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 26 to December 31, 2022.
SCN does Not Specify Reasons: Gujarat HC Quashes Order Cancelling GST Registration DEE CUBES DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1104
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has quashed an order cancelling GST registration on the ground that the show-cause not does not contain the reasons for such an action. Quashing the impugned order and directing re-adjudication, the High Court held that “Despite requested, no details were provided and prima facie reply of the petitioners have not been considered. To our opinion, the show-cause notice dated 26.05.2022 does not specify the reason for which the allegation of wrongful availment or utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) or refund of tax is made. As the show-cause notice does not contain reason to justify the action of the respondent, it is violative of principles of natural justice.
Limitation Period Extension due to Covid: Bombay HC remands time-barred GST Refund Claim Priceline.Com Technology India LLP vs Union of India and others 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1102
The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling has remanded a time-barred Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund claim of the petitioner, owing to the extended limitation period as per various Supreme Court orders in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The challenge in the petition was to the order denying refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) the two periods that are from April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to December 2019.
Refund on Anti-dumping Duty paid for Intervening period between Provisional and Regular Final Anti-Dumping Duty Notification is allowable: Gujarat HC PERFECT IMPORTERS AND DISTRIBUTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1093
The Gujarat High Court (HC) held that the refund on anti-dump duty paid for the intervening period between the Provisional Anti-Dumping Duty Notification and the regular final Anti-Dumping Duty Notification is allowable. Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D Karia observed that as the respondent authority has not carried out the directions issued by the appellate authority and has tried to justify the order which is set aside by filing the affidavit in reply on merits in this proceeding and directed the respondent to issue a refund to the petitioners given the decision in case of G.M. Exports(supra).
Wrong PAN details mentioned in Order u/s 148A(d): Delhi HC quashes Notice and Order GDR FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1101
In a recent ruling, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, quashed the impugned notice and order for wrong mention of PAN number of receiver of an alleged bogus transaction by the assessee. GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited. It was observed by the High Court Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju that, “despite issuance of this communication, the respondent/revenue continued on the wrong course, as in the order dated 23.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, it continued to allege that the petitioner had entered into a transaction with M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. [PAN – AAACK4O32H] amounting to Rs 60,00,000/-.”
GST Demand and Detention of Vehicle on Expiry of E-way Bill: Jharkhand HC directs to seek Statutory Remedy for Release of Guarantee Deposit M/s Shivam Hi Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd vs State of Jharkhand 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1094
The Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s Shivam Hi Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd to seek available alternative remedies in the writ petition against the impugned GST Demand and Detention of Vehicle on expiry of e-way bill. Observing that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, the Division Bench disposed the writ petition without going into the merits of the case.
Customs Dept can demand bank guarantee for differential duty of Rs. 213.79 Cr on import of Concentrates of Alcoholic Beverages: Bombay HC Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs The Union of India through Joint Secretary 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1095
A division bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that, the Customs can demand bank guarantee in lieu of the differential duty on import of concentrates of alcoholic beverages, denying relief to the Indian made foreign liquor manufacturer Pernod Ricard India Private Limited. The Petitioner has challenged the direction issued by The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to Pernod Ricard Pvt Ltd on the ICEGATE Portal demanding bank guarantee for differential duty on bills of entry for imports of the Petitioner of concentrates of alcoholic beverages from 1 April 2022 onwards.
DRT fails to provide remedy on Forfeited Earnest Money Deposit Refund for want of jurisdiction : Bombay HC directs re-adjudication Abhisek P. Tibrewala vs Union of India 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1100
Bombay High Court (HC) directed to re-adjudicate and to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner against impugned communication of the respondent bank in a time bound manner and to set a time table accordingly. The Coram of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Gauri Godse, while entertaining the Writ Petition filed by Abhishek P. Tirewala. observed that the legislative intent emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions when the HC is called upon to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief to the Petitioner that too when remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is now available.
