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 January 1 to January 7, 2023.
In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court (HC) held that the penalty under section 96ZP of the Central Excise Act was not justifiable when Revenue Department delayed the computation of the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP). M/s. Purvi Bharat Steel Ltd. questioned whether the levy of penalty was justifiable when the Revenue Department itself had delayed the computation of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) which is the basis for computing the tax payable penalty imposed under Rule 96 ZP of the Central Excise Rules.
In a significant ruling, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has stayed the action of the IBBI disqualifying a Registered Valuer on account of the scam relating to PMC Bank. The Petitioner, Vishwanatha Sridhar Prabhu is a Chartered Accountant. He is highly qualified with a Doctorate, an LLB, and a BBM.Justice G.S. Patel &Justice S.G. Dige“On the face of it, it is difficult to comprehend the reasoning, logic or rationale in this order, especially in paragraph 4.7. Anyone may set the criminal process in motion against anyone. There may be an FIR. There may even be a charge-sheet. But, except in certain specific statutes, the presumption in criminal jurisdiction in this country is still that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty.Today, even charges have not been framed.
A division bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the levy of special road tax on transport vehicle without permit under section 3-A introduced vide the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act holding that the same was within the legislative limits of the State Government. Earlier, the High Court, though upheld the power of the State legislature to enact provisions for levy of special road tax under Sections 3-A(1)(2)(4), but at the same time erred in holding the provisions under Section 3-A(3) to be ultra vires being unconstitutional.
In a ruling striking down a part of section 10(26AAA) of Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court has held that denial of income tax exemption for “married Sikkimees women” is discriminatory as the provision states that the benefit shall be given to all individuals including both men and women. “The expression “individual” in the Explanation would exclude Sikkimese women. In my view, the proviso cannot be construed to be an exception to the Explanation which is in the nature of a definition clause as it would be inherently discriminatory to do so,” Justice B.V. Nagarathna said. The Court held that the expression “an individual” in the Explanation to Section 10 (26AAA) of the I.T. Act, 1961, must include all genders including Sikkimese women.
In a women-friendly ruling, the Supreme Court has struck down section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, to the extend the provision denies income tax exemption to old Indian settlers and sikkimese women who married non-sikkimese men. While terming the provision unconstitutional, Justice B.V. Nagarathna directed the Central Government to make an amendment to Explanation to Section 10 (26AAA) of I.T. Act, 1961, so as to suitably include aclause to extend the exemption from payment of income tax to all Indian citizens domiciled in Sikkim on or before 26th April, 1975. The reason for such a direction is to save the explanation from unconstitutionality and to ensure parity in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In a major relief to Wipro, the Karnataka High Court has held that the bonafide mistakes in GSTR-3B can be rectified and allowed the Company to revise the return for the last three years permissible under the recent circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) as the correction was due to bonafide and inadvertent error in the invoices. The petitioner-Company relied on the Circular bearing No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and contended that the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the directions issued in the said Circular with regard to the errors committed in the Invoices. Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar observed that a perusal of the Invoices at Annexure-C will indicate that while supplies are made by the petitioner to M/s.ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, the GSTIN Number mentioned in the Invoices has been incorrectly shown as that of ABB India Limited, which is a completely different and independent juristic and legal entity from the latter.
The Supreme Court of India held that additional special road taxes are regulatory and compensatory in nature and upheld the constitutional validity of the levy of the same under Section 3A(3) of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Tax, 1972. Goel Bus Service Kullu etc., the respondent and several other similarly situated public transport operators challenged the validity of Section 3-A, Section 3-C, Section 4-A, Section 5-A along with Schedule-III under Section 3-A introduced vide the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 19991 to be held ultra vires the Constitution of India.
The Patna High Court (HC) quashed the Order cancelling the GST registration which was passed without stating the reason. Manoj Kumar Sah, the Petitioner prayed for directing the respondents to restore the GST registration of the petitioner with immediate effect as the petitioner is ready to furnish the returns of earlier years within 1 month of the order of the Court.A Coram comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice ParthaSarthy held that “the order dated 12/09/2019 passed by the respondent no.2, namely the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Madhubani, Bihar is quashed with the petitioner’s registration restored, with a further direction to the respondent no.1, namely The State of Bihar through Commissioner of State GST, New Secretariat, Patna to finalize the petitioner’s assessment and/or pass appropriate orders, by law.”
