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 the recent case the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)’s decision granting Section 12A registration to the Unique Educational Society, which operates a vocational training institute.
The Court upheld the ITAT’s findings, ruling that vocational education was vital for individual development and earning a livelihood and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on a Kerala High Court judgment, noting that vocational education is now widely recognized as part of the broader field of education.
In a recent case, the Gujarat High Court held that issuance of Pre’ Consultation notice in Form DRC 01A is not compulsory from 15 th October, 2020. The court viewed that though the requirement of issuance of the pre- consultation notice in Form-DRC-01A is not compulsory as per the amendment brought on the statute with effect from 15th October, 2020, the word ”may” is required to be read as “shall” otherwise, Subsection (5) of Section 74 of the Act would become redundant.
Considering the above submissions, the court comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia And Justice Niral R. Mehta issued Notice returnable on 16th October, 2024. It was further held that “by way of ad-interim relief, the petitioners shall continue to cooperate in the adjudication process of the impugned show- cause notice, however the respondents shall not pass the final order during the pendency of this petition.”
While upholding the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), the Calcutta High Court held that deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act is allowable on port infrastructure development.The court held that the tribunal was fully justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal and the impugned order does not call for any interference.
The division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that the benefit of deduction provided for under Section 80IA(4) of the Act is for a beneficial purpose, the purpose being to promote industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructural developments etc. Therefore, the interpretation to be given to the said provision should advance the object for which the provision was introduced and not to frustrate it. The court held that the tribunal was fully justified in allowing the assessee’s appeal and the impugned order does not call for any interference.
The Madras High Court allowed the provisional release of zero-rated export goods seized by authorities due to the non-generation of an E-invoice. The vehicle carrying the export goods of zero rated had been detained under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
The High Court concluded that the provisional release of the goods should be allowed if the petitioner could provide evidence that the transaction was reported as a zero-rated export in the GSTR-1 return. However, the court clarified that the petitioner still had the right to challenge the detention order by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
The division bench of the Karnataka High Court in a ruling in favour of Patanjali foods limited, has held that Claims not included in approved resolution plan are extinguished. It was viewed that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), no further proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor in respect of claims which are not included in the resolution plan.
While allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2023, passed by the CESTAT. The demand of Rs. 19,40,00,646 made by the revenue against the appellant-assessee under the order dated 31.07.2012 was held to have abated and extinguished.
In the recent ruling the Delhi High Court,upheld the customs compounding fees imposed on the petitioners, finding them reasonable as they constituted a small fraction of the seized currency.
The bench observed that the amounts determined were a minor fraction of the currency carried by the petitioners. It concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioners were granted an additional thirty days to deposit the specified amounts and submit proof of payment to the Compounding Authority.
The Madras High Court sets aside an ex parte Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order issued six months after the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) on 10% pre-deposit condition. The court also directed to lift the bank account on receipt of the payment.
The bench also instructed the GST authorities to provide the petitioner with a clear 14-day notice for a personal hearing, ensuring that the case is heard on merits. In addition, the Court directed the department to instruct the concerned bank to release the attachment immediately upon receiving proof of the 10% payment.
The Madras High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department to re-do the assessment considering the amendments in Finance Act ( No. 2 ), 2024 in a matter of rejection of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claim filed beyond the statutory period mentioned under Section 16(4) of the GST Act.
The Madras High Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department to re-do the assessment considering the amendments in Finance Act ( No. 2 ), 2024 in a matter of rejection of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claim filed beyond the statutory period mentioned under Section 16(4) of the GST Act.
In a recent case,the Delhi High Court ordered the restoration of the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration of petitioner, whose business, “Shri Salasar Balaji Steel,” had faced suspension due to alleged non-compliance with Rule 86B of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Rules
A coram of Vibhu Bakhru ( Justice ) and Sachin Datta ( Justice ) disposed of the petition in favour of the petitioner allowing him to resume his business activities without further delay.
In the recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ,upheld the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( CIT ) to revise the assessment due to the Assessing Officer’s ( AO ) failure to verify dishonored cheques.