Settlement Commission has No Jurisdiction to grant immunity from Liability of Interest: Bombay HC quashes Order Union of India vs Pratibha Construction Engineers & Contractors (India) Pvt.Ltd 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1099
Bombay High Court (HC) chaired by Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Gauri Godse quashed the order of the settlement commission as there was no jurisdiction to grant immunity for liability of interest as per the amendment in the section 127H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was amended by the Finance Act, 2007. The bench observed that the Section 127H of the Customs Act confers power on the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty and included “interest”. Thereafter section 127H(1) was amended by the Finance Act, 2007, the phrase “interest” has been deleted from section 127H(1). The bench ruled that the impugned order of the Settlement Commission to the extent that it grants complete immunity to Respondent as regards interest, is quashed and set aside.
Dealer cannot be compelled to Carry Forward ITC to GST Regime: Madras HC Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1098
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court has recently held that dealers cannot be compelled to carry forward Input Tax Credit ( ITC )from extant regime to the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Regime if he/she chooses to avail refund instead. However, the single bench of Justice M Sundar observed that “ In the case on hand, the case of writ petitioner dealer stands buttressed by the provisional refund order made by the same sole respondent and issue of what is referred to as ‘FORM-P’ clearly quantified the entitlement of writ petitioner at Rs.13,36,741/-.” It was thus observed by the Madras High Court that refund has already been processed by Revenue and a provisional refund order also has been passed besides issue of FORM – P. The respondent was also directed to ensure that the refund in provisional refund order and FORM-P annexed to the same (to be noted Rs.13,36,741/- INR {Rs.Thirteen Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty One Only}) is made available to the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
Existence of Statutory Remedy: Madras HC refuses to quash GST Demand Notice M/s.Suguna Automobiles vsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST) Mettupalayam Road Circle, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1097
The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 for existence of alternative statutory remedy in the form of appeals. The bench observed, at this instance, noted that the matter is entirely disputed on facts. Placing reliance on Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew K.C, State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Greatship (India) Limited and a bunch of other judicial pronouncements, the Madras High Court Single bench of Justice M Sundar upheld the alternate remedy rule in this matter and dismissed the writ petition.
Madras HC Upholds Property Tax Hike in Chennai and Coimbatore K.Balasubramaniam vs The Commisioner 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1096
The Madras High Court, while dismissing a bunch of public interest litigations, has upheld the decision of the State Government to increase property tax in the cities of Chennai and Coimbatore. Upholding the impugned Government Orders, Justice Anita Sumanth held that “the fixation of slab has been done for the first time, the policy has only sought to take into account varying economic strata within the tax base and there is nothing untoward in the same.” “Property tax General Revision Notices for the period 2022-23 (II), i.e., second half onwards are set aside. The petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of interim protection till date. More importantly, seeing as clarity in regard to the entire process has been obtained only pending Writ Petitions, this Court directs that qua the Writ Petitioners, the amendments will be operative on and from the first half of 2023-24, i.e., 01.04.2023 onwards. The challenge to the property tax demands as aforesaid is accepted. However, pending Writ Petitions, if the petitioners have settled the amounts to be paid, they shall continue to do so in line with the amendments that have now been upheld.”
Assessment Order under OVAT Act consequent to Audit Visit Report is not valid: Orissa HC M/s. Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and others 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1088
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Orissa held that the assessment order passed under Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) consequent to the Audit Visit Report is not valid and set aside the order. It was observed that the mandatory nature of the time limits set out in Section 41(4) of the OVAT Act that the report must be submitted within seven days of the conclusion of the audit visit has been emphasized. While allowing the writ petition, Chief Justice M S Raman held that “with the said time limit not having been adhered to as far as the present case is concerned, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that all proceedings consequent to the said AVR including the impugned assessment order are unsustainable in law. “
Income Tax Department attach property prior to mortgage: Orissa HC directs to raise plea before DRT M/s. Maa Kalika Bhandar and Others vs The Collector and District Magistrate 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1091
Orissa High Court (HC) tried four Revision Petitions and among two from Income Tax Department (ITD) directed the ITD and parties to raise a plea before the Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT). The bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice M.S. Raman clubbed all the review petitions together as they involved a common question of law and hence decided together. The bench mentioned that the Secured Creditor/Bank would be equally free to stress the impact of Section 26(E) and Section 31(B) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as being the priority of the claim.
