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 Bombay High Court quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after discovering discrepancies in the interest income data provided by the electronic system.
The bench underscored the responsibility of the assessing officer to verify electronic information against taxpayer-provided data before issuing notices under Section 148. It criticized the reliance on defective data without thorough scrutiny, leading to the petitioner’s unwarranted ordeal
The Allahabad High Court has directed Amazing Security Services Pvt Ltd to file a bail application before the trial court in a case where criminal proceedings were initiated against them related to Goods and Services Tax ( GST ).
The Madras High Court directed the reconsideration of the matter involving the time of supply for road constructions in HAM model in light of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Circular No.221/2024. The court set aside the impugned order sent to the petitioner.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the matter needs reconsideration in light of Circular No. 221/2024 and set aside the impugned order dated 28th February 2024. The state tax officer was directed to allow the petitioner to be heard and issue a fresh order within 4 months. The writ petition was disposed of based on the aforementioned terms.
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Labour Commissioner rejecting the wage claim application under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Bombay High Court held that the Labour Commissioner’s rejection of the application was based on overly technical grounds, disregarding the established facts and the nature of a proprietorship concern.
The Delhi High Court upheld the powers vested in the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gurugram Zonal Unit in a case pertaining to mismatch in the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) filed by the Petitioner company. The GST Commissioner proceeded to provisionally attach the Bank Account of the Petitioner Company under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( CGST Act ) based on findings that the Petitioner had submitted fake amounts to avail ITC.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration cancellation, ruling that there was no violation of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition in favor of Mitsubishi Corporation and quashed the assessment order as the tribunal failed to consider the plenary powers conferred to it under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, and the order was quashed to the extent that they negated consideration of the additional grounds that had been raised by the petitioners.
In a writ petition filed by a senior citizen seeking condonation of delay in filing Income Tax Returns ( ITR ), the Rajasthan High Court condoned the delay, citing genuine hardship undergone by the assessee, who is a senior citizen.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a taxpayer engaged in educational charitable activities under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act is eligible for exemption, as the Assessing Officer, upon due examination of the activities undertaken by the assessee, concluded that they fell within the scope of Section 2(15), thereby entitling the assessee to deductions and exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a matter, the Madras High Court ruled that the GST ( goods and Service Tax ) liability confirmed for non-furnishing of documents not requested in the SCN ( Show Cause Notice ) is invalid. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Madras High Court remanded the order confirming the GST liability due to failure to submit oral or document evidence. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on 10% pre-deposit.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the order was confirmed as the taxpayer failed to respond or provide any evidence and it found merit in the assessee’s claim that they had not been properly notified of the proceedings and thus were not given a fair chance to contest the GST demand. Consequently, the impugned GST order was set aside.
The Gujarat High Court has stayed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regarding the transaction of assignment of long-term leasehold rights, citing a similar matter pending before the court.
The court also granted ad-interim relief, stating that no further proceedings shall continue pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice. The matter will be heard along with Special Civil Application and other related cases. Direct service via email is permitted. This stay provides temporary relief to the petitioner until the court reaches a decision on the pending matters.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) demand of ₹163, 91, 65,902/- due to the failure to address discrepancies in Malaysia Airlines’ GST returns and bank credits.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bhakhru and Justice Sachin Datta observed that the impugned order, being bereft of any reasons and failing to consider the contentious issues, is liable to be set aside and it was so directed.
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order imposing a tax demand of Rs.17,09,10,077/-, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration due to the lack of reasons in the original order.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, directing it to re-examine the reply filed by the petitioner to the impugned Show Cause Notice and to take an informed decision within eight weeks. The adjudicating authority was also directed to examine whether the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was barred by limitation.
The division bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST registration, asserting that there was no valid reason for the cancellation during the period when the petitioner had duly filed their returns.
The court found merit in the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s GST registration could not have been cancelled without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing to address the aspect of cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect.
