Supreme Court and High Courts Weekly Round-Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from October 10 to October 16, 2022.

M/S. DURGA RAMAN PATNAIK vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF GST CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 763

A division bench of the Orissa High Court has allowed the assessee to file GST returns prior to the cancellation of registration and directed the Government to make suitable changes on the portal for the same. Allowing relief to the assessee, the Court held that the petitioner is permitted to file returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not already been filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and statutory payments and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of sixty days (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, if it has not been already paid.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S BOEING INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 765

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act has no application once the nature of payment determined as salary and TDS has been made under Section 192, the Delhi High Court upheld the order of ITAT in deleting the addition under Section 192 read with section 195 of the Income Tax Act,1961. It was observed that salaries paid to such personnel asMr Laser are taxable in India and they cannot be considered to be fees for technical services. Further, even as per Section 9 of the Act, the payment cannot be treated as fees for technical service. Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) gives the meaning of the expression “fees for technical services” as per which, inter alia, any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head “salaries”, then such payment will not be considered as fees for technical services. Thus, even as per the provisions of the Act, the payment in question cannot be treated as fees for technical services. Moreover, since it is paid as salary to Mr Laser, tax has been deducted under Section 192 of the Act.”

Azam Laminators (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 762

In a recent ruling, a division bench of the Madras High Court upheld the action of the authorities denying CST exemption on a sale made to the merchant exporter finding that the commercial identity of the product was changed during the transaction. Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice C. Saravanan held that “on perusing the records, particularly the commercial invoice raised by the petitioner on the merchant exporter and the purchase order of the foreign buyer from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on the merchant exporter and the commercial invoice raised by the merchant exporter on the foreign buyer indicate that, what has been sold by the petitioner is not what has been exported by the petitioner. The commercial invoice of the petitioner indicates the price of M.G. Plain Kraft Paper as at Rs.16/- per Kg and that the petitioner had sold 69.278.0 Kg M.G.Plain Kraft Paper to the merchant exporter. What the merchant exporter has exported is Poly coated with LDPE Kraft Paper in Parcel Leaf size. There is no value addition in the price declared in the commercial invoice of the merchant exporter.”

B. MADHUKUMAR vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 761

The Kerala High Court has held that since the provisions of Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017 has overriding effect over the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore, a VAT Defaulter who opted for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017 need not pay collection charges. “It is not in dispute before me that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017. The provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Kerala Finance Act, 2017makes it abundantly clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the assessee/defaulter will not be liable to pay any collection charges. Section 31A(2) of the Kerala Finance Act of 2017 starts with a non obstante Clause and therefore, it will have an overriding effect over the contrary provision contained in the Revenue Recovery Act or in the Rules framed there under.” the Court said

CAPITAL ENTERPRISES vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 760

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench while dismissing an appeal filed by the assessee has upheld the objection by Revenue that where taxability is subject matter of challenge, the appeal would lie to Supreme Court and the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court is found to be not maintainable. Justice Vivek Rusia & Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) observed that “Even otherwise the appellant is challenging the taxability of the services rendered by him and not the amount of tax or value of the goods, therefore, Shri Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents has rightly objected to the maintainability of this appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act 1944. In view of Section 35 L of the Act of 1944, the appeal lies before the Apex Court.”

Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 759

The Madras High Court directed Assessing Officer (AO), to determine appropriate rate of tax of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF), thereby granting relief to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC). A Single Bench consisting of Justice Anitha Sumanth observed that “Thus, the order of assessment, in so far as it relates to the claim of concessional rate of tax on ATF is set aside, as is impugned order under Section 84. The petitioner will appear before the Assessing Officer on Thursday, the 29th of September, 2022, without awaiting any further notice in this regard, along with a copy of reply dated 29.02.2012 and other materials, if any, in support of its claim of concessional rate of tax.”

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs IFFCO LTD CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 756

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the dividend received by the assessee from OMIFCO, Oman is chargeable to tax in India under the head “Income from other sources” and forms part of the total income and therefore, the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made. Upholding the ITAT order, the Court held that “As per Section 2(45) of the Act, “total income” means the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Therefore, Section 14A pertains to disallowance of deduction in respect of income which does not form part of the total income. Since the dividend received by the assessee from OMIFCO, Oman is chargeable to tax in India under the head “Income from other sources” and forms part of the total income, the same is included in taxable income in the computation of income filed by the assessee. However, rebate of tax has been allowed to the assessee from the total taxes in terms of Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act read with Article 25 of the Indo Oman, DTAA and thus, the dividend earned can be said to be in the nature of excluded income and, therefore, the provisions of Section 14A would not be attracted in this case.”