VAT Refund cannot be withheld due to CST proceedings: Calcutta HC Orders VAT Refund with Interest The Mobile Store Limited vs Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1076
The Calcutta High Court (HC) ordered to refund of excess tax paid under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act,WBVAT Act with interest on the aspect that the refund of Value Added Tax (VAT) cannot be withheld due to CST proceedings. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that there was nothing on record to show that the demand was pending before the issuance of the refund order in Form – 27 or after the said order. The Court held that after the issuance of Form – 27 in which it has been recorded that the appellant had paid excess tax, the department must refund the said amount and if the amount is not refunded within time, the appellant/assessee would be entitled to interest on the same as the department seeks to recover alleged tax dues with interest.
Suo Motu Revision Power under OVAT Act can’t be transferred without Prior Approval of Government: Orissa HC Quashes Proceedings M/s. Maharana Supply and Co.Kotsahi vs State of Odisha and Others 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1075
The Orissa High Court (HC) held that theSuo Motu Revision Power under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 OVAT Act can’t be transferred without prior approval of Government. Chief Justice M S Raman observed that at the time when the suo motu revisional order was passed, the notification of delegation had not yet been published and, therefore, the Addl. CST who passed a suo motu revisional power was still acting as a JCST. The Court held that the suo motu revisional power passed by the Addl. CST on 6th December 2018 was entirely without jurisdiction and beyond the powers of the Addl. and the impugned order of the CST was set aside.
Initiation of Re-Assessment Against Vodafone for Non-payment of TDS on Sale of Bharti Airtel’s Shares: Delhi HC directs Re-Adjudication VODAFONE MAURITIUS LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1078
In Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court (HC) directs to re-adjudicate the proceedings against the Vodafone Mauritius for non-payment of Tax Deduction Source (TDS) on sale of shares of Bharti Airtel. The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhder and Justice Mini Pushkarna entertained the writ petition filed by Vodafone Mauritius, a company incorporated in Mauritius. The petitioner side prayed to issue writ of Mandamus / certiorari after examining the validity and legality of the impugned order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO).
Re-Assessment without Considering Objections of Assessee and Opportunity for Personal Hearing Not Provided: Orissa HC Quashes Order Kailash Kedia and others vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1087
Orissa High Court (HC) chaired by Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice M.S.Raman in its recent judgment quashed the reassessment order of the Assessment Officer (AO) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The writ petitions were against the department notice issued to the Petitioner-Assessees under Section 148 A(1)(b) of Income Tax Act and the consequential order was passed under Section 148A(1)(d) Income Tax Act.
Procedural flaw in issue of SCN and Unnecessary Rebuttal of Assessee: Calcutta HC orders Fresh Adjudication Joyous Blocks & Panels Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1090.
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has recently quashed the Goods and Services Tax proceedings against the assessee, Joyous Blocks & Panels Private Limited for procedural flaws in issuance of Show Cause Notice and unnecessary rebuttal of assessee. The appellants had challenged a show cause notice issued by the authority dated 26th September, 2022 with regard to classification of the product manufactured by the appellants.
Alleged conversion of Rs. 156.22 Cr defrauded amount to Cryptocurrency: P&H HC denies Regular Bail to Accused in Winmoney Scam on Telegram Akash Sharma vs State of Haryana 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1079
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently denied bail to the accused in Winmoney Scam on Telegram for alleged conversion of defrauded amount to the tune of Rs. 156.22 Crore to USDT (Tether), a cryptocurrency, with value always equal to 1 US Dollar. Such cryptocurrencies are known as stable coins. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Akash Sharma under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in cases registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.