Upon further appeal to the court, the appellant’s case was dismissed. The court ruled that the CIT had correctly invoked Section 263 of the Act, as the AO’s failure to properly investigate the dishonored cheques rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the plea challenging ED arrest, observing that the arrest was made in well documented reason to believe under section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ) .It was found that the Arresting Officer had conveyed his intention, reasons, grounds and belief to arrest the petitioner.
The court Viewed that the satisfaction of the concerned Officer is also duly reflected in the wordings and the necessity of arrest and has also clearly revealed. Thus, there is no fault in the grounds of arrest and consequent arrest.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the non-functionality of the Income Tax Department’s TRACES Portal cannot be used as a justification to deny an assessee the benefits provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
It stated, “The rights which have been given to the assessee under the Income Tax Act cannot be withheld due to the non functionality of the TRACES.” The court further directed that the refund, along with interest, must be issued or set off against any outstanding tax payable by the petitioner within 30 days.
In a recent ruling the Delhi High Court, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s ( ITAT ) decision to invalidate an assessment order for exceeding the statutory timelines under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Revenue counsel, Mr. Bhatia, argued that the assessee should not benefit from filing objections after the 30-day period. However, this argument was unconvincing. Section 144C(4) of the Act clearly stated that the Assessing Officer was still required to issue the final order within the stipulated timeframe, regardless of the late objections.
The Madras High Court has ruled in favour of a manufacturing company facing financial difficulties, allowing it to clear its pre-GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) dues of Rs. 1.2 crores through monthly instalments. However, the court also instructed the department to take legal actions against the company if it fails to clear the dues within 12 months.
The court also warned that if the company fails to comply with this payment plan, the authorities are authorised to take legal action, which may include attaching the company’s properties for recovery.
The Karnataka High Court held that recovery proceedings initiated under Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST Act) during pendency of investigation stating ‘Self Ascertainment of Tax’ is violative of Article 265. It was clarified that when notice sought to be issued under section 74(1) indicate a fresh and complete adjudication and does not refer to short fall of actual tax required to be paid as contemplated under section 74(7), the State itself is estopped from contending that there was self-ascertainment by the assessee.
The High Court directed the Department to refund the amount of Rs.2.50 crores along with interest, which was alleged to be recovered by the Department in the garb of ‘self-ascertainment’ and partly allowed the Assessee’s petition.
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a demand order issued against AXA France Vie-India (AXA) demanding the payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on reinsurance services rendered by AXA.
In light of the observations, the Delhi High Court allowed the Writ Petition while insisting that the GST Council and Union Government had taken conscious decisions to regularize the period between 01.07.2017 to 26.07.2018 and further quashed the impugned demand order dated 20.12.2023 issued against the Petitioner.
The condonation application for delay in filing a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) appeal was rejected by the Allahabad High Court. The bench referred to the precedent where it was ruled that the Section 107 of the GST Act is a complete code and it excludes the general limitation provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The writ petition which challenged the dismissal of appeal on grounds of limitation was dismissed again by the high court. Taking M/s Yadav Steels as precedent, the court refuses to condone the delay in filing the GST appeal and dismissed the petition.
The Kerala High Court in a recent case ruled that the restrictive interpretation adopted to the application of the limit prescribed with reference to yearly deposits by clubbing Public Provident Fund ( PPF ) accounts is incorrect. The court quashed the order and directed to the respondents to credit the amount of Rs.6,87,021/- (Rupees Six lakhs eighty seven thousand and twenty one only) to the accounts of the petitioners with interest, as applicable under the PPF Act.
The court quashed the order and directed to the respondents to credit the amount of Rs.6,87,021/- (Rupees Six lakhs eighty seven thousand and twenty one only) to the accounts of the petitioners with interest, as applicable under the PPF Act.
In ruling in favour of Ola Fleet Technologies, the Telangana High Court held that issuing Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) order manually without considering reply on GST Portal amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
The court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order and the Authority is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice and proceed further in accordance with law from that stage.
In a recent case, the Kerala High Court held that tax/ penalty under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST/ SGST) can be imposed only for violations which may lead to evasion of tax or which was done with the intention to evade or in case of repeated violations.
