High Courts Weekly Round-Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from June 26 to July 3, 2022.

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 500

The Madras High Court has ruled that, the period of limitation under the Sections 153 (2A) or 153 (3) was applicable even for remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel. The entire proceedings had to be conducted within a period of 9 months as contemplated under Section 144C (12) of the Income Tax Act.

M/s.Redington (India) Limited vs Principal Additional Director General CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 506

The Madras High Court, while upholding the validity of the show-cause notice issued by DGGI officers held that these officers are “Central Excise officers” for the purpose of exercising various functions under the Central Excise Act and Finance Act, 1994. The Court concluded that “As mentioned above, under Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Board can appoint any other officer to exercise power within the “local limits”. However, that would not mean that the officers of” Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) [presently The Directorate of GST Intelligence]” who are already “Central Excise Officers” under Notification No.38/2001-C.E. (N.T), dated 26.06.2001 for whole of India cannot exercise power pan India. Notification No.22/2014-ST dated 6.09.2014 is to be read in conjunction with Notification No.38/2001- C.E. (N.T), dated 26.06.2001.”

M/s. Mahadev Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 503

The Madras High Court has held that the re-export of betelnut products under the customs act can be done by executing a bond which covers the value of the goods. Justice S S Sundar and Justice S Srimathy observed that the respondent has given an undertaking that they will execute a bond to cover the value of the goods, pending adjudication, if, the appellants permit him to re-export the goods taking into consideration the fact that goods are perishable and it will be good for both to permit the respondent to reexport the goods subject to reasonable conditions to protect the interest of the Revenue.

PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 494

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has disallowed refund of accumulated credit of compensation cess in the absence of ITC of cess in Credit Ledger for relevant period. The petitioner challenged the show cause notices issued and the consequential orders passed by the competent authority refusing claim for refund of accumulated credit of compensation cess.

G.K.International vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 502

The Madras High Court held that the Maximum period for demurrage and detention charges waivers is 60 days. The Court observed that “In this regard, it is to be noted that, since the maximum period of demurrage and detention charges waivers could be possible for 60 days, beyond which, there is no scope for such demurrage and detention charges waiver in view of the proviso to Regulations 10(l) of 2018 Regulations, since the said two months period had already been given from 18.11.2021 to 13.01.2022, in my considered view beyond 13.01.2022, the petitioner cannot seek for any such waiver for detention and demurrage charges.”

M/S S.S. FOOD KATHER vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 501

In a ruling delivered on Monday, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the product “rusk” shall be treated as “Bread” for the purpose of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act for granting tax exemption. A bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia was considering a bunch of writ petition filed by various food manufacturers relating to the classification adopted by the petitioners on sale of ‘Bread-Rusk’ under Entry 9 of Schedule B under the HPVAT Act as “Bread”, exempted from VAT.

Shri Dharampal R.Pandia vs Assistant Commissioner of Income CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 498

The Madras High Court has held that the act of deliberate concealment of income by the assessee by not filing the income tax return is an offence and therefore, upheld the criminal proceedings. The concealment/suppression of income came to light only after the survey. If the survey was not conducted, the concealment of income would not have come to light at all. Only after the statutory notice under section 148 was issued, petitioner filed a return of income and then, it was assessed. The wilful and deliberate concealment of true and correct income by not filing the return of income within the time stipulated is clearly and plainly evident from the facts of this case. From the case laws pressed into service, it was found that there was no wilful intention to conceal the income and there was no wilful delay in filing the return. However, facts of this case are totally different and therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.”

ADI ENTERPRISES vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 495

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice A.J.Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has allowed IGST refund alongwith interest in the light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Mohit Minerals v. Union of India. Allowing the application, the division bench held that “We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in group of writ petitions, referred to herein above. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present application requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed in terms of prayer 6 (a). The respondents are hereby directed to grant refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to the Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 along with statutory rate of interest on such refund within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of necessary documents by the applicants. Rule is made absolute.”

INDO ENVIRO INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 496

A division bench of the Delhi High Court consists of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has stayed an income tax assessment order and consequential demand and notice of penalty, which were assailed on grounds of being in contravention of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Subh Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 497

The Calcutta High Court has directed for fresh adjudication of income tax assessment as the Assessing Officer passed the order before the due date of submission of documents by the assessee as per the assessment notice under section 142(1) of the Act, 1961. Allowing the plea of the petitioner, Justice Nizamuddin quashed the order and observed that “Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition being WPA No.11183 of 2022 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 4th February, 2022 and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer concerned to pass fresh speaking order on the objection to the recorded reason by dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in its objection and further considering the response to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act which is to be filed by the petitioner within seven days from date. Needless to mention that before passing the fresh assessment order, the opportunity of hearing should be provided to the petitioner.”

Buy books of essential tax practice with exciting offers at shopscan.in