This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from August 14 to August 20, 2022.
In a significant ruling, the division bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy ruled that State has no Obligation to indicate HSN Code and GST Rates in Public Tender. The Court observed that “There is no duty cast on the appellants to seek such direction. Therefore, the appellants are right in contending that there is no statutory duty, which could have been enforced in the manner done in the impugned Judgment. There is no public duty that is enforceable. “
In a major relief to those who are yet to receive long-pending insurance claims with interest, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that TDS cannot be deducted by the insurance companies on the interest on the compensation amount till 1.06.2015. In view of the judgment in Janki’s case (supra) passed by the Single Bench of this Court, prior to the amendment of Clause IX and after insertion of Clause IX-A under Section 194(A)(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 no interest will be deductible at source even if the interest is beyond Rs.50,000/- in a particular year. Therefore, the Insurance Company has to pay the interest of compensation accrued to the claimants prior to 1.6.2015 even if the TDS is deposited with the Income Tax Authorities at that time and the claimants cannot be burdened with filing of return for seeking refund for any fault of the Insurance Company.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a re-assessment order under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the income tax department demanding huge amount of tax without any basis. While quashing the order, a bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani, and Justice Jayant Banerji imposed a cost of Rs. 50 lakhs on the department for the arbitrary actions and abuse of power.
The Calcutta High Court, remanding a matter back to the files of the GST authorities, held that the one-line order dismissing an appeal on ground of delay in filing without discussing the merits of the case shall be deemed as invalid for the Goods and Services Act, 2017
The Single judge bench of the Kerala High Court held that disqualification of the director under section 164(2) of the companies act,1956 cannot be invoked in the case of a liquidated company. While allowing the writ petition, Justice V G Arun quashed the order of disqualification under section 164(2) of the Companies Act,1956 and the respondents are directed to forth with activate the petitioner’s DIN bearing No.01858905, enabling him to continue as Director in the active companies.
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court has held that the goods or conveyance shall not be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods on the allegation of making transit in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 or connected Rules. The division bench, after hearing arguments from both sides, held that “a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 129 shows that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods on the allegation of making transit in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rule made thereunder
The Orissa High Court has held that the products, Robinson Barley and Purity Barley are subject to sales of tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (OST Act) under the residual entry at 12%. Upholding the findings of the department, the Court dismissed the plea of the assessee and held that Robinson Barley and Purity Barley manufactured by the Petitioner should be taxed under the residual Entry 189 of List C of the Rate Chart appended to the OST Act and not Entry 25 relating to ‘cereals’.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