Income Tax Authority failed to give adequate Opportunity to put forth submission: Calcutta HC quashes Assessment Order Green Valliey Industries Limited. vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department & Ors 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1089
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court (HC) quashed the assessment order, as the Income Tax Authority failed to give adequate opportunity to put forth a submission. Green Valliey Industries Limited, the petitioner challenged the order dated 22nd November 2022 in W.P.A. 23327 of 2022 which was filed challenging an assessment order dated 28th September 2022 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).
Assessment Order under OVAT Act consequent to Audit Visit Report is not valid: Orissa HC M/s. Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and others 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1088
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Orissa held that the assessment order passed under Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) consequent to the Audit Visit Report is not valid and set aside the order. While allowing the writ petition, Chief Justice M S Raman held that “with the said time limit not having been adhered to as far as the present case is concerned, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that all proceedings consequent to the said AVR including the impugned assessment order are unsustainable in law. “ The impugned assessment order and all proceedings and orders are set aside by the Court. Mr Subash Ch. Lal, Advocate appeared for the petitioner and Mr S.K. Pradhan & Mr Sunil Mishra appeared for the Revenue Department.
Fake GST and misappropriation of Government Funds: Punjab & Haryana HC grants bail to Forest Officers Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1080
Punjab & Haryana High Court (HC) granted bail to the forest officers who were ranked as Forest Range Officer(FRO) and Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) for fabricating fake Goods and Service Tax (GST) details and misappropriation of the Government Funds. The petitioner seeked to grant regular bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code registered under Sections 7, 7-A, 13(1)(A)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC (Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC added later on).
GST Penalty Deposit Refund on Seizure of Truck not allowable by Writ when Statutory Remedy is Available: Jharkhand HC M/s GMT Industries Ltd vs The State of Jharkhand 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1082
The Division Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s GMT Industries Ltd to seek available alternative remedies for refund of deposit amount in lieu of seizure of truck. Taking into consideration that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, the bench of the Jharkhand High Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. The court also refused to hear the matter on merits.
Advance Ruling cannot be Challenged in Writ Petition: Bombay HC dismisses Jotun India’s plea for redetermination of GST Rate of Marine Paint Jotun India Private Limited vs Union of India 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1083
The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed a plea of the Paint manufacturer Jotun India against the order of the Advance Ruling Authority, as the same cannot be challenged under writ petition as limited enquiry in respect of Advance Ruling into an appellate enquiry. In the case at hand, the Authority was considering the interpretation and classification of entries under the CGST Act. In our opinion, the Appellate Authority has rightly distinguished all these decisions cited observing that under this regime prime test is whether the product is marketable or not.
Issuance of REG-31 Instead of GST registration cancellation notice: Kerala HC Quashes Proceedings PANKAJ COTTAGE vs GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1086
A single bench of the Kerala High Court has recently quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, M/s Pankaj Cottage for issuance of REG-31 instead of GST Registration Cancellation notice in Form GST REG-17. The petitioner approached the Kerala High Court, aggrieved by the order cancelling the registration granted to the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/ the State Goods and Services Tax Act, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 29 of those enactments.
Detention of Vehicle and GST Demand on Expiry of E-way Bill: Jharkhand HC directs to seek Statutory Remedy M/s BURNPUR POLYFABS PVT. LTD vs The State of Jharkhand 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1081
The Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s Shivam HiTech Steels Pvt. Ltd to seek available alternative remedies. The statement made by the petitioner was that it was having technical difficulty in filing the appeal and since the proceedings were against the truck driver, this Court had issued notice to GSTN by impleading the GSTN. GSTN had also filed its affidavit, however, the GSTN has stated in its counter that GSTN is a company entrusted with the responsibility of developing and maintaining the GST portal under the guidance and control of the Department of Revenue. Observing that, an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, the Division Bench disposed the writ petition without going into the merits of the case.
