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 December 19 to December 24, 2022.
Notice issued to dissolved Firm not due Notice: Kerala HC quashes Income Tax Demand for violation on Natural Justice Principles, P.A. LOGISTICS Vs NILA P.A., EX-MANAGING PARTNER, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1062
A Single Bench of Kerala High Court has recently set aside the income tax demand notice issued to the assessee – P A Logistics for violation of natural justice principles of due notice and fair hearing. The decision of the Constitutional Bench in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta and Anr was relied upon by the Bench in allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was consequently restored to the NFAC for fresh assessment by the Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P.
Allahabad HC grants Bail to Siddique Kappan in PMLA case, almost two years spent behind bars
Siddique Kappan was granted bail in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case today by Allahabad High Court, after the plea was finally heard two months into filing. He had spent two years behind bars in the alleged conspiracy case in the Hathras rape and murder case of a Dalit Girl, for being booked for incitement of riots. The Supreme Court of India had granted bail to him in the conspiracy case charged under multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
Non-passing of Service Tax Refund Orders within the Time Limit under Central Excise Act: Karnataka HC grant relief to Altisource, AL TISOURCE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD., Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1061
In a Writ Petition filed before the Karnataka High Court (HC) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entertained by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar granted relief under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum for committing delay in issuing service tax refund order. The court made an observation regarding the respondent’s argument that the respondent completely misdirected itself in determining that the three-month period would begin from the date of the petitioner’s final submission, not from the date of submission of the refund claim, and that this is in contravention of Sections 11-B and 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The bench set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and ordered to pay the interest of 6% per annum after expiry of three months from the date of submission of the refund request by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
IT Deduction for Affordable Houses cannot be Denied to Builder on ground of Subsequent Changes in Building on Completion of Statutory Conditions: Bombay HC, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Vardhan Builders ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1055
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently set aside the denial of income tax deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on ground of subsequent changes in building after compliance of statutory provisions. The dispute in the present appeal centers around whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction in terms of Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
Dismissal of GST Appeal for Delay of 1 Day is ‘Hyper Technical’: Himachal Pradesh HC grants Relief to Assessee, Sunil Kumar Vij vs Union of India and others ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1059
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax which had categorically rejected the appeal for restoration of the GST registration the assessee for delay of one day. Observing that the petitioner would not be able to continue business in the absence of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration, the deprivation of right to life enshrined as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India was noted by the Division Bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Virender Singh.
Chhattisgarh High Court allows petitioner to seek Reimbursement of Additional GST Liability on Contract/Work Order, M/s Gordhandas Gobindram vs State of Chhattisgarh ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1060
The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently allowed the petitioner-Gordhandas Gobindram to seek reimbursement of the additional levy on implementation of Goods and Services Tax for contracts and work orders that had been executed during the extant regime. The petitioner on account of the introduction of the new Goods and Services Tax law was required to pay a certain additional tax liability and by way of this writ petition, the petitioner has seeked the refund of the same.
Notice not Issued to Legal Heirs: Kerala HC quashes VAT Recovery Proceedings, SREERAM.B vs SALES TAX OFFICER ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1052
Kerala High Court (HC) chaired by Justice Gopinath P. quashed the proceedings of the Value Added Tax (VAT) recovery on the ground the legal heirs were not given notice. The court observed that the principles of natural justice of ‘opportunity to be heard’ was violated. The bench quashed the order of the STO and directed to pass fresh orders in terms of order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The HC further instructed that the evaluation be finished after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and a chance to provide any documents he might want to rely on.
Transaction cannot be Suspected because Cancellation GST Registration of Other End Dealer with Retrospective Effect: Calcutta HC, M/s. Shraddha Overseas Private Limited & Anr. vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1056
A two-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that the transaction cannot be suspected merely on ground that the GST registration of the other-end dealer was cancelled with retrospective effect. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya were considering a petition by M/s Shraddha Overseas wherein the petitioner challenged the action of the GST appellate authority wherein substantial portion of the transaction have been found by the appellate authority to have been done with valid documentation. However, a doubt had arisen in the mind of the appellate authority with regard to the genuineness of the transaction going by the pay load of the vehicles, which was used for transporting the goods in question
Motor Vehicle Tax difference is not a ground to deny ‘BH’ series Registration to Vehicle: Karnataka HC, MR RANJITH K P vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1053
The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed the writ petitions seeking to direct the registration of the vehicles of the Petitioners under BH-Series by virtue of the Notification dated 26.08.2021 issued by the Commissioner of Transport and Road Safety, Bangalore. The Petitioners, after purchase of the vehicles sought for registration of their vehicles as per the BH-Series. However, they were informed by the dealer that the on-line portal is not accepting BH-Series registration for private individuals. They also submitted that, in respect of similarly placed persons, the jurisdictional authorities of the State have registered the vehicle under BH-Series.