The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Vibhu Bhakhru and Justice Sachin Datta, has set aside the Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST) demand of ₹163,91,65,902/- against Malaysia Airlines, ruling that the company, with GST registrations in multiple states, is allowed to receive all ticket sale receipts in a single account.
The Madras High Court addressed a case involving discrepancies between the E-way bill portal and the GSTR 1 returns, which had not been properly considered by the GST department. The Court ordered a reconsideration of the matter without requiring a pre-deposit and lifted the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account.
The Delhi High Court has quashed the denial of deductions claimed for the payment of salaries to expatriate employees The writ petitioner impugns the order framed by the Assessing Officer1 dated 13 May 2022 to the extent that it denies a deduction of INR 9,62,39,916/-. The said order has come to be framed in order to give effect to the decision rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 1998-1999.
The Delhi High Court has held that the revoking suspension of license cannot restrict the customs department from inquiring for imposition of penalty. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the mere fact that the suspension of license had come to be revoked cannot possibly be viewed as restricting the respondents from proceeding further in accordance with Regulation 17.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the confiscation order under the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017 as the proposal of confiscation without mentioning detailed reason allows writ petitions and sets aside confiscation orders under CGST Act
The Kerala High Court deleted the penalty under Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, 2003 as goods transported were for own use. It was viewed that there was no intention to evade tax.
The court noted that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of tax is legally sustainable. At the time of receipt of the consignment of goods from Bangalore, the respondent-assessee had also suffered the CST at a higher rate of 5.5%, which is applicable for unregistered dealers.
The Kerala High Court has held that refund due under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( KVAT ), 2003 can be adjusted towards the amount payable under the amnesty scheme. While allowing the Writ Appeal, the court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and directed the department to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,60,465 from the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs that is due to the appellant by way of refund.
The Calcutta High Court held that extended limitation cannot be invoked in absence of ‘omission & suppression of material facts’ to evade tax. Further held that Service Tax will not be levied on activities such as cutting or mineral extraction which are part of mining operations, if mining operations are itself not subjected to service tax on the date of levy.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a retrospective GST registration cancellation order due to the petitioner’s failure to file the ‘Reply of ASMT-10’. The court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal on its merits, ensuring that the issue of delay does not influence the decision
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017 and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act ( DGST ), 2017 for not providing adequate reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s response to a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ).
The court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 24.03.2023 and disposed of the writ petition. The opposite parties included the Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jharsuguda Division, and another party, represented by M. Agarwal, Jr. Standing Counsel for CGST.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal, stating that income from agricultural land, which is exempt from tax, cannot be included in the book profits when calculating under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Delhi High Court has permitted the petitioner to contest allegations of passing fake Input Tax Credit ( ITC ), despite the lack of receipt of the memo accompanying the GST Show Cause Notice ( SCN ).
The Orissa High Court directed the proper officer to consider a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) revocation application on payment of default tax by the assessee.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside demand orders for violating the 30-day notice requirement under Section 61 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017.
The Delhi High Court has reinstated the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration of a taxpayer despite non-compliance with Section 39 of the CGST Act and failure to file returns. The assessee, Rainbow Products has filed the present petition an order dated 19.12.2023, whereby the assessee’s GST registration was canceled and an order dated 27.05.2024, whereby the assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing an application for revocation of the impugned cancellation order was rejected.
The Orissa High Court overturned the dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal and restoration petition, ordering a new hearing with proper consideration for all parties. This decision should not be treated as a precedent.
The court agreed with the petitioner’s argument and ruled that the Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Tribunal to restore the appeal and decide it on its merits, after giving both parties a chance to be heard.
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the appellant or his counsel is not present, the case may only be dismissed in default. It was viewed that the term “ex-parte” in Rule 63(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules ( OVAT Rules ), 2008 can be interpreted as for want of representation of the defendant after service of notice.
The Madras High Court ordered reconsideration of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) liability confirmed on proceeding on the assumption that the sales turnover would be 110% of the purchase turnover.
The Delhi High Court set aside the service tax demand amounting to ₹20,74,77,321/- due to the failure to provide a copy of the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ), despite the assessee had requested for the SCN and certain other communications on at least three occasions.