‘The transport/supply does not fall within the ambit of transfer of goods as defined in “sale” – ruled the Tripura High Court bench consisted of Chief Justice (Acting) T. Amarnadh Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh.The bench observed that when a transaction has taken place in Assam, the respondent authorities cannot have any jurisdiction over Interstate. The bench further quashed and set aside the Assessment Order and two Demand Notices on the grounds of jurisdiction, the right to sell the goods, and the location of the contract’s execution because, given that the sale was conducted in Guwahati, the State of Tripura lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner with respect to the imposition of tax by the respondents.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the re-assessment passed after 4 years merely based on a change of opinion without any tangible material would be time-barred under the provisions of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that “a clear perusal of the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act makes it clear that reassessment proceedings after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year can only be initiated in case, there is tangible material with the A.O. to show that the assessee had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. This Court, after analysis of material facts available on record, is of a categoric opinion that the assessee disclosed all material facts truly and fully while furnishing the return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and hence, there was no justification for invoking the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act so as to initiate reassessment proceedings after a period of 4 years. Thus, the reassessment notice is definitely time barred. In addition thereto, the reassessment notice has been issued only on account of ‘change of opinion’, plain and simple, without any tangible fresh material being available to the ITO for reopening the assessment proceedings.”
The Bombay High Court chaired by Justice A S Doctor and K R Shriram directed to re-adjudicate the case and ordered a personal hearing before passing necessary orders. The bench agreed with the petitioner Ramani Suchit Malushte’s arguments and noted that, under the current situation, the time for filing an appeal would open only the day the issuing authority made the signature. HC observed that Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules) and it is parimateria with Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires orders issued under Chapter III of the rules to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or through E Signature or by any other mode of signature or verification notified in that behalf.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that an unsigned re-assessment notice under section 147/148 under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid.While quashing the proceedings for want of jurisdiction, Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes observed that “the notice u/s.148 dated 02.04.2022 having no signature affixed on it, digitally or manually, the same is invalid and would not vest the Assessing Officer with any further jurisdiction to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner. Consequently, the notice dated 02.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act issued to the petitioner being invalid and sought to be issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2015-16 with which we are concerned in this petition, any steps taken by the respondents in furtherance of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and order dated 02.04.2022 issued under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act, would be without jurisdiction, and therefore, arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we quash and set aside the notice dated 02.04.2022 issued by the respondents u/s.148 of the Act, order dated 02.04.2022 under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act and notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under clause (b) of section 148A of the Act.”
In a recent case, the Telangana High Court (HC) held that the Subsumption of service tax will not absolve liability to pay GST if service tax was agreed to be paid as per agreement and ordered that the Petitioner is liable to pay the GST on the license fee in place of service tax as the Petitioner was paying service tax separately under the terms of Deed of License. The petitioner prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in levying GST on the licence fee payable by the petitioner in respect of the licence granted to her to carry on the business in the premises of the respondents, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
A division bench of the Orissa High Court has held that the deemed dividend is taxable in the hands of the individual director only and not from the Firm under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.A bench comprising Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman observed that “a plain reading of the above provision indicates that the taxing of the deemed dividend has to be in the hands of the shareholder of OSL. In the present case, admittedly it is Mr. Mishra in his individual capacity who holds 36.95% of the paid-up share capital of the OSL. On the other hand, M/s. Mahimananda Mishra, the Firm, does not hold any shares in OSL.”
The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling, held that the VAT department cannot suspect the genuineness of the purchases due to minor discrepancies in the Books of Accounts.Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that “It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has reduced the quantum of tax imposed by the assessing authority from Rs.10,34,000/- to Rs.2,82,125/-. From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that finding recorded is contradictory. On the one hand, the Tribunal has accepted that there were minor discrepancies in the books of accounts submitted by the assessee from the survey report and on the other hand, had accepted the partial finding recorded by the assessing authority. Once the Tribunal has recorded finding that there was a minor discrepancy in the stock which was there at the time of survey and it tallied with the books of accounts then there was no occasion to take a different view.”