No Access to Portal due to Cancellation of GST Registration: Telangana HC directs Re-Adjudication M/s.Suvarna Traders vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1058
In a recent decision, the Telangana High Court, chaired by Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, set aside the contested order of the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and issued re-adjudication. In this case, due to the petitioner’s inability to use the portal as a consequence of the department’s cancellation of the GST registration, the petitioner in this matter didn’t receive the department’s show reason notice or reminder notice
Re-Assessment cannot be based on Mere ‘Change of Opinion’: Telangana HC Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs Lanco Hills Technol Park Pvt Ltd, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1057
The Telangana High Court (HC), bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Baskar Reddy in its recent ruling held that the reopening of assessment cannot be made by mere change of opinion. The HC highlighted that the tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court on a landmark decision in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadekar (2014) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that an Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons have to be read on standalone basis; as it is, without any scope of further improvement at a later stage by way of addition, deletion or substitution therein. The bench also observed that in compliance to 147(1) first provision of the Act, It is evident that respondent had disclosed fully and truly all material facts to the AO during the assessment proceeding on the basis of which assessment order issued initially was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act
Relief to Xiaomi India: Karnataka HC sets aside Provisional Attachment of Rs. 3700 Crore by Income Tax Dept XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1054
A Single Bench of Karnataka High Court has recently set aside the provisional attachment of the fixed deposits of tech giant Xiaomi India to the tune of Rs. 3700 Crore, in a major relief to Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd. The Court observed that, “mere apprehension that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient for the purpose of passing a provisional attachment order and the exercise of the same must necessarily be preceded by the formation of an opinion that it was necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue”.
Anushka Sharma reprimanded by Bombay HC for Tax Petition filed through Taxation Consultant Anushka Sharma vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1051
The Bombay High Court has recently reprimanded Actor Anushka Sharma for filing a Writ Petition in relation to the additions by the Assessing Officer in terms of copyrights allegedly acquired by endorsing products and anchoring. The petition was filed through Shrikant Arun Velekar, the tax consultant appointed by the Actor. The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Gauri Godse observed that, “These Petitions are filed through Taxation Consultant of the Petitioner.” “There is no reason shown as to why the Petitioner cannot file these Petitions on solemn affirmation”, the High Court of Bombay stated
VAT Dues of Company cannot be recovered from Individual Directors: Orissa HC Shri Atul Kumar Saxsena vs Commissioner of Sales Tax , 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1049
A division bench of Orissa High Court headed by the Chief Justice held that the dues under the Orissa VAT Act cannot be recovered from the individual directors of the Company. Allowing the petition, the High Court held that “For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned order dated 16th April 2019 of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha in so far as the said order confirms the attachment of the Petitioner’s individual Bank account notwithstanding his having ceased to be a Director of AEPL whose tax dues were sought to be recovered.”
Levy of TC Tax on possession and registration of Vehicles through Instruction is Ultra-vires to OMVT Act: Orissa HC M/s. Sushree Automotives vs State of Odisha and others , 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1050
In a major decision, the Orissa High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M S Raman has quashed the instruction of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chariman, State Transport Authority dated 29.03.2016 that directed the Road Transport Officers (RTOs) to collect tax from the manufacturers/dealers of motor vehicles on the total number of vehicles possessed and registered during the year. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 18th May 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions rejecting the challenge made therein to the validity of the circular
Filing Appeal against Penalty order Instead of Assessment Order: Calcutta HC dismisses Writ Petition M/s. Poddar Real Estates Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1045
A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed writ petition as appeal was filed against the penalty order instead of assessment order. By the writ petition the petitioner, M/s. Poddar Real Estates Pvt Ltd has made prayer for cancellation of the order dated 2nd December, 2016 passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and subsequent penalty notice issued under Section 271(i) (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the penalty order dated 23rd June, 2017 relating to the assessment year 2009-2010.
