This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from December 13 to December 19, 2021.
E S Krishnamurthy Vs. Bharath Hi Tech Builders
The Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cannot compel a party to the proceedings before it to settle a dispute.
The Apex Court has upheld the decision of Bar Council of India’s (BCI’s) Decision of Cancellation of enrolment of advocate suppressing criminal Case against him during enrolment.
The Supreme Court has reversed the Gujarat High Court’s judgment wherein the High Court observed that GSTR-3B is not a return specified under section 39 of the Central and State Goods and Services Acts.
The Supreme Court has struck down twin conditions for granting Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Bench said, “the parties state that they will…work out some fine-tuning required to give meaning to the intent of our order dated 7.10.2021. At this stage, it suffices to say that by referring to Category C Section 45 of PMLA has been mentioned, which has been struck down by this Court. Ld ASG states that an amendment was made which is a pending challenge…and is a matter to be considered by that Bench. We are putting a caution that merely by categorising certain offences as economic offences which may be non-cognizable it does not mean a different meaning is to be given to our order….Our intention was to ease the process of bail…”
Rakesh Hanuman Prasad Vs. State of Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted the interim bail to the person accused of wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).
EY Global Services Ltd. Vs. ACIT
The Delhi High Court while quashing the ruling given by Authority of advance Ruling (AAR) held that the payment received by EY located in the UK for providing access to computer software to Indian Member firms doesn’t amount to Royalty, liable to be taxed.
Tvl.PANINDIA Tubes Private Limited Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
The Madras High Court directed the GST Authority to release vehicles subject to payment of the applicable GST.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen Vs. ACIT
In a major relief to the Skoda Auto Volkswagen, the Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice on account of change of opinion of AO.
In a major relief to the Coca Cola India, the Bombay High Court quashed the notice for reopening of assessment as it was beyond 4 years from the end of Assessment Year.
CIT Vs. Maharashtra Hybrid Seed
The Bombay High Court allowed the deduction on interest paid on the amount borrowed for the purpose of machinery even if machinery is not actually used in business.
Rich Feel Health and Beauty Private Limited Vs. ITO
The Bombay High Court quashed the Notice for Reopening of assessment as it cannot be done merely on the basis of change of opinion.
The Delhi High Court while allowing as many as 1346 writ petitions, quashed old law Reassessment notices issued after April 1st, 2021. “This Court is of the view that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use the administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, namely, the Finance Act, 2021. This Court is also of the opinion that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions, like Sections 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present instance, by emptying it of content or impeding or postponing their effectual operation,” the order read.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
