The Madras High Court quashed the Income Tax Order passed without issuance of show cause notice, mandatory draft assessment order.
The petitioner, Abdul Azeez Rahamathunisa is an octogenarian aged about 80 years. The petitioner had suffered personal bereavement on account of death of her Power Holder who was taking care of the petitioner’s requirements as the petitioner is a NRI.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order on the ground that the aforesaid order was not preceded with the issuance of a show cause notice and draft assessment order as is contemplated under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen residing in Dubai and that there was a bereavement and that the petitioner herself contracted COVID at the time, when three notices were issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The single bench of Justice C.Saravanan noted that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of a show cause notice and mandatory draft assessment order, the impugned order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained.
“The case is remitted back to the first respondent to pass a speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order which stands quashed by this order shall be treated as a show cause notice and draft assessment order,” the court said.
The court added, “the respondents are also given liberty to issue corrigendum, if any, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall give appropriate reply within a period of 30 days thereafter. The first respondent shall pass the final order preferably before the expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to suitably direct the administrator of the Web Portal to facilitate the petitioner to file a reply and to attend personal hearing through Video Conferencing either by herself or by her authorized representative.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Barcadi has invited applications for the post of Senior Executive Operations Finance.
Senior Executive Operations Finance will manage plant accounting, cost analysis, ensure controls & compliance, logistics and procurement. Internally your key relationships will be with plant operations team, regional and HO finance team, sales team and externally with regulatory officials, tax consultants & copacker teams.
Responsibilities:
Qualifications:
Location: Moonak
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Deloitte has invited applications for the post of USI-EH-CTC FO Interfirm-Assistant Manager. Responsibilities: Assist, guide and support team members in order to deliver exceptional service to clients Maintain accountability for status reporting and daily work planning.Effectively manage the groups with respect to their daily activities, manage utilization, and allocate workload, Expected team size of…
The Karnataka High Court allowed the assessee to file rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days.
The petitioner, Eid Party has sought the directions to respondent either to open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to again file the rectified TRAN-I form electronically which was originally filed physically or to permit the petitioner to manually transition the credit amounting to Rs.4,96,163/- to their Electronic Credit Ledger under the GST regime and for other reliefs.
The respondents, while not disputing that the issue in controversy in the present petition is covered by the aforesaid decision, submits that direction can be to the respondents to permit the petitioner to file rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from today.
The single bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar held that ii) The petitioner is permitted to file once again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from today; pursuant to the petitioner filing the said form, respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Karnataka High Court held that the Toyota is an output service provider and can utilise cenvat credit on output services.
The respondent, M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors claims to be manufactures of Multiutility Vehicles (MUV) for passenger cars and parts thereof falling under chapter sub-heading 8703.23.10 and 8708.10.90 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff and they are registered under the Central Excise and Service Tax. The respondent-assessee has received intellectual property services, commissioning and installation services and maintenance and repair services from their parent company situated abroad and GTA services from M/s Transystem Logistics International (P) Ltd., Bengaluru. They have utilized the credit availed on inputs, input services and capital goods for payment of service tax on the services from April 2006 to August 2006 totaling to Rs.33,30,39,951/-.
The Commissioner of Central Excise had issued the show cause notice calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the input service tax utilized for payment of service tax on services viz., intellectual property services, commissioning and installation services and maintenance and repair services and also GRA services for the period under consideration should not be treated as irregular and recovery under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, with interest and penalty should not be ordered.
The division bench of Justice S.Sujatha and Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty held that CESTAT has rightly applied the law laid down by this Court and the same deserves to be confirmed by the Court. The counsel has invited the attention of this Court to various relevant provisions of the Service Tax Act and Rules as well as the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, TTMC BUILDING, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE vs M/s TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTORS
CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 177
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
In a major relief to the Ultratech Cement, the Orissa High Court set aside the Retrospective amendment in Industrial Policy Resolution denying GST reimbursement.
The Petitioner is stated to be operating cement manufacturing units in various states in India including a cement manufacturing unit in Jharsuguda District in Odisha. According to the Petitioners, the said unit is a state-of-the-art cement manufacturing industrial unit which, inter alia, utilizes intermediate products (clinker) and waste products (fly ash) generated by other industrial undertakings along with gypsum as a raw material to manufacture high-quality cement.
It is stated that the cement manufacturing process undertaken by Petitioner is a controlled manufacturing process resulting in high-value addition, employment generation, and revenue augmentation. It is stated that the said manufacturing process requires substantial investment in high-end plant and machinery, monitoring and regulation through sophisticated electrical, mechanical and instrumentation systems by qualified technical personnel.