No Reduction of Disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act on Ad-hoc basis: Delhi HC against ITAT’s decision PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs SIMON INDIA LTD , 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1044
The Delhi High Court (HC), in its recent judgment chaired by Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav viewed against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the reduction of disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on Ad-hoc basis. The bench viewed that once the Revenue Authorities have found no reason to doubt the Assessee’s claim that the investments have been managed by a group of companies without levy of charge, it may not be open for the tribunal to disallow expenditure on the basis that some deployment of manpower for managing the investment cannot be “ruled out”
Form 26AS can be taken for computing TDS Credit instead of Form 16A: Calcutta HC upholds order of ITAT PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI Vs NIRMALI BHADRA ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1048
A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the observation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that Form 26AS can be used for the computation of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit instead of Form 16A-TDS Certificate. The Department, aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), approached the Calcutta High Court, invoking the Special Income Tax Jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Payment during Search is Illegal: Delhi HC directs GST Department to Refund Rs. 1.8 Crore with Interest on ground of Non-Compliance with CBIC Circular VALLABH TEXTILES vs SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AND ORS ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1047
The Delhi High Court has recently directed the GST department to release a refund of Rs. 1.8 crores along with an interest of 6% for the reason that the department has not complied with the CBIC circular prohibiting payment during search proceedings and prescribing guidelines for receipt of voluntary payment by the assessee. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that if the person chargeable with tax takes recourse to such a route, the proper officer is restrained from serving any notice qua tax or penalty under the provisions of the 2017 Act or the 2017 Rules framed thereunder, 2 unless the amount which is self-ascertained by the person chargeable with tax falls short of the amount payable as per law
No Module for Filing Appeal Online Provided by GST Dept: Rajasthan HC Allows Manual Filing of Appeal Against Audit Order M/s Singla Trading Company vs Union Of India ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1046
In the absence of any module provided by the GST department, regarding the online filing of GST appeal against the audit order, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed the assessee to file the appeal manually. The petitioner, M/s Singhla Trading Company has approached the High Court requesting to quash the order passed by the respondent appellate authority Commercial Taxes, Bikaner whereby the appeal submitted by the appellant against the order GST-ADT -02 was returned on the solitary ground that the appeal memo had not been filed online
VAT Refund Claim of Registered dealers under C Form not be denied as being ‘Unverified’: Delhi HC MANGALAM TRADERS vs VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER AND ORS. ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1042
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in a Writ Petition, directed the Value Added Tax Officers (VATO) to process the refund claim under C Form of Value Added Tax (VAT) to the registered dealer and cannot be denied as being unverified. Also set aside the impugned order of the Assistant Value Added Tax Officer AVATO. The petition was filed by M/s Mangalam Traders against the impugned orders passed by the AVATO under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) for the fourth quarter of the A.Y. 2016-2017 and the first quarter of the A.Y. 2017-2018, as being violative of Article 14, 19 and 265 of the Constitution of India.
Loss on Forex fluctuations on Forward Contracts are Deductible u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs SIMON INDIA LTD ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1044
In a recent ruling of Delhi High Court (HC) of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the loss on Foreign Exchange fluctuations on forward contracts are deductible under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(CIT(A)]. The division bench determined that the AO erred in disallowing the loss resulting from Forward Contracts and that there is no fault with the order of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal in finding that the loss cannot be considered to be speculative and has to be deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
Bonafide Discharge of Duties by Joint Commissioner in raising GST Penalty and Interest: Rajasthan HC withdraws SCN issued to JC Hindustan Contruction Company Ltd. vs The Union of India & Ors. ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 982
The Rajasthan High Court has recently withdrawn the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued against the Joint Commissioner after issuing a demand for the penalty and interest to the assessee-Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. The Rajasthan High Court, earlier, had asked the Joint Commissioner, Circle Nimbahera of GST to show-cause why cost should not be imposed upon him for nonperformance of duties enjoined upon him by law after Court observed that the officer acted in a “reckless illegal manner” leading to unwarranted litigation.
No Profits attributable to PE if it records a Global Net Loss: Delhi HC grants relief to Nokia COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1041
In a recent judgment pronounced by Delhi High Court, chaired by Justice Rajiv Shakedhar and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that the no profits attributable to the Permanent Establishment (PE) if it is a global net loss. This appeal was preferred by the revenue against the order of the ITAT on questioning that ITAT erred in holding that no profits are attributable to the PE of the Assessee.