The Court ruled that in cases of minor discrepancies, the authorities can impose penalties after considering Sections 122 and 126 of the Acts. The Court added that the Revenue Officials can still initiate proceedings under Section 129 of the Act in cases of expiry of e-bill or other discrepancies if such act was done with the intention to evade tax.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in its recent ruling has held that an Assessing Officer ( AO ) cannot refer an assessee’s file to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for levying penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without recording its “satisfaction”.The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is required to be recorded because the officer, who passed the assessment order would not be levying the penalty under Sec.271D of the Act, unless it is recorded in the assessment order, he cannot refer the file to superior officer for initiating levy of penalty.
It was evident that there will not be any occasion to the Joint Commissioner, who is not the Assessing Officer, to exercise his jurisdiction to levy Penalty under Section 271D Unless the Assessing Officer, who is the primary authority, based on the material before it, during assessment proceedings, arrives at a finding that there has been a violation of the provisions, like in the present case, of Section 269SS. The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order of the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) and held that the Appellate Authority under CGST Act cannot suo motu enhance tax liability on an assessee, without following the procedure under Section 107(11) of the CGST/ WBGST Act.
While allowing the appeal, the court set aside the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, in light of some subsequent events.
The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally in connection with the Delhi excise policy money laundering case. The bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar ruled in favor of the Businessman stating that “We are inclined to grant him bail”
The court noted that the Enforcement Directorate did not oppose the bail plea during the hearing, which likely contributed to the decision. The Supreme Court granted him bail noting that all other accused in the case had already been granted bail and saw no reason to treat Boinpally differently. The court directed the petitioner to surrender his passport and not to leave Delhi except for a visit to his hometown ( Hyderabad ).
In a significant case, the Supreme Court while upholding the order of the Madras High Court held that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) had no jurisdiction to consider the claim by Assessee in revised return filed after time prescribed under section 139(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The two Judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka And Justice Augustine George Masih found that the Tribunal had not exercised its power under Section 254 of the IT Act to consider the claim. Instead, the Tribunal directed the assessing officer to consider the appellant’s claim. The assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the assessee in the revised return filed after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India ruled that mere suspicion of speedy loan sanction alone was insufficient proof of credit facility misuse and ordered the discharge of the Ex-Chairman of the Central Bank.
The court noted that the Loan Advisory Committee and other senior officials had already approved the credit facilities before the matter reached Respondent. It noted that there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the respondent personally conspired or benefited from the loans.
The Supreme Court has recently held that broken period interest incurred on securities treated as stock-in-trade is in the nature of revenue expense and that Income Tax Deduction can be allowed on the same.
The Court held that when securities are held as stock-in-trade, any income generated, including interest income, forms part of business income. Consequently, the broken period interest paid during the purchase of securities is considered a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure, which qualifies for deduction from business income under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court has held that the “royalty” charged by municipal corporations to advertising companies for installing hoardings and advertisements cannot be classified as a “tax.”
The Court clarified that royalty and tax are not synonymous terms. Consequently, the corporation’s authority to impose royalty cannot be challenged on the basis that it lacks explicit provision in the Act or relevant regulations, as the issue of royalty being a tax does not arise. Section 431 of the Act, therefore, is not applicable when royalty is levied through agreements or understandings.
In the recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) regarding the attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
It upheld the tax authorities’ approach in attributing a portion of offshore sales to the appellant’s PE in India and confirmed the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The findings of the ITAT and the AO were sustained, and the appellant’s arguments were ultimately rejected.
In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court rejected Harris Jayaraj’s plea that Musician’s status does not fall under the definition of “service” as defined under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, and sought to quash the service tax notice.
The court emphasized that the adjudicating authority would consider the petitioner’s objections and decide the matter independently and without being influenced by any court observations. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the adjudication process to proceed.
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court directed the tax authorities to provide supporting documents to the petitioner. This decision was made due to tax authorities issuing a Show Cause Notice on the cancellation of GST registration without proper details.
The court observed that despite the claims made in the notice, the respondent failed to supply the necessary documents referred to in the notice. Therefore, the court directed the respondent to provide all relevant documents mentioned in the show-cause notice within ten days. The petitioner’s writ petition was disposed of with directions.
The Gujarat High Court in a recent case has held that the assessee is not required to produce documents when the Assessing officer ( AO ) accepted co-owner’s indexed renovation expenses in income tax assessment order.