The division bench headed by Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice A.K. Mohapatra noted that the opposite Parties themselves have granted the eligibility certificate and verification certificate. In fact, the orders sanctioning the VAT reimbursement have been passed on 6th June 2017. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in denial of the benefit of SGST reimbursement to Petitioner.
The Court rejected the plea of the opposite Parties that it is being called upon in the present case to review a policy decision. The Court is in fact being asked to examine the reasonableness of the decision of the Opposite Parties to retrospectively take away the benefits already extended to an existing unit under IPR 2007. Consequently, none of the decisions relied upon by the Opposite Parties in the context of judicial review of policy decisions of the State have any applicability to the facts of the present case.
The Court sets aside the order dated 6th October 2018 issued by the Director of Industries withdrawing the earlier order granting Petitioner the exemption. The Court also sets aside the resolution dated 18th August 2020 retrospectively amending IPR 2007. It is clarified that the said amendment would have only a prospective effect and would not affect the entitlement of Petitioner to the incentives for the period prior to the said amendment.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Gujarat High Court held that mere undervaluation of goods or change of route of consignment cannot be sufficient grounds to detain goods, vehicle under GST. The petitioner, Karnataka Traders challenged the confiscation notice issued by the Tax Commissioner (Enforcement) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax…
The Gujarat High Court has issued the notice to the Axis Bank on a plea challenging the provisional attachment of cash credit account running.
The petitioner, Manish Scrap Industries has assailed the order of provisional attachment of a cash credit account running in the name of the writ applicant, maintained with the Axis Bank at Vapi. The impugned order of provisional attachment of the cash credit account has been passed in the Form GST DRC-22. The order has been passed by the respondent in exercise of powers under the provisions of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The cash credit account in the case on hand, could be said to have been opened to enable the writ applicant to borrow the money from the Bank for the purpose of its business. Any money therefore, that the Bank may make available to the assessee would necessarily be in the nature of a loan or a cash credit facility. In either case, it would be in the nature of borrowing by the writ applicant from the Bank. In such circumstances, the Bank and the writ applicant therefore, do not have the debtor-creditor relationship.
The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore Prima facie opined that the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Surat is in contempt. He owes an explaination as to on what basis he has distinguished all the orders passed by this Court over a period of time taking the view that a cash credit account could not be provisionally attached in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Act, 2017.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Pepsico has invited applications for the post of Manager – Finance.
Job Description:
Qualifications:
Location: Hyderabad, India
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) held that 1% GST payable on a Composition taxpayer engaged in manufacture of Sweet, Namkins, doing only the counter sales.
The applicant, Chikkaveeranna Sweet Stall stated that he is running a sweet stall and is engaged in manufacturing the sweets and doing counter sales on a retail basis. He also states that he is registered as “Composition Taxpayer” under GST and selling the goods over the counter and not having any facility of restaurant or hotel.
The applicant stated that at present they are paying 1% composition tax on total turnover, as he is a manufacturer of sweets and not providing any goods for human consumption at the place of shop.
The applicant has sought the advance ruling in respect of Composition tax payers what is the applicable rate of GST for the manufacturing of sweet and namkeens and selling the goods over the counter not having any facility of restaurant or hotel or not a part thereof and not giving for human consumption at the place of shop.
The coram of Dr. M.P.Ravi Prasad and T.Kiran Reddy ruled that Rate of GST applicable for a Composition tax payer who are engaged in the manufacture of sweet and namkeens and who is doing only the counter sales, is one percent (0.5% COST and 0.5% SGST) subjected to the condition mentioned in the Notification No. 8/2017-Central Tax dated: 27.06.2017 and further amended notifications.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Chartered Accountant has sold his house to fund his passion for planting trees.
CA C.M. Venkatesh is a native of Chamarajanagara, been fond of trees since childhood. Cutting down of thousands of trees by the PWD authorities in 2016 for the widening of roads left Venkatesh heartbroken as Chamarajanagara was rendered bald.
In the past five years, Venkatesh has planted more than 8,000 trees within the town and on the outskirts. They include Honge, Bevu, Hebbevu, Devagana, Akasha mallige , Basavanapada, and other species. Now the trees have grown up to 5-10 feet tall giving cool shade to people at Sampige Road, Chamarajanagar Jodi Road, Deviation Road, Court Road, Sampi Road, Railway Station Road, District Ambedkar Stadium, Central College, and other areas.