33% of Income Tax Offices Vacant due to Policy Issues: Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court to Consider Petition by Gujarat Principal CCIT HARIHARAN & ORS. vs HARSH VARDHAN SINGH RAO & ORS ,2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 214
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of India will be considering a petition by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as the postings for the vacancy of 33% of income tax officers is vacant. The petition filed by Shri Anurag Chandra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in the Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat stated that as a result of the interim order earlier, the promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officers from the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors could not take place. As a result, 33.33% of posts in the cadre of Income Tax Officers are vacant as the same cannot be filled in. As noted earlier, the decision in the case of K.Meghachandra applies prospectively i.e. from 19th November 2019
Expenditure incurs for CSR is Allowable for Deduction u/s 37 of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs PEC LTD, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1040
The Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, in a recent ruling, held that the expenditure incurred for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is allowed for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the bench dismissed the appeals of the revenue department and upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The bench admitted the 3 appeals together as to consider the question of law that whether the ITAT erred in allowing deduction of expenses undertaken under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) endeavour under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act in PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs PEC LTD, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1040
Age is not a Bar for Prosecution of Non-furnishing of actual income: Delhi HC dismisses plea for quashing Proceedings RAJINDER KUMAR vs STATE & ANR ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1036
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner, Rajinder Singh filed on ground of his age and on the basis of Circular/Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991. A Complaint Case was filed by the Income Tax Officer alleging opening of an undisclosed account in HSBC Bank, London on 20.08.19 by the petitioner and having the maximum credit balance USD 575,010, equivalent to Rs.2,53,00,440/- at the exchange rate of Rs.44 per USD for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The contention of the department that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of his age to evade tax by having a huge sum in an undisclosed foreign account was affirmatively agreed to by the Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and the petition was dismissed
Chhattisgarh High Court acquits Cooperative Extension Officer in Corruption Case Radheshyam Mehra vs State Of Chhattisgarh ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1034
In the prosecution’s case is that the accused/appellant was working as Chief Executive Engineer of Janpad Panchayat and was posted at various places between 1.9.2003 to 10.3.2011. The prosecuting agency obtained a search warrant from the competent Court on 8.3.2011 and effected search at four different places at a time on 10.3.2011. According to the prosecution, the check period starts from 1.9.2003 and ends on 10.3.2011. During this period, the appellant acquired properties of Rs.75,43,891/- which is unexplained earnings of the appellant. Resultantly, against the appellant, a charge sheet was filed and accordingly, charges were framed by the trial Court under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act which was denied by him and he pleaded for trial.
Commissioner of Central Excise is not a Court: Calcutta HC allows Appeal in absence Retraction of Statements COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S. ASHIRWAD FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHERS ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1038
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed appeal by the Revenue as there was absence retraction of statements and opined that Commissioner of Central Excise is not a Court. The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax, Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by which the appeal filed by the respondent, M/s. Ashirwad Foundries Pvt Ltd and Anothers challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, (GST & CEX) was allowed setting aside the service tax demanded and deleting the penalty imposed was deleted in its entirety.
Chattisgarh HC grants Relief to Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd. And Ors.vs The State of Chhattisgarh And Ors, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1039
As a relief to Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd, the Chattisgarh High Court (HC) directed the Registry to list cases under ‘Orders on IA. While rejecting the prayer made by Mr Pradhan, to enable the parties to prepare the cases for hearing, Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Arvind Singh Chandel directed the registry to list these cases under the same heading, namely, ‘Orders on IA’, on06.02.2023 in Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd. And Ors.vs The State of Chhattisgarh And Ors, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1039
Tax Evasion Case: Calcutta HC quashes Criminal Case, Pending Civil Proceedings, holding Abuse of Process of Court Shri Sushanta Karati vs The State of West Bengal ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1037
A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court quashed the criminal case against the appellant on pending civil proceedings by holding that there is an abuse of the process of court in a tax evasion case. The allegation against the petitioner, Sushanta Karati is regarding concealing the sales figures of his business pertaining to the year from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 and by doing the same evading tax upon sales of his product. A criminal case was initiated being Chatterjeehat Police Station The petitioner has challenged the proceedings thereunder. A proceeding under Section 76 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1992 has been started against the appellant and the same is pending.