Gujarat High Court chaired by Justice Sonia Gokhani and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt allowed deduction under section 80IC of Income Tax Act, 1961 as there is direct nexus between manufacturing activity and foreign exchange gain from export.The Court went to an extent of saying that even assuming that the refund does not amount to an income in the hands of the assessee, it is a profit or gain directly derived by the assessee from its industrial activities. The Gujarat High Court argued that the case CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand, [2009] 180 Taxman 557 (Delhi) is directly related to the issue and holds that the excise duty refund was dependent on the activities conducted by the assessee. As a result, it has been determined that both paying central excise duty and receiving a refund have a direct connection to manufacturing activities.
The Orissa High Court has held that the amendment in the Finance Act, 2009 amending section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the definition of “charitable activities” has no retrospective effect.Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman disregarded the plea and observed that “The Court is unable to agree. The very text of the Finance Act, 2008 and in particular Section 3 thereof which inserts the amended Section 2(15) clearly states that “the following clause shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009.” Clearly, therefore, the amendment is prospective. Consequently, the Court declines to frame this question either.”
In an order considering a petition seeking GST liability of the contractor to pay additional GST after the rate changes, the Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the department to consider the representation by the petitioner-assessee.Justice P. Sam Koshy observed that “Given the said facts, the the present Writ Petition as of now stands disposed of, directing the Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the representation filed by the Petitioner on 6.11.2022, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 90 days. While deciding the representation, the Respondent Authorities shall take into consideration the Order dated 30.9.2022 whereby Clause 2.17.1 stood amended. In addition, the Petitioner would also be at liberty to make a fresh representation along with the supporting documents showing the proof of the additional tax liability incurred by the Petitioner which would facilitate the Respondents in taking a decision. Subject to the representation being decided favourably, the Respondents shall also take steps for reimbursing the amount forthwith.”
In an assessee-favouring ruling, a division bench of the Orissa High Court headed by the Chief Justice S Muralidhar has held that the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme cannot be denied to the taxpayer merely on ground of erroneous interpretation of the relevant tax statutes.Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman analyzed the relevant provisions and held that “the above interpretation placed by the Department on Section 125(1)(h) of the Finance Act, 2019 appears not to be correct. No doubt that the Petitioner’s product (Process Oil) falls under the Fourth Schedule to the CE Act but as far as the rate of duty is concerned, as already noticed, what is indicated is ‘…..’. The said ‘…..’ has been defined as indicating that in respect of the goods against which the above ‘…..’ is found, excise duty is not leviable at all. Therefore, there is no question of the Petitioner’s product being outside the purview of the SVLDR Scheme read with the Fourth Schedule to the CE Act. The Court, therefore, rejects the plea of the Department that the Petitioner would be ineligible for the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme.”
The Gujarat High Court issued a returnable notice for final disposal of the deletion of the addition made by the Appellate Tribunal under section 68B of Income Tax Act, 1961 on Unexplained Investment. The appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) survey operation under Section 133A of Income Tax Act was carried out on the premises of M/s. Neotech Education Foundation.
While overruling an order passed by the Single Judge, a division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the alternative statutory remedy cannot be an absolute bar when there is a violation of natural justice principles irrespective of the fact that the assessee has filed the reply or not during the GST proceedings. The petitioner-appellant approached the division bench against the order of the Single bench contending that the Single Judge did not consider the provision contained in Section 75(4) of the Central GST Act of 2017, which provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. Drawing attention of the Court to letter dated 20.08.2021 it was contended that the petitioner had specifically prayed for grant of personal hearing and yet, no personal hearing was provided to the appellant.
The Coram of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki S A Menezes of Bombay High Court held that “the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa”. Further the Court viewed that there is no illegality in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).The HC observed the decision of the Tribunal held that after the CIT had passed an transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the AO at Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the assessee on the date when the Order of assessment came to be passed on 24 December 2014. The Tribunal rejected the argument of the revenue that the AO would continue to exercise the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only 29 December 2014. It was held that the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa.