In a significant ruling in the case of the Indian Medical Association ( IMA ), the Kerala High Court upheld the levy of Goods And Service Tax ( GST ) on the supply of goods and services by clubs, and associations to its members. The court held that the provisions of Section 7(aa) will have prospective operation with effect from 01.01.2022.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the petition against the challenge on the assessment order under Sales Tax not received due to a change in email id. The court found that it would be the duty of the assessee to inform the Assessing Officer of any change in the e-mail ID.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Commissioner of CGST, Delhi North, to verify whether the petitioner has been carrying on its business from its additional place of business within three weeks and, if verified, to restore the petitioner’s GST registration.
The Telangana High Court has permitted Standard Chartered Bank to file Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) returns on another state’s GST portal due to technical glitches, allowing the transfer of credit without any penalty or interest.
The court noted that If the portal was not functional or having technical glitch and because of that the petitioner was compelled to file return in the portal of Telangana, the petitioner cannot be saddled with demand, interest and penalty.
The Madras High Court accepted the discharge summary from the hospital as evidence for non-participation in the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) proceedings and set aside the order on 10% pre-deposit condition.
he Court mandated that A B Impex remit 10% of the disputed GST demand and was allowed to submit a reply to the show cause notice within this period. Additionally, the bank attachment previously was lifted.
The Delhi High Court has set aside an unreasoned Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration cancellation order, which failed to disclose the grounds on which the Proper Officer canceled the assessee’s GST registration, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
The Delhi High Court invalidated the suspension of the Customs Broker license and set aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) order on the grounds that suspension under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations ( CBLR ), 2018 is not a penalty.
The Orissa High Court has held that the High Court ( HC ) cannot sit as an appellate authority over an order in favour of Income Tax Dept passed by a coordinate Bench.
Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that since the order impugned is appealable one, the court refused to entertain the writ petition. It was observed that the High Court ( HC ) cannot sit as an appellate authority over an order in favour of Income Tax Dept passed by a coordinate Bench.
The anticipatory bail petition was filed following a summons notice issued by the PMLA Court. This background and Sahoo’s cooperation with the investigation played a significant role in the court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail, reinforcing the judicial precedent that curtails the arrest powers of the Directorate of Enforcement post-cognizance by the Special Court. The anticipatory bail ensures that Sahoo remains free while the investigation continues.
The Supreme Court ruled that the banks and NBFCs ( Non-Banking Financial Corporations ) are required to follow the restructuring process of the MSME as contemplated in the Notification dated 29th May, 2015 before the NPA ( Non- Performing Assets ) classification.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) authority to restore the GST registration certificate on payment of default tax and filing of returns. Since, the appellants have filed the returns for the defaulted period, paid taxes along with interest and the court directed the authority to consider the same and restore the GST registration.
The court disposed of the appeal and the connected application as well as the writ petition.
The Calcutta High Court held that Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Appellate Authority is competent to hear Appeal by condoning Delay beyond one month from prescribed period under section 107(4) of Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.
A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the appellate authority to reconsider the application for condonation of delay. Since, the explanation provided by the petitioner appears to be sufficient, by condoning the delay,the Court directed the appellate authority to hear out and dispose of the appeal of merit after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
The Delhi High Court upheld the bail granted to Sanjeev Malhotra, a director of M/s Best Buildwell Private Limited, who was accused of filing fraudulent Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) input credit claims for non-existent firms. The court dismissed the petition filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, South Delhi, seeking the cancellation of bail.
The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) has ruled that counter sale of Pani Puri, Bhel Puri, Masala Puri and other chaat items like Masala Chat, Sev Puri, Samosa Chaat, Vada Pav, Pav Bhaji and Punjabi Lassi attracts Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) at 5%, when sold without a brand name.
The Calcutta High Court observed that the prohibitory order under section 67(7) Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017 cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. Since the assessee has not approached the respondents under Section 67(6) of the GST Act and as such, there is no reason for the Court to interfere at this stage save and except.