Failure to meet Monetary Limit: Supreme Court disposes the Appeal COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SWAPNIL FINANCE PVT. LTD, 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 213
In a recent ruling of the Supreme Court, a division bench composed of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of low tax effect. The counsels of the respective parties reported that the tax effect of both the appeals for the relevant A.Y.- 1995-96 and A.Y. 1996-97 would be less than Rs. 2 Crores. By this exception, adverse judgements pertaining to “classification and refunds issues which are of legal and/or recurring nature”, were to be contested irrespective of the amount involved. This sub clause ‘c’ has withdrawn with effect from the date of the instruction. Consequently, the beach disposed of the appeal; however, the question of law is kept open.
Delhi HC quashes Proceedings against Chartered Accountant for Delay in Filing Complaint PARTHA GHOSH vs REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1030
The Delhi High Court single bench presided by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while entertaining the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, quashed the proceedings against the Chartered Accountant because the Registrar of Companies (ROC) delayed Filing a complaint within the limitation period of 6 months. The petitioner Partha Gosh, a Chartered Accountant filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the HC under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), directed against the criminal case pending in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and order of summoning dated 10.07.2014
Prior approval of CCIT/DGIT for Scrutiny Assessment is Mandatory: Orissa HC Nababharat Shiksha Parishad vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1033
The Orissa High Court held that Prior approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) or Director General of Income Tax (DGIT) for scrutiny assessment is mandatory. The appellant in the present case is Nababharat Shiksha Parishad. A Coram consisting of the Chief Justice M S Raman, observed that “There is no doubt that under the said clause in the guideline obtaining the prior approval of the CCIT for scrutiny assessment was mandatory and in the present case that was not obtained.” “The Court is unable to agree with the approach of the ITAT that the Assessee was required to ‘prove’ lack of jurisdiction of the AO. When the admitted fact is that prior approval of the CCIT was not obtained, nothing more need to be shown to demonstrate that the guideline was not followed” the Court opined
Electronic evidence must be accompanied by Requisite Certificate u/s 36-B(2) of Central Excise Act: Orissa HC Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs Shivam Steel Corporation ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1035
The Single Bench of Chief Justice M S Raman of Orissa High Court held that, electronic evidence such as computer printouts shall be accompanied by the requisite documents under Section 36B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. These appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (hereafter ‘Department’) raised a common question of law as to whether electronic evidence such as computer printouts shall be accompanied by the requisite documents under Section 36B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Bench observed that, the seizure of a computer print-out of ‘Sunderlal’ ledger account from the residential premises of the accountant of Shivam Steel Corporation (SSC) which according to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) as held in its impugned order dated 29th April, 2016 is inadmissible in evidence for not satisfying the conditions laid down under Section 36-B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Failure to consider reply to SCN and Document produced: Bombay HC quashes demand of Service Tax Vainguinim Valley Resort Vs Union of India ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1029
The Bombay High Court at Goa, quashed demand of service tax on failure to consider reply to Show Cause Notice (SCN) and document produced by the petitioner, M/s Vainguinim Valley Resort. A Coram consisting of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Bharat P Deshpande observed that “There is non-application of mind while passing the impugned order. Similarly, it is clear from the reasonings in the impugned order that Respondent failed to take into account reply and the document produced by the Petitioner to the show-cause notice, which now compelled us to quash and set aside the impugned order.” “We quash and set aside the impugned order by remanding it to the said authority to decide it afresh by considering reply filed by the Petitioner to the show-cause notice, documents attached to it and also by giving personal hearing” the Court said
Cancellation of GST registration without Mentioning Reasons: Patna HC Quashes Cryptic Order M/s Best Bricks vs The Union of India ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1032
The Patna High Court Division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Partha Sarathy while entertaining a Writ Petition through Video conferencing, quashed the order of Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (JCST) and restored the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Registration of the petitioner. The court stated that the principles of natural justice were violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences. Furthermore, it was stated that the petitioner consistently filed its return on time. And as per the submissions made by the counsels of the petitioner, the information of the returns for a certain period was not being uploaded was due to the Covid Pandemic which is not in the hands of the petitioner
Madhya Pradesh HC dismisses Plea Challenging GST Provision for Levy of Cess on Intra-State Supplies RANVIR KUMAR KARAN vs UNION OF INDIA ,2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1031
A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath, & Justice Vishal Mishra has dismissed a petition challenging section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and the rules and notification connected thereto, in view of the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court and affirming the validity of the Act in a similar case. Dismissing the petition, the division bench has held that “In terms of the order dated 3.10.2018, the very question with regard to the validity of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 was under challenge. In view of dismissal of the aforesaid SLP and affirming the validity of the Act, the said judgment would stand applicable to the case in hand.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