The Delhi High Court, in a case where goods detained by the customs department was abandoned by the importer, directed the buyer/petitioner to bear 50% of detention charges under the provisions of the Customs Act.Analyzing the provisions of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that “though the out-of-charge process was undertaken by the importer way back in August, 2022, the said importer has not paid the customs duty and taken clearance of the goods. In effect therefore he has abandoned the goods. The importer has also not paid the detention/demurrage charges and till date the goods are lying with the customs authority. The Petitioner has already received the original bill of entry and other documents from the Bank, which would therefore show that the title of the goods has, in fact, passed to the Petitioner.”
A division bench of the Orissa High Court headed by the Chief Justice has held that the tyre, tube and flaps when sold along with tractor-trolley as a single unit to be taxed separately @ 12.5% and 13.5% [after 01.04.2011] and tractor-trolley without tyre, tube and flaps will be sold @ 4% under the provisions of the Orissa VAT Act.
The Jharkhand High Court held that delay in filing the appeal due to the issuance of notice on incorrect address and rejection of appeal memo was not tenable Global Construction, the petitioners challenged the garnishee notice dated 30th September 2021 issued under Section 79 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby the respondent Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi had frozen the bank account of the petitioners.
The Orissa High Court held that the Re-opening of the Assessment merely on the objection of AG without framing Independent Opinion is not Valid. M/s. R.K. Industries, the petitioner filed the revision petition against the order dated 26th February 2021 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack in dismissing the dealer’s appeal for the period 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2014.A bench comprising Chief Justice M S Raman observed that AO mechanically opened the assessment to the objection of the audit party. While allowing the petition, the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the JCST.
The Gujarat High Court quashed notice issued to amalgamating company under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issues raised in reopening assessment already considered during assessment proceedings. By the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening of the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
The Supreme Court of India in a major ruling held that writ petition can be entertained to examine if conditions for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been satisfied. The petitioner, Red Chilly International Sales approached the Court by virtue of special leave invoking under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryan
The Delhi High Court (HC) rejected the petition seeking the presence of an Advocate during the statement recording by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence(DGGI) HQ. Ramesh Jethi, the petitioner prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the officers working under the charge and subordinate to the Respondent to permit the presence of the Petitioner’s counsel while interrogating in conformity with the law propounded by the Supreme Court.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed reopening of assessment as there was non supply of material referred to as “reasons to believe”. The petitioner, Micro Marbles Private Limited is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of marble slabs and tiles. It filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-2018 and the same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an intimation regarding acceptance of ‘nil’ tax liability was issued to it by the Centralized Processing Centre of the Income Tax Department. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rekha Borana observed that “The non-supply of the material referred to in the reasons to believe would be enough to render the proceedings bad, even though the material for forming the opinion may be sufficient.”
In the case of Paradeep Port Trust, the Orissa High Court (HC) held that interest in the replacement rehabilitation and development fund must be directly taken into Profit & Loss account. The Revenue challenged the order dated 9th August 2017 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) which deleted the addition of Rs.25 Crores under the “provision for Pension Fund” and deleted the addition of Rs.20,86,903/- under the head “Employer’s Contribution to Provident Fund”, the approval for which was not granted at the time when the contributions were made.
While quashing the VAT orders demanding tax on textile fabrics, a division bench of the Orissa High Court has held that the exemption from Additional Duties of Excise Act provided to textile fabrics does not result into levy of VAT on the said items.A bench of Chief Justice Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman quashed the impugned demand and held that “However, the fact remains that the Government of India issued a clarificatory circular on 3rd May, 2006 whereby it was made clear in para 2 that the notification dated 1st March, 2006 “does not change the earlier position in any manner whatsoever, as far as the issue to levy of VAT/Sales Tax of AED Items by the State is concerned”. In other words, if prior to 1st March 2006, no sales tax was leviable on Textiles by virtue of the AED Act that position would continue notwithstanding the exemption from the applicability of the AED Act on the Textiles. The STO does not appear to have taken note of the above clarificatory circular issued by the Government of India.”