Venkatesh takes such loving care of the trees that he deploys water tankers in summer to nurture them. However, his service to nature has driven him into debts. He has spent lakhs of rupees from his own pocket. Last month, he even sold his only house for Rs 22 lakh and repaid the loans, and moved into a rented house.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued the clarification on Form 3CA-3CD, 3CB-3CD.
In order to avoid errors in form filing and verification, the CBDT has asked to ensure to Use the latest version of the utility for generating JSON, re-enter data, if any, in clauses 11, 18, 20, 21, 26, and 34 and generate JSON for uploading on the portal, Ensure that the below details are correctly entered in the utility and selected in the portal for which form is being filed PAN of Taxpayer Assessment Year, CA Membership Number, and Form Filing Type.
For the form verification by DSC The latest Emsigner/ Embridge application is installed in your system; The token must be logged in by the user; Profile and contact details are updated in taxpayer and CA log in; Localhost e-Mudhra is not blacklisted by the System Admin, and e-Mudhra token drivers are updated.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Supreme Court held that the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are Statutory Binding on Financial Institutions Like Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI).
Plaintiff SIBCO purchased the Bonds in the form of promissory notes issued by the defendant SIDBI. These are termed as SIDBI Bonds 2003 (4th Series) carrying 13.50% interest and SIDBI Bonds 2004 (5th Series) generating interest at the rate of 12.50%, from one Shankar Lal Saraf on 1st July, 1998. The interest is payable on a half-yearly basis. The Bonds are freely tradable in the market. M/s. SIBCO purchased Bonds of the face value of ten lakhs each for an aggregate price of Rs. 3.69 crores on 1st July, 1998 by M/s. SIBCO from the said, Shankar Lal Saraf. The Bonds were deposited with M/s. SIDBI (defendant) on July 2, 1998, with the request to endorse the name of the Plaintiff-purchaser on the said Bonds. On refusal to register and/or record the name of the SIBCO by the defendant on the ground that CRB Capital had gone into involuntary liquidation proceedings at the instance of the RBI. At first, Plaintiff filed the petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking a mandamus upon the defendant to transfer the aforesaid Bonds in favor of the plaintiff and also to pay the interest accrued on them.
The issue raised was whether the plaintiff has set forth a just claim, based on the Bonds issued by the defendant, or is it a case of that trial in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice where Shylock is claiming the promised pound of flesh in the form of interest on delayed payment on the Bonds purchased by the plaintiff.
The division bench of Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy has stated that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has wide supervisory powers over financial institutions like the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI). So, deriving power from the RBI Act or the Banking Regulation (BR) Act, any direction issued by it is statutorily binding.
The bench observed that firstly, the defendant was justified in withholding payment, as they were under RBI’s direction to do so; secondly, the defendant hasn’t derived any undue benefit by their act and; thirdly, due payment was promptly made to the plaintiffs upon settlement of rights by the court. Moreover, the concerned transactions were during the “suspect spell”. This is our view shows that the defendant acted bona fide and there was no undue delay on their part, to remit the dues.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSmall Industries Development Bank of India vs M/s SIBCO Investment Pvt Ltd
2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 102
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Delhi Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that Adjudicating Authority Need Not Record Any Finding Regarding ‘Default’ at the time of application by the creditor to initiate insolvency resolution process.
The appellants, Kanchan Nanubhai Desai Personal Guarantor, Nanubhai Nichhabhai Desai Personal Guarantor, and Tusharkumar Nanubhai Desai Personal Guarantor filed the appeals against judgment and order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal.
A Petition was filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 through the Resolution Professional (RP), Sudha Bhushan, against the three Appellants who are before us in these three Appeals. On the Application filed through the Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority has passed the order directing the Resolution Professional to exercise the powers as enumerated under Section 99 of the ‘I&B Code’ read with the Rules made thereunder and submit the recommendations with reasons in writing for acceptance or rejection of Application within the stipulated time as envisaged under Section 99.
The Appellant contended that as per Section 97 of the ‘I&B Code’ even though Application was filed by the Resolution Professional, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have asked for confirmation of the Resolution Professional from the Board as required by Section 97 and at the stage when the report has not come from the Resolution Professional, there was no occasion to record any finding regarding default. He submits that the findings regarding the default were uncalled for and in view of the said finding, the Resolution Professional shall be handicapped to submit any negative report.
The coram headed by the Chairperson, Justice Ashok Bhushan Justice Jarat Kumar Jain and Dr. Alok Srivastava partly allowed the appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority, and directed that the observation regarding “default” be deleted from the judgment.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Market Regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has encouraged the Investors to go for Online Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
“Investors are encouraged to lodge their complaints through online mechanisms more specifically through SCORES portal and SCORES mobile application for effective redressal of grievances,” the circular said.