Munjal Showa Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 175

Upholding the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the Supreme Court of India held that “Fraud” vitiates everything and the delay in issue of Show Cause Notice (SCN) was condoned in case of proceedings against M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. and M/s. Friends Trading Co. which involved Fraud as the TRAs and DEPB Licenses on the basis of which the TRAs were issued were found to be forged. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court that heard the case, comprising Justice M R Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed in concurrence with the High Court, Tribunal and the Commissioner of Customs that, “In that view of the matter and on the principle that fraud vitiates everything and such forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scripps are void ab initio, it cannot be said that the Department acted illegally in invoking the extended period of limitation. In the facts and circumstances, the Department was absolutely justified in invoking the extended period of limitation.”

STATE TAX OFFICER vs RAINBOW PAPERS LIMITED CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 174

The Supreme Court of India, upheld the Value Added Tax (VAT) Department’s claim for first charge over property of the corporate debtor, Rainbow Papers Limited and held that State is a ‘Secured Creditor’ under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). In conclusion, it was observed that “Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act.” and that “Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority.”

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs Union of India CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 754

A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that no interest and penalty can be levied on the portion of payment pertaining to surcharge, CVD and SAD as the Customs Tariff Act does not provide a mechanism for the same. Quashing the demand, the Court held that “in the absence of specific provisions for levying of interest or penalty due to delayed payment of tax unless the statute makes a substantive provision in this behalf, the same cannot be levied/charged. Sub-section (6) of Section 3 and sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not provide for any interest or penalty. Neither Section 90 of the Finance Act, 2000 provides for the same. Therefore, no interest and penalty can be levied on the portion of payment pertaining to surcharge, CVD and SAD.”

A.H. Marble Crafts vs The Commissioner Tax CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 755

In a ruling favouring the assessee, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST department cannot deny the benefit of linking of GSTIN on death of proprietor merely on the technical ground that the application for cancellation of GST registration was made using a wrong form. A division bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur directed the GST authorities to re-open the portal to allow the petitioner to file the same and held that “We feel that this absolute hyper technical ground cannot be considered valid so as to deny the petitioner from the opportunity to link the GSTIN of his father’s firm with the new GSTIN number of the firm. As a matter of fact, the petitioner gave the intimation about the death of the proprietor of the firm which fact establishes his bonafides that he is desirous of removing the anomalies and clearing off the tax liability.”

Tata Motors Limited vs Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 173

In a recent ruling, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the State of Jharkhand would be eligible to collect Central Sales Tax on the inter-state sale of vehicles/buses to the Andhra Pradesh State RTC (APSRTC) and has directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to transfer the CST collected to the State of Jharkhand. Disposing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot retain the amount of central sales tax paid by the appellant on the transaction of sale effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC.

CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 172

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that income tax deduction under section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961shall not be available to the late deposit of contributions towards the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme and the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. A division bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Uday Umesh Lalitand Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that “There is no doubt that in Alom Extrusions, this court did consider the impact of deletion of second proviso to Section 43B, which mandated that unless the amount of employers’ contribution was deposited with the authorities, the deduction otherwise permissible in law, would not be available. This court was of the opinion that the omission was curative, and that as long as the employer deposited the dues, before filing the return of income tax, the deduction was available.”

Mrs.Nirmala Menon vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 753

The Madras High Court has allowed the assessee to file first appeal before the competent forum under the GST Act considering the fact that the assessment order was published on the GST portal and the same was not intimated to the assessee. Disposing of the petition, Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth held that “In such circumstances and in view of there being no objection by Mr.Kaushik to the request of the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, time of two (2) weeks from today is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal. Appeal, if filed within the time as granted above, shall be taken on file without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance with all other statutory conditions, including pre-deposit.”

Jaymatajee Enterprise (Seller) And Another Vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 752

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, allowing the writ petition by Jaymatajee Enterprise (Seller) And Another against the seizure order issued by the Customs Department, allegedly, without sufficient reasons to believe that the Areca Nuts in question are imported illegally, held that the reasons to believe must be based on acceptable materials.