A division bench of the Orissa High Court has held that surcharge under Section 5A of the OST Act is to be levied before deducting the entry tax paid by the dealer pursuant to the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999. A bench of Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice M.S. Raman was considering an appeal by the department against the Tribunal’s decision favouringM/s Dua Auto Agency wherein it was held that surcharge is to be levied after giving set off- of the entry tax paid by the dealer, when on the conjoint reading of Section 5 of the OST Act, Section 4 of the OET Act and Rule 18 of the Rules, the surcharge under Section 5A is to be levied before deducting the amount of entry tax paid by the dealer
In a petition challenging the non-action on the part of the Motor Vehicles department withholding the cancellation of the certificate of registration due to the pendency of the disputes relating to tax arrears under the Odisha Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975. The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Bhuyan’s vehicle was has been destroyed for which the Petitioner made an application in proper format for cancellation of registration certificate under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is yet to be considered.
In a recent case, the High Court( HC ) of Orissa directed the Tribunal to check the validity of the audit assessment given the delay in the Audit Visit Report(AVR) under the entry tax act Jay KishanDasmall Jute Products (P) Ltd., the petitioner filed the revision petition arising from an order dated 23rd February 2016 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (Tribunal) dismissing the Assessee’s application. The question before the court was whether the imposition of freight charges at the rate of one per cent of the purchased value on overall turnoverbased on the market value without examining the individual vouchers and considering the contention of the Petitioner that the purchased materials at the market rate are inclusive of freight charges sustainable in the eye of law.
In a major relief to the Indian Oil Corporation, the Madras High Court has set aside the orders of the VAT department reversing input tax credit (ITC).Allowing the writ petitions, Justice Anita Sumanth quashed the impugned orders and observed that “None of the Notifications in this case touch upon the aspect of Input Tax Credit in the hands of the selling dealers, and had they done so, the officer would perhaps have been right in stating that the grant of ITC even in the place of such express provision for reversal in the Notification, was an error apparent on record. Since the Notification did not mention anything about ITC or reversal, the impugned proceedings would also have to be tested in the context of whether at all Section 84 could be applied in this case, and thus fail.”
The Rajasthan High Court has seeked response from centre and state, regarding the treatment of manpower supply while it was challenged in a petition. The petitioner, Skylark Infra Engineering Private Limited, on the supply of the aforesaid manpower service, deposited 18% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) treating the aforesaid supply of manpower to be inter-state services, inasmuch as it had its office at Delhi/Gurgaon and the manpower was supplied at Jaipur in Rajasthan.The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Shubha Mehta and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that “the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered by it twice”, granting interim relief to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was directed to deposit 65% of the demanded Goods and Services Tax (CGST and RGST) in preferring application for refund. It was also directed that the petitioner’s accounts that were attached to be released on the instance of receiving the application for refund.
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to an income tax officer convicted by the CBI Special Court last month for three rigorous years for accepting a bribe of Rs. One lakh during the pendency of appeal against the CBI Court’s order. Justice Sarang V. Kotwal was considering a bail application by the applicant, Shekhar Madhukar Khomanewas convicted for commission of an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.50000/- and in default of payment of fine.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the timeline Prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 is mandatory and stayed the order of revocation of the Customs Broker license. Shaikh and Pandit Agencies Private Limited, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of revocation passed by respondent no. 1 revoking the petitioner’s Customs Broker License in the exercise of powers under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018), allegedly for violation of Regulation 10(d), (m), (n) and (q) of CBLR, 2018.
The High Court of Calcutta quashed an order under West Bengal Goods and Service Tax (GST) for violation of the Natural Justice Principle. M/s. Gayatri Projects Limited, the petitioner challenged the order by which the Single Bench declined to grant any interim order till the disposal of the writ petition and directed affidavits to be filed.A two-member Bench comprising Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the matter has to be re-examined by the authority themselves instead of directing the appellants to approach the appellate authority. The Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and the matter was remanded back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration.
In a significant case related to an allegation of tax evasion, the Rajasthan High Court ( HC ) granted bail as the assessee paid the amount under Rajasthan GST Act, 2017. Vikas Bajoria, the petitioner has been arrested in connection with a case registered at Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for the offence under Section(s) 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