The division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the assessee should not produce documents to prove his share of the indexed renovation expenses because in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Ravi R Agarwal, the other co-owner of the flat, the assessing officer has accepted the amount of Rs.2,95,859/- as the cost of renovation of indexation. Therefore, this figure has to be accepted as correct and suitable allowance should be made while arriving at the long term capital gain.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that section 81 of the central goods and service tax ( CGST ) Act , 2017 is not invokable to declare transfer of property void without determining ‘nature of transaction’. Section 81 provides that where a person parts with his/her property after any amount has become due from him under the Act, with the intention of defrauding the Government revenue, such transfer shall be void.
Accordingly, it stayed the provisional attachment order issued against the Petitioner and posted the matter to October 23. Meanwhile, the Petitioners are also restrained from alienating the property.
In a significant case, the Kerala High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated against a deceased assessee. Section 148A of the Income Tax Act allows the Income Tax officers to initiate reassessment proceedings when they suspect that a taxpayer may have concealed income during any assessment year.
The single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed that “the procedure contemplated by Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates the issuance of a show cause notice etc., before reassessment proceedings are commenced. This cannot be a mere formality.” Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 addresses the notice that the income tax department may send regarding any income that may have escaped assessment in prior assessment years.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the blocking of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) by the tax authorities without providing a proper hearing or establishing concrete reasons.
The court emphasised the draconian nature of Rule 86A, which can severely impact businesses by restricting their ability to utilise tax credits. Therefore, strict adherence to procedural safeguards and the presence of objective reasons are mandatory. As a result, the Karnataka High Court ordered the tax authorities to unblock the petitioner’s ITC immediately, allowing them to file returns and continue their business operations.
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the non-submission of the reply to the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) cannot be a ground for the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration. The court set aside the orders.
Thus, the court found merit in this argument, granting the petitioner relief by setting aside the cancellation and appellate orders. The petitioner has been allowed to submit a reply to the SCN within three weeks, and the authorities are instructed to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law.
The Kerala High Court held that provisions of section 74 of CGST Act can be invoked if assessee fails to report actual sales to evade tax. While dismissing the appeal, the bench opined that the department is also right in contending that the Officer did not invoke the extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee was an unregistered person but on the ground of suppression of sales willfully for the purpose of evasion of tax.
While dismissing the appeal, the bench opined that the department is also right in contending that the Officer did not invoke the extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee was an unregistered person but on the ground of suppression of sales willfully for the purpose of evasion of tax.
In a notable decision, the Jharkhand High Court has granted bail to the accused in a case involving an alleged ₹54.33 crore fraudulent Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) scam under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) regime.
Bail granted in this high-profile GST case aligns with the undeniable importance of concrete evidence in financial fraud investigations. While the prosecution alleged a massive ITC fraud involving multiple shell companies, the lack of documentary proof ultimately led the court to favour the bail.
In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a revenue appeal upholding the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) decision, which did not accept the revenue’s argument about the genuineness of a particular transaction.
The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court observed that no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal’s order, as the issue was primarily factual and had already been settled by the ITAT. The High Court upheld this view, noting that no appeal had been filed by the revenue at the tribunal level challenging the genuineness or nature of the transaction as a colorable device.
In the recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi,affirmed the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961,dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner against the reopening of its assessment for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
The court, however, noted that the reopening was not without basis. It observed that the reassessment was prompted by findings from a search operation involving a third-party entity, M/s Spaze Group. During investigations, it was discovered that M/s JMD International, which had financial dealings with the petitioner, was engaged in issuing accommodation entries and providing false billing.
In a significant case, the Kerala High Court has upheld the1 Lakh penalty under Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( KVAT Act ), 2005 for Non-Declaration in Form 8FA as it is mandatory under Act.The court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and confirmed the penalty on the petitioner only in an amount of Rs.1 lakh which would be sufficient taking note of the infringements occasioned by the petitioner of the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules.
The division bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the petitioner/assessee failed to cover the consignment that was brought by him from Mumbai to Cochin by a valid Form 8FA declaration as mandated under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, the Commercial Tax Authorities in the State were perhaps justified in assuming that but for the detection, the petitioner might have well evaded his tax liability by clandestinely selling the consignment of jewellery within the State of Kerala.