In order to increases the awareness regarding online grievance redressal mechanisms, all Recognized Stock Exchanges including Commodity Derivatives Exchanges/ Depositories / Clearing Corporations are advised to display the on the home page of their websites and mobile apps namely link / option to lodge complaint with them directly and link to SCORES website/ link to download SCORES mobile app.
All Recognized Stock Exchanges including Commodity Derivatives Exchanges or Depositories / Clearing Corporations are advised to make necessary amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations. Communicate to SEBI, the status of the implementation of the provisions of this circular through the Monthly Development Report (MDR).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has notified the Schema Change Document for Form 3CA-3CD in respect of the Income Tax Audit Report.
The purpose of the Schema Change Document for Form 3CA-3CD is to track the changes done in Form 3CA-3CD Schema post first release.
The Schema changes as of 3 November 2021; Schema changes as of 2 December 2021, and Schema changes as of 6 January 2022 describes the list of JSON schema changes since the first production release of the schema.
Form 3CA is in respect of a taxpayer carrying on a business or profession and who is already mandated to get his accounts audited under any other law (i.e. law other than income tax law).
Form 3CB is in respect of a taxpayer carrying on a business or profession but who is not required to get his accounts audited under any other law.
Form 3CD is a 41-points detailed statement of particulars. All the details related to various aspects of the business and transactions have to be filled inappropriate places.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that no Service Tax payable on entitlement towards “Cost Petroleum” is not a consideration for service to Government of India.
The appellant, B.G. Exploration & Production India Ltd. is primarily engaged in the business of developing, exploring and producing oil and gas from the contracted areas in Mid and South Tapti Fields and Panna & Mukta Fields (Offshore areas of Western India).
In terms of article 297 of the Constitution of India, lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or the continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone of India, vest in the Union and are to be held for the purposes of the Union. The Government of India took a policy decision to enter into public-private partnerships with private parties, with a view to optimise production of such natural resources. Accordingly, the Government of India issued a Notice Inviting Offers for joint ventures to develop medium sized oil fields in India. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Offers, the Government of India entered into contracts with private parties for production of petroleum and the costs and profits were shared between the Government and the private parties as per the formula prescribed and agreed in the Contracts. The purpose of the said Contracts was to obtain capital investment and technical expertise from the private parties to achieve the objective of optimum production. The common objective was to explore, develop and produce the maximum amount of mineral resource for commercial sale.
The coram headed by the president Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member, P.Anjani Kumar held that Contractors carry out the exploration and production of petroleum for themselves and not as a service to the Government of India and “Cost Petroleum” is not a consideration for service to Government of India and thus not taxable per se. It is, therefore, more than apparent that the aforesaid Circular only confirms the view taken by the Tribunal in the decision rendered on 06.10.2021.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Finance Ministry has allowed the PNB Housing Finance Limited to perform Aadhar Authentication under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 for the purposes of section 11A of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11A of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government on being satisfied that the reporting entity namely, “M/s. PNB Housing Finance Limited” complies with the standards of privacy and security under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016), and it is necessary and expedient to do so, and after consultation with the Unique Identification Authority of India established under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and the appropriate regulatory namely, the Reserve Bank of India, hereby permits the said reporting entity to perform authentication under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 for the purposes of section 11A of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002,” the notification read.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Deloitte has invited applications for the post of Manager – Talent Operations – Deployment – Tax.
The RM Services Manager leads more than one service area or regional team of RM Professionals to deliver RM services in alignment with TS mission and overall deployment strategy
Responsibilities:
Capabilities:
Location: Hyderabad
For more details and to apply, click here:
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the date of allotment is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period for the purpose of determining capital gain under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the instant case, the assessee was asked to explain the computation of…
The Chartered Accountants Association, Surat (CAAS) has filed the plea in Gujarat High Court seeking No Late Fees on Income Tax Return Filing.
The Chartered Accountants Association, Surat (CAAS) has filed a writ petition before Gujarat High Court through Advocate Dr. Avinash Poddar asked for no penalty, interest or late fees until New Income Tax Portal becomes glitch-free, setting up Grievance Redressal Committee and honouring Citizens Charter.
“CAAS has filed a writ before Hon’ble Guj HC through Adv Dr @caavinash asking for no penalty, interest or late fees until #NewIncomeTaxPortal becomes glitch-free, setting up Grievance Redressal Committee & honouring Citizens Charter,” the CAAS tweeted.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