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 748

The Jharkhand High Court has granted bail to a Chartered Accountant/Insolvency Professional in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Granting bail to the petitioner, the Court held that “the purpose of exemption under section 205 Cr.P.C is that the order of the learned magistrate should be such which does not make any unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant and the learned court is required to ensure that exemption from personal appearance granted to the accused is not an abuse or delay the trial. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Riaz Khan Faridi v. The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation and analogous case(supra) has also considered the petition under section 205 Cr.P.C which arose pursuant to the F.I.R registered by the C.B.I. under the various sections of the IPC as well as the P.C.Act.”

Gaurav Dhir vs Central Goods and Services Tax CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 749

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a Chartered Accountant allegedly borrowed UDIN from colleague for the issuance of CA Certificate in connection with the GST refund. The petitioner was in custody from May 2022. Justice Aman Chaudhary observed that “In the present case the investigation has been completed and the challan stands presented; he is not involved in any other case; he is in custody since 17.5.2022; nothing is to be recovered from him; there are a total of 21 PWs; it is a Magisterial trial, which is yet to commence; thus, further incarceration of the petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.”

M/s.VBHC Chennai Value Homes Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 750

The Madras High Court, in a recent judgment has directed the VAT authorities to re-do the proceedings as the method for assessing the turnover from works contract was in contradictory to Rule 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007. Quashing the orders, Justice Anita Sumat held that “In light of the same, the impugned assessments are set aside and remanded to the assessing authority to be redone de novo, applying the methodology set out under Rule 8(5) of the Rules. For this purpose, and seeing as the assessments relate to the periods 2011-12 to 2013-14, the petitioner will appear before the assessing authority on 12.10.2022 at 10.30 a.m. without awaiting any further notice and make itssubmissions. The assessments shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

LOREAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 751

In a recent decision by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, directed the petitioner, L’Oréal India Pvt. Ltd. to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the Goods and Services Tax (GST) imposed on the net profiteered amount. Upholding the order of NAA, the Division Bench directed the petitioner to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount (which has already been deposited by the petitioner with the Department) in six equated installments and stayed the interest amount directed to be paid by the respondents as well as the penalty proceedings and further investigation by NAA in respect of other products sold by the petitioner, till further orders.

ARSHIA GLOBAL TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1 CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 747

While allowing an appeal filed by the income tax department, the Calcutta High Court has confirmed the addition in respect of the deposit of the unaccounted cash using nine shell companies. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam of Calcutta High Court observed that the genuineness of the transactions were not established by the assessee and the summons which were issued to those entities were also non complied with. These facts which were brought on record during the reassessment proceedings was reexamined by the CIT(A) who has also recorded its independent findings while upholding the order passed by the assessing officer.

M/S HITECH SWEET WATER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD vs STATE OF GUJARAT CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 746

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has quashed the show-cause notices in form GST DRC-01 holding that the same are issued without affording personal hearing to the assessee. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court held that “Only on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice in form of not giving opportunity of personal hearing and in order that the competent authority is enabled to decide afresh as per the statement of the learned AGP, the three impugned orders dated 19.04.2022 (Annexures-C-1 to C3 in the petition) issued by respondent no.2 are set aside. The competent authority, respondent, will give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within three weeks from today and pass in accordance with law, fresh orders within two weeks from the date of affording such personal hearing.”

A.Irudayaraju vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 745

The Madras High Court, has quashed the proceedings under the provisions of section 129 of the Central GST Act, 2017, has considered the fact that the time limit mentioned in the provision was not followed while passing the show-cause notice and the detention order.

Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra At the instance of Assistant Director CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 744

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Former Maharashtra State Home Minister, Anil Deshmukh in a Money Laundering Case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Justice N J Jamadar observed that “The Applicant appears to have roots in society. The possibility of fleeing away from justice seems remote. The apprehension on the part of the prosecution of tampering with evidence and threatening the witnesses can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions.” The Court added that the statements by Param Bir Singh and Waze claiming Deshmukh took money from police officers for postings “ex-facie lack the element of certainty as to the source, time and place and “they prima facie appears to be hear-say. ” The court asked Deshmukh to remain within Greater Mumbai, in jurisdiction of special PMLA Court and that he should not tamper with the evidence and establish communication with co-accused.