Taxable amount rightly reflected as Basic Rate in Tender: Himachal Pradesh HC upholds GST Demand Innovative Group Conference and Event Solution Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1084
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently upheld the demand order of Goods and Services Tax (GST) as reflected in the Basic Rate from Price Schedule of the assessee, Innovative Group Conference and Event Solution Pvt. Ltd. in tender. The Division Bench of Justice Tarlok SIngh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh further stated in the judgment that, “we find no irregularity much less any illegality in the demand raised by the respondents of GST @ 18% on the tender amount of Rs.1,61,74,260/-, as offered by the petitioner.” , upholding the GST demand
Madras HC quashes proceedings on Errors in order issued u/s 129(3) of Tamil Nadu-GST Act Shree Info System Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1085
Madras High Court (HC) in its recent ruling quashed the proceedings against the petitioner on errors occurring in the order issued under Section 129(3) of Tamil Nadu- Goods and Services Tax Act (TNGST). The Single bench of Justice M. Sundar, in a writ petition filed by the petitioner Shree Info System Solutions Pvt. Ltd, a registered-dealer under TN-GST seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records leading to the issuance of Order by the Respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to release the detained goods as well as conveyance immediately.
GST: Delhi HC allows Provisional Attachment of Bank Account during Investigation R ENTERPRISES vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1077
In a recent ruling, Delhi High Court allowed the provisional attachment of the bank account of the during the investigation. The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Purushaindra Kumar of Delhi High Court entertained the writ petition filed by petitioner R. Enterprises against the department impugning a communication dated 06.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby, the petitioner’s current bank account maintained with Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI) Bank was frozen.
Reassessment against Dissolved Entity: Delhi HC stays proceedings initiated u/s 148 PRANSHU BUILDWELL LLP vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1073
In a recent ruling, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has stayed the proceedings issued against a dissolved entity of the assessee, Pranshu Buildwell LLP. The assessee’s business, Pranshu Buildwell Private Limited was converted into a Limited Liability Partnership. The Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, “the objection taken by Mr Bhatia, that there was no reference to the fact by the petitioner, that the conversion of the earlier entity i.e., The private limited company into an LLP had taken place, would not come in the way of the petitioner assailing the reassessment proceedings, on the ground that the reassessment proceedings have been triggered by issuing notices to an entity, which is not in existence”.
Failure to take Proper Recovery of Outstanding dues: Gujarat HC quashes Recovery u/s 179 of Income Tax Act DEVENDRA BABULAL JAIN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1074
In a recent ruling, Gujarat High Court (HC) quashed the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on recovery of the outstanding dues of the assessee – company from the Directors under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia observed that the petitioner cannot be considered negligent and the respondent cannot, as a result, assert jurisdiction under section 179 of the Income Tax Act because they have not been able to deposit 20% of the demand raised in the assessment order to get a stay from the appeal authority.
Tax Demand on Undisclosed Sale not permissible when Department failed to discharge its Burden of Proof: Allahabad HC M/S Balaji Polypack vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1071
The Allahabad High Court has held that the tax demand on undisclosed sales is not permissible when Department failed to discharge its burden of proof. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the burden to prove the material was recovered by the various mobile squads was upon the Department and the burden could not have been shifted upon the assessee to prove the same. Further, the assessee has denied the transaction having been made by him. The Court observed that Department was not able to prove the material which was seized by the various mobile squads and the burden could not have been shifted by the Department upon the assessee and only on the ground that the documents were forwarded by the mobile squad to the assessing authority.
Calcutta HC condones delay of 13 days on due Payment of Third Instalment under Income Declaration Scheme Dr. Satyajit Bose. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1070
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court condoned a delay of 13 days as there was the due payment of the third instalment under the Income Declaration Scheme. The appellant in the present appeal is Dr Satyajit Bose. Under the scheme, the third instalment of income tax ought to have been remitted by the appellant not later than 30th September, 2017 but was remitted on 16th October, 2017. Since the scheme did not provide for any extension of time, the authorities could not have reckoned payment of the third instalment to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the scheme. Interestingly, there was an amendment to the scheme by Finance (No.2) Act of 2019.