The Kerala High Court in a recent case has held that the CENVAT credit on GTA services ( Goods Transport Agency ) applicable on services availed up to place of removal. The court viewed that permitting the appellant to avail input tax credit in such circumstances would militate against the very Scheme of CENVAT credit, which is designed to avoid the cascading effect of tax and an ultimate burden on a consumer.
While dismissing the appeal, the division bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has observed that the appellant did not include the transportation costs in the assessable value of the goods for the purposes of payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant can claim input tax credit in respect of the transportation services availed by it for the purposes of transporting the goods from the place of removal to the buyer’s premises.
In a recent case, the Kerala High Court held that summons issued under section 70 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST) , 2017 does not initiate proceedings under section 6(2)(b) of the act. Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 lays down the law regarding the power of the officer to summon any person before them to provide evidence in the form of documents regarding any specific matter. Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prohibits separate initiation of proceedings on the same subject-matter by the proper officer under the C.G.S.T. Act.
The bench after referring to Section 6(2) of the CGST Act, observed that where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject matter.
The Orissa High Court held that claims before approval of resolution plan were extinguished on approval of plan under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ( IBC ), 2016. The court held that the resolution plan was approved on June 22, 2018 extinguished all liabilities predating the date of approval of resolution plan therefore the claims of the state with respect to the period prior to the approval date cannot be entertained.
The division bench of Mr. Justice D.Dash and Mr. Justice V. Narasingh upheld the contention of the petitioner and observed that once a resolution is approved, it binds all the stakeholders as per section 31 of the IBC. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.(2019) wherein it was held that approval of resolution plan is binding on all the stakeholders under section 31 of the IBC.
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court condoned delay in filing the tax appeal due to medical grounds and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5000 to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.
To ensure the end of justice, the court ordered that the delay in filing the appeal would be condoned if the petitioner paid a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority within one month. If the payment was made, the earlier dismissal of the appeal would be set aside and the appeal would be restored for consideration on merits. If the petitioner failed to pay the cost, the original assessment would be revived.
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) registration cancellation order due to issuance without stating specific reasonings for the cancellation.
A single bench led by Justice Piyush Agrawal, J. reviewed the impugned order and observed that the order of cancellation was devoid of any specific reasoning. The court referred to previous rulings by the same court, where similar orders were quashed for lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice.
In a recent case, the Gujarat High Court directed to avoid pedantic approach while considering petition under section 119(2)(b) Income Tax Act, 1961 and condoned one year delay in filing return.
A division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt criticised the “pedantic approach” in deciding Petitioner’s application under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision empowers Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) to direct Income Tax authorities to allow refund/ deduction claims or any other relief under the Act, even after the expiry of prescribed limitation period.
In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court stayed the notice issued under section 148 of Income Tax Act , 1961 till the disposal of Writ Petition challenging the jurisdictional issue relating to issuance of notice.Since the above writ petition raises a jurisdictional issue, the same shall be heard, the Court directed to file affidavit-in-opposition to the present writ petition within a period of eight weeks after the annual vacation.
Taking into consideration the prima facie case as has been made out by the petitioner and the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Chief Justice in the case of Girdhar Gopal Dalmia vs. Union of India & Ors., where the Division Bench while considering the competence of the jurisdictional assessing officer to issue a notice under Section 148 of the said Act, consequent upon publication of the Scheme vide Notification dated 29th March, 2022, and while admitting the appeal had stayed the said notice.
In a recent case, the High Court Of Punjab And Haryana directs commissioner to take action and imposes penalty as the Assistant Commissioner ( AC ) rejected the goods and Service Tax Refund solely on the ground of limitation. The Court set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and directed the Commissioner to appoint another officer to deal with the application relating to refund of the petitioner, who would decide it purely on merits within a stipulated period of two months.
It was observed that “If subordinate officers do not comply with the appellate orders, it would be something sort of administrative chaos. Such officers are required to be dealt with by the Department in a strict manner, so that they may not create a precedent for others to start insubordination. It also reflects in general public faith in filing appeals, which would be wavered if the appellate orders are not complied with. Litigation is also forced unnecessarily before this Court. Such insubordination requires to be dealt with more strictness.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