The Calcutta High Court in a recent case directed readjudication on assessment order passed under Central Goods And Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017 without affording opportunity of hearing is invalid.
The division bench of Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya directed the Assessing Officer to take note of the reply given by the assessee dated 23rd March, 2023 and afford an opportunity of personal hearing in which the assessee shall afford an opportunity to place all documents and after considering the contentions, a fresh assessment order be drawn with adequate reasons and in accordance with law.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) authority to restore the GST registration certificate on payment of default tax and filing of returns. Since, the appellants have filed the returns for the defaulted period, paid taxes along with interest and the court directed the authority to consider the same and restore the GST registration.
The Calcutta High Court directed the principal commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) to reconsider assessment as the notice of reassessment was not received to assessee either through email or speed post.
The authorized representative of the appellant shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before a decision is taken.
An anticipatory bail was denied to gold smuggling suspect who alleged to be smuggled 1.9kg gold. The Patna high Court, considering the submissions of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) , refused to grant the bail.
Justice Satyavrat Verma of Patna High Court, considering the arguments of the DRI’s counsel, decided not to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, citing insufficient evidence and lack of documentation to support the petitioner’s claims of lawful business. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( JCIT ) cannot transfer a case to the subordinate officer behind the back of the assessee. The Patna High Court ruled that the transfer shall take place only after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The bench composed of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy highlighted that Section 127 of the Income tax act mandates that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any transfer is executed. The present case showed that such an opportunity was not provided to the petitioner, as the transfer was carried out without proper notice, observed the bench. Thus, the Court found the assessment order to be invalid due to the improper transfer and lack of adherence to the principles of natural justice. The notice issued was deemed incorrect, and the Court set aside the assessment order.
The Patna High Court has ruled that alternate remedies available under the GST ( Goods and Services Act) or the amnesty scheme introduced by the government should be utilised effectively before seeking relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar observed that “we find no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, especially since it is not a measure to be employed where there are alternate remedies available and the assessee has not been diligent in availing such alternate remedies within the stipulated time. The law favors the diligent and not the indolent.”
The Patna High Court ruled that the address change must be informed to the existing Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ( JAO ) through an application and to the new AO for proper PAN migration.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, referred to the Department’s FAQ section. It noted that when changing your address from one state to another, it is crucial to migrate your PAN to the new Assessing Officer (AO).
The Patna High Court dismissed the petition against the bid disqualification notice citing the building bid evaluation by the income tax department is proper and justified. The court observed that the place of the petitioner was evaluated by the Building Hiring Committee through visits.
The Bombay High Court has invalidated a VAT show cause notice, which lacked specific details regarding the information or documents required for compliance under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
It was observed that, “We find the letter to be as bald and vague as the show cause notice. In the said letter, there is not even a reference to the documents that Petitioner had, alongwith its letter dated 6th January 2024 submitted. Respondent No.2, thereafter, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28th March 2024 under Section 23 of the MVAT Act. Respondent No.2 has passed order without dealing with any points and simply on the basis of best judgement under Section 23(2) of the MVAT Act. Emphasising that the Commissioner must first determine the necessity of additional documents to ensure return accuracy, the court concluded that the order and demand notice are to be invalidated due to failure to satisfy prerequisites for a best judgement assessment under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the construction of public libraries falls under charitable function and is eligible for the exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act,1961.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that the ancillary work, which may be carried out by the society for the purpose of enhancing education, would also be treated as work done for charitable purposes. The court allowed writ petition in view that the writ petition was filed in the year 2006, and it would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner, the Society is relegated after about 18 years to avail the alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the ITAT.
The Calcutta High court directed the date GST department to restore Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration which was cancelled. It was directed that the registration can be restored on compliance of Conditions by assesee within Provided Time.
The court held that the respondents should take a pragmatic view in the matter and permitted the petitioner to carry on his business. The Court set aside the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the said Act, subject to the condition that the petitioner files his returns for the entire period of default and pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