Bombay HC dismisses Writ Petition challenging Settlement Application before Settlement Commission u/s 32E Central Excise Act M/s. Viva Herba Pvt. Ltd vs The Union of India Ministry of Finance 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1067
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) dismissed writ petition challenging settlement application before Settlement Commission under Section 32E Central Excise Act, 1994. The Bench consisting of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Gauri Godse observed that “Therefore, we are not shown any judicial decision directly dealing with the fact situation such as the Petitioner, where the documentation itself was in grave doubt. Keeping in mind the scope of the judicial review and the ambit of proceeding for the settlement, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.”
No Service Tax Exemption on non-commercial Works Contract Services rendered to Government: Madras HC Raju Construction vs Government of India 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1068
In the recent ruling, Madras High Court (HC) chaired by Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice C. Saravanan held that there is no exemption for the service tax on commercial works contract services rendered to the Government. The Writ Petitions (WP) were clubbed together and entertained. All the WP deal with “service tax liability” of contractors who were specifically engaged by the Public Works Departments of both State & Central Government. The bench emphasized that the claims that some of the petitioners were illiterate or only semi-literate and unaware of the amendment could not be accepted because it is a legal presumption that every person is aware of the law. As a result, these petitioners are unable to rely on the supposed ignorance to make any concessions. The bench stressed that as Article 289 of the Indian Constitution deals with the exemption of property and income of a State or Union Territory, the reference to it is out of context and unimportant. It is irrelevant to the application of service tax in accordance with the terms of the Finance Act.
No Income Tax on Receipt of Compensation on Lease hold Rights Over A Plot: Delhi HC PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs PAWA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1069
A division bench of the High Court has held that the leasehold rights shall be treated as “capital asset” and the compensation received on leasehold rights over a plot shall not be subject to income tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Holding in favour of the assessee, a bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the terms of lease deed evidence that the Assessee was entitled to construct on the plot and offer the built-up space for IT Software and IT enabled Services Industries. “Further, the Assessee was also permitted to sub-lease, assign, transfer, alienate and part with the compensation of the constructed building along with proportionate land thereunder for setting up IT Software and IT enabled Services Industries only,” the Court said.
Misdeclaration in iPhone Consignment leads Customs Duty evasion: Bombay HC grants Bail with conditions Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha vs The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1066
The Bombay High Court chaired by Justice R.N. Laddha granted bail with conditions and issued a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 to the applicant who smuggled iPhones by giving misdeclaration in the imported consignments to evade the Customs Duty. The court observed that the first Respondent contends that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission is restricted to two-sized consignments and for the past 130 consignments. Furthermore, it should be observed that the Arrest Memo does not appear to contain any information about the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the Applicant. There is no file number on it. According to the Arrest Memo, there are no specifics of the offence other than a list of the applicable penal sections.
Cancellation of Income Tax Penalty automatically quashes Criminal Proceedings u/s 276: Allahabad HC Sudhan Chandra Basak vs Union Of India Thru Income Tax Officer H Ward 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1065
A Single Bench of Allahabad High Court has recently held that criminal proceedings arising out of orders of penalty will be quashed as soon as the penalty demand is quashed. The present application was filed on the basis that orders of penalty passed against the applicant under Sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return for Assessment Year 1983-84 were challenged and canceled but the criminal proceedings remained in existence.
No Bar on Refund of Octroi for Failure to provide Declaration of Duty certified by Octroi Officer: Bombay HCHyprecision Hydraulik vs State of Maharashtra 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1064
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has recently set aside the letter informing the Petitioner that its claim for refund of octroi had been rejected and no further correspondence would be entertained with regard to this matter in the future. Consequently, it was held that refund of octroi cannot be denied on the sole ground of not producing duty declaration certified by the octroi officer.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