GYAN TRADERS LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 743

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that the capital investment and resale do not lose their capital nature merely because the said investment/purchase of property was made with an intention to resell. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya relied on a catena of decisions and observed that “a transaction is not necessarily in the nature of trade because the purchase was made with the intention of resale. Further it was pointed out where the purchase of any article or of any capital investment, for instance shares is made without the intention to resell it at a profit, the resale under such changed circumstances would only be realization of capital and would not stamp the transaction with a business character. If the above legal principles are applied to the facts of the case on hand, the only irresistible conclusion is to approve the view of the CIT(A) who had considered all the relevant materials and details which were placed by the assessee. The learned tribunal had failed to note that the assessee had maintained a separate account for investment, which fact was very material to consider the nature of transactions effected by the assessee during the relevant period.”

ALL INDIA PERSONALITY ENHANCEMENT AND CULTURAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS (AIPECCS) SOCIETY vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 741

The Delhi High Court in an interim order held that the action of the Revenue delaying the implementation of refund order passed in the month of May is “strange” and the same is causing loss to the exchequer. A division bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that “It is strange that the order dated 26th May 2022, has not been implemented till date. The interest on the refund continues to run at the cost of the exchequer.”

P.R. Ganapathy vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Officer CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 739

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has upheld an addition of bogus gifts considering the fact that the nature of the relationship with donors was not established with evidence under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysing the definitions of “gift” and “commission,” the Court held that the receipt of gifts does not fall in anyone of the category mentioned above and as such, the burden is automatically shifted to the assessee to rebut the same, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala, which was relied upon by the respondent before the Tribunal.

M/s.HCL Technologies Limited vs The Commissioner,Greater Chennai Corporation CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 738

In a major relief to HCL Technologies Ltd, the Madras High Court has held that the Company is liable to pay property tax at the tax rates applicable to commercial units from the year 2018 only and has directed the authorities not to lock the premises.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs RAJDARBAR HERITAGE VENTURE LTD CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 736

The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax is not leviable on the interest income from FDRs till the date of the final arbitral awardwhere the ownership of such FDRs was finally established. After perusing the arbitral award, Justice Manmohan held that “Consequently, this Court in agreement with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallized in the respondent’s hands and the same cannot be held to be income of the respondent-assessee under Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

BOUTIQUE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (2) CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 737

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has held that re-assessment under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the Assessing Officer failed to provide the details of information based on which the proceedings were initiated. A bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the information furnished to the Petitioner and the impugned order does not specify in which bank account or account number, the alleged amount has been received by the Petitioner.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs GAUTAM BHALLA CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 730

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora recently dismissed an appeal by the Income Tax Department, upholding the order of the ITAT that, where the assessment of the Respondents had attained finality prior to the date of search and no incriminating documents or materials had been found and seized at the time of search, no addition could be made under Section 153A of the Act as the cases of the Respondents were of non-abated assessment.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MS. PNB HOUSING FINANCE CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 734

In a recent ruling in favour of the Income Tax Department, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that, dividends of investments held as stock-in-trade are not deductible from the business income and dismissed the appeal of the Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Ltd.

SANJIB DAS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 732

The Gauhati High Court has held that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) which only clarifies the CBIC’s original instructions is clarificatory in nature and acts retrospectively. It was observed that the said Circular does not bring anything new and the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the impugned show cause notice dated 31.12.2020 that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, the same would come within the exception as mentioned in Clause 5 (d) of the Circular dated 11.11.2021 and as such it was not mandatory for respondent authorities to have a pre-show cause notice consultation was viewed as correct.

AMBIKA KAPUR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 727

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner-assessee, Ambika Kapur in which an impugned addition of Rs.3,79,08,575/- was made by the Assessing Officer.

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 vs M/s AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 728

In a recent ruling in favour of the assessee-Amway India Enterprises, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that, “the mere fact that an entity makes high/extremely high profits/losses does not, ipso facto, lead to its exclusion from the list of comparables for the purposes of determination of ALP.” and dismissed the appeal by the Income Tax Department.

CURIL TRADEX PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 733

In a significant decision, the High Court of Delhi held that Physical verification for GST registration carried out in the absence of the assessee’s authorised representative is not valid and quashed the cancellation order of the Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax. A Coram of Mr Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Ms Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that in the matter of registration under the GST Acts, the application of the trader has to be considered properly and proper opportunity shall be given to the applicant in the event of any negative approach by the authorities.

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.