period.
The Kerala High Court ordered the demands to be stayed until the stay petition is disposed of as the appeal against the assessment order was passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench directed that any demands in terms of the assessment order shall not be enforced till a decision is taken on the stay petition by the 2nd respondent.
The Bombay High Court in a ruling in favour of Tata Steel limited held that a contribution of Rs. 212.52 Crores to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (“CAF”) amounts to Revenue Expenditure. The court dismissed the Appeal. Mr. Suresh Kumar appeared for Appellant and Mr. Nishant Thakkar, Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr. Bhavesh Bhatia appeared for Respondent assessee.
The Rajasthan High Court accepts the appeal on the issue of credit on input in stock when the final product is exemplified. The court issued a notice of admission of appeal to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks. The court issued notice of admission of appeal to the respondents on payment of PF within one week, returnable within four weeks.
The Kerala High Court directed the State Tax Officer to pass orders in the matter relating to filing of Form 21CC refund application as per the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Appellate Tribunal. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass order on the application of the petitioner, expeditiously, in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of one month.
The Kerala High Court has eased the burden on taxpayers by permitting installment payments for motor vehicle tax arrears. The case involved a petitioner, who sought relief from the Regional Transport Officer ( RTO ) regarding outstanding motor vehicle tax for his stage carriage bearing registration number KL-02-U-4839.
The court disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the petitioner to discharge the tax liability on the goods carriage vehicle in six equal monthly installments.
The Kerala High Court has intervened to halt recovery proceedings initiated against Artisans Development Cooperative Ltd ( ARTCO Ltd ), a Kerala-based cooperative, and directed the concerned authorities to consider the company’s stay application within two months. The decision came in response to a writ petition filed by ARTCO Ltd challenging an assessment order issued by the Income Tax department.
The court halts recovery proceedings against the petitioner and directs the respondent revenue to expedite the consideration of the stay application.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the review petition in the absence of error apparent on face of record in the matter relating to the payment of interest for delayed filing of GST returns.
The court held that in cases where the return were filed by the FL3 licensees, for the period from 22.05.2020 to 21.12.2020 and from 15.06.2021 to 25.09.2021 for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, they would not be liable to pay interest for delayed filing of the returns and payment of turnover tax @ 5% on their parcel sales authorised by the Government during the Covid lock down period.
The Delhi High Court directed readjudication with respect to the order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on account of failure to follow the natural justice principle. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner Dish TV India Ltd. against the demand created under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
The bench directed readjudication with respect to the order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on account of failure to follow the natural justice principle.
The Delhi High Court quashed rejection of refund application of intra state supply services without considering the circular relating to the limitation. Therefore the division bench observed that the refund applications filed by the petitioner are covered by the circular dated 25.09.2021 and were within limitation.
The Delhi High Court modified the retrospectively canceled Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration from the date of issue of a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ). The writ petition was filed by the petitioner Ansh Telecom against the retrospectively canceled GST registration .The Petitioner was engaged in the business of trading mobile phones and tablets and possessed GST Registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 .
The court observed that the notice that Show Cause Notice and the impugned order are also bereft of any details. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained. Neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation.
The Delhi High Court while directing to consider the refund application observed that Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued by the incompetent authority with respect to the refund application filed by the petitioner.
The court held that the course adopted by the Appellate Authority is not acceptable in law, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that it decides the claim of the petitioner on merits.
In a significant case, the Delhi High Court quashed the order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of Income Tax Act and observed that the reassessment proceedings of the assessment year 2015-16 had already concluded.
The bench observed that assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was already concluded, saying proceedings were completely ignored and no new material was unearthed. Therefore the Court quashed the order passed under Section 148(A)(d) of Income Tax Act .
The Delhi High Court directed the proper Officer to consider the application of refund of Rs 44,94,004/-within a period of four weeks besides interest on delayed refunds.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner Deep Jyoti Exports Pvt. Ltd by directing the respondents to grant a refund besides interest for the delayed refund. As per the Petitioner, the application seeking refund is still pending and has not been disposed of the refund pertains to the period August 2020 to January 2021, amounting to Rs. 44,94,004/.
The Delhi High Court while directing to pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 with regard to payment of interest on the delayed refund directed the proper Officer to consider the application of refund within a period of four weeks.
The bench disposed of this petition while observing the application seeking refund is still pending, Further directing the proper Officer to consider the application in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from today.
The Delhi High Court directed the proper Officer to consider the application of refund within a period of four weeks . Further directed to pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 with regard to payment of interest on the delayed refund. The bench allowed the writ petition by directing it to consider the application of refund within a period of four weeks .
The Gujarat High Court held that export of mango pulp should attract 12% Goods and Service Tax ( GST ). Thus the petitioners would be liable to pay GST at the rate of 12% from 1st July 2017 on the product “mango pulp” and not at the rate of 5% ( as claimed by the petitioners ) or 18% (as claimed by the respondents) for the period from 01.07 2017 to 18.07.2022. The court observed that the GST Council has clarified in its 47th meeting that tax rate would continue to apply at 12% other than “mango sliced, dried” for which the GST rate was reduced to 5% as per the recommendations of 27th meeting of the GST Council.
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that the High Court is not an appellate authority under the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ( KGST Act ) to examine the merit of assessment/refund order. The observed that “If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the remedy lies elsewhere under the Statute itself. This Court cannot enter into the factual dispute as it is for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority against the said order if he is not satisfied with the order passed for refund in the impugned order. This court is not an appellate authority under the provisions of the KGST Act to examine the merit of the assessment/refund order.”
The Kerala High Court quashed the review petition in the matter regarding the payment of turnover tax @ 5% on parcel sales authorised by the Government during Covid lock down. The court observed that review jurisdiction is to be exercised in a very limited manner where there is error apparent on the face of the record.
The Kerala High Court directed the GST Commissioner to pass orders as there was delay in filing rectification application due to delayed receipt of assessment order. The court observed that the order was received only on, the respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the application for rectification as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
