Supreme Court and High Courts weekly Round-Up

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 February 5 to February 11, 2023. Belated Filing of Appeal against Order of Demand of GST and Penalty: Calcutta HC allows Manual Filing-Debnarayan Roy vs The Assistant Commissioner State Tax Bureau of Investigation-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 302 A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court recently allowed the petitioner to manually file the appeal against the order of Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand which could not be filed online within the stipulated time. However, on behalf of the petitioner, Himangshu Kumar Roy and Abhilash Mittal submitted that the time to prefer such appeal since has expired, the petitioner will not be able to file the said appeal online, he seeks leave to file the appeal manually on the ground that the order under challenge was passed manually. The Single Bench of Justice Biswajit Basu, at this instance, granted the permission to file the said appeal as per the prayer of the petitioner. Reimbursement of Seignorage Charge and Labour Cess on construction work done under NABARD has to challenge before appropriate forum: Patna HC dismisses Writ petition-M/s Dhaneshwar Nath Construction through its Managing Partner vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 300 In a recent judgement ,the Patna High Court (HC)while dismissing the petition, held that the Reimbursement of Seignorage Charge and Labour Cess on construction work done under NABARD has to be challenged before the appropriate forum. As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce and that that demand was met by a refusal.’ The Court observed that there was no such demand or refusal. While dismissing the petition the court held that Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned for redressal of the grievance. Expiry of E-Way Bill during Transportation due to Breakdown of Vehicle: Calcutta HC Upholds Proceedings-Ashok and Sons vs Joint Commissioner-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 299 The single bench of the Calcutta high court in a writ petition filed before upholds the proceedings on expiry of E-Way bill during transportation due to breakdown of vehicle.After considering the contentions of the both parties the single bench of the Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that the “respondent authority is lawfully permitted to impose penalty under Section 129 as well as the State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the State”. Karnataka HC impedes Coercive action against Flipkart by Income Tax Dept The Karnataka High Court granted interim relief to the Flipkart by hindering the coercive action from the Income Tax Department and they assured the same till next hearing i.e. February 24, 2023. “The submission on behalf of the respondent is that there cannot be any prohibition in law against issuance of notice, but during the appeal period, no coercive measure may be taken and as such, coercive measures will not be taken,” recorded by the Court in its interim order. K V Aravind, the department lawyer, was asked to acknowledge the notice. The petitioner’s complaint that notices as per Annexure-B are issued in both of these petitions before the period provided to prefer appeal against the order dated 31.01.2023 caused the court to group the two applications filed by Flipkart together. No Service Tax liability When No provision for Reversing Credit involved on Input Services utilised for Inputs: Orissa HC confirms order of CESTAT-The Commissioner Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax vs M/s. Sponge Udyog Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 298 The Orissa High Court confirmed the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), wherein it was held that there was no service tax liability when no provision for reversing credit involved on input services utilised for inputs. The Bench comprising Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Raman, observed that “On the previous hearing, this Court had inquired from the Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant-Department whether the Department had challenged the order of the CESTAT in Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. By the order dated 1st December, 2022 this Court had granted two months’ time to the Department to ascertain the above fact.” “Considering that this is an appeal of 2011, the Court does not consider it appropriate to grant any further time for this purpose. The Court will proceed on the basis that the Department has accepted the decision of the CESTAT in Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd” the Court noted. Inclusion of GST,Bidder cannot challenge Bid Condition or Clause after participating in a Tender Process: Kerala HC-C.P.SANGEETH vs THE REGISTRAR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 293 The Kerala High Court while dealing with a case related to the inclusion of GST , the Bidder cannot challenge Bid Condition or Clause after participating in a Tender Process. A Single member comprising Justice V G Arun observed that Clause 11(f) of the General Conditions of Tender specifically stipulates that all rates quoted should be inclusive of sales tax also. After the introduction of the GST regime, the term sales tax has to be understood as goods and service tax. Thus, the tender document provided for the inclusion of goods and service tax. While Dismissing the petition the Court observed that “after participating in a tender process, the bidder cannot turn around and challenge the conditions in the bid document.” Even otherwise, the factual disputes involved cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226. Jharkhand HC Orders to Pay Mandatory Pre-deposit under 35F of Central Excise Act for an Appeal Hearing-M/s Amar Enterprises vs The Commissioner-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 292 The Jharkhand High Court in its recent judgement ordered a mandatory pre-deposit under 35F of the Central Excise Act for the appeal hearing. A single-member bench consisting of Mr Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the Respondents have also advertised to the facility provided under the RBI Instruction for making such pre-deposit by the unregistered dealer / registered non-assessees. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise and allowed the petitioner to make the mandatory pre-deposit within a period of four weeks. Rectification of Order is valid when Miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) was filed within Four Years: Jharkhand HC-Kamal Nayan Singh vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 294 The High Court (HC) of Jharkhand found that the rectification of the order was valid when the Miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed within four years before the amendment of the said section. Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the appellant had filed the miscellaneous application much before the amendment made in section 254 (2) of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2016 and the impugned order dated 08.9.2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was quashed and set aside. Further, the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to entertain the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant assessee and the appeal was allowed. Delay in VAT Refund: Delhi HC Slams Dept for Unnecessary Burden If Interest on Exchequer and Unnecessary Imposition on Judicial Time-CONSORTIUM OF SUDHIR POWER PROJECTS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 297 The Delhi High Court slammed the Department for Unnecessary Burden If Interest on Exchequer and unnecessary imposition on judicial time on the ground of delay in VAT Refund. “This Court is also constrained to note that delays on the part of the respondent in processing the pending claims for refund result in unnecessary burden of interest on the exchequer not to mention, unnecessary imposition on judicial time. The Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes is directed to take expeditious steps to ensure that all pending refund claims are processed as expeditiously as possible” the Court opined. Rajasthan HC Grants Bail to Person Arrested for Offence under GST-Mahendra Saini vs Union Of India-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 295 In a recent judgement, the Rajasthan High Court (HC) granted bail to persons arrested for offences under GST. Justice Inderjeet Singh observed that the petitioner is in custody for last more than two years and the main accused namely Vishnukant Garg has already been released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court and the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court. Mr Sanjay Verma appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr Kinshuk Jain appeared on behalf of the respondent. Payment of Pre-Deposit is allowable when Assessee was Unaware of the Mandatory Payment: Jharkhand HC-M/s Mukesh Kumar Singh vs The Commissioner (Appeals)2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 296 The Jharkhand High Court (HC) in its recent judgement held that the payment of Pre-Deposit is allowable when the assessee was unaware of the mandatory payment. Justice Deepak Roshan observed that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to avoid payment of pre-deposit @7.5% as provided under the amended section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST & CX, Ranchi (Respondent No. 1) and held that “if the petitioner makes the mandatory pre-deposit within a period of four weeks, as indicated above, the appeal shall be heard on merits.” Karnataka HC allows changes in GSTR-3B for the months of July 2017 and March 2018-M/S ORIENT TRADERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 291 The High Court (HC) of Karnataka, permits assessee to make necessary changes to GSTR 3- B for the months of July 2017 and March 2018 since it would not cause any prejudice to Revenue. A single member Justice S R Krishna Kumar held that the petitioner is entitled to the limited relief of being permitted to make the necessary changes to its GSTR 3-B returns for the months of July 2017 and March 2018, particularly, since doing so would not cause any prejudice to the respondents-Revenue. Simultaneous Proceedings by Central and State on Same Subject Matter Not a Ground to Avoid Personal Hearing: Madras HC-Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation vs Special Secretary-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 283 Concurrent proceedings by the Central and State on the same topic cannot be regarded as a cause to avoid personal hearing, ruled by the Madras High Court (HC) chaired by Justice Abdul Quddhosh. Furthermore, If it is the same subject matter, the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter. The petitioner was given one more chance by the court to take part in the in-person hearing. On February 16, 2023, the date of the personal hearing, he must come before the STO and raise all of his objections to the contested summons. Show-Cause Notices Issued by Two Different Authorities on Same Subject Matter are without Jurisdiction: Jharkhand HC Stays Proceedings-M/s Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of State Tax-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 289 The Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court stayed the proceedings finding that show cause notices issued by two different authorities on the same subject matter were without jurisdiction. The Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, and Justice Deepak Roshan stayed further proceedings in respect of the impugned ShowCause Notice dated 16.09.2022 along with Summary of Show-Cause Notice in Form GST-DRC-01 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and other impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 20.10.2022 along with Summary of Show- 2. Cause Notice issued by the Respondent and listed the case on 29.03.2023. Madras HC Allows Carry Forward of Unadjusted VAT TDS to GST regime-M/s.P& C Projects Private Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 290 Madras High Court (HC) single bench chaired by Justice Abdul Quddhosh allowed to carry forward the unadjusted Value Added Tax (VAT) Tax Deduction Source (TDS) to Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The bench quashed the contested order and the petitioner is entitled to transition TDS under the TNVAT Act in terms of Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017 The HC by considering the judgement in M/s. DMR Constructions Vs. Assistant Commissioner, quashed the contested order on ground that being a non-speaking order as no reasons have been given for rejecting the petitioner’s request for carrying forward of the unadjusted VAT TDS to the GST regime. Benefit of the SVLDRS Scheme cannot be Denied for filing under Wrong Category: Calcutta HC-GE Power India Limited vs Union of India & Ors.-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 284 In a recent judgement the High Court (HC) of Calcutta has held that the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme ( SVLDRS ) 2019 cannot be denied for filing under the wrong category. The Court set aside the aforesaid impugned order which rejected the aforesaid applications of the petitioner filed under SVLDRS- 2019 and the respondent’s authority was directed to grant appropriate relief to the petitioner under the aforesaid Scheme by reconsidering the aforesaid applications after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative. VAT: Writ Court cannot decide on Classification of Goods, rules Calcutta HC-M/s. Ajay Saha vs Sales Tax Officer, Krishnanagar Charge & 3 Ors-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 287 The Calcutta High Court (HC) has ruled that the writ court cannot decide on the classification of goods under Value Added Tax (VAT). Justice Nizamuddin observed that there is no description of what will be the component or ingredients of cattle feed and this writ Court in exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not have the expertise to declare the product in question claimed by the petitioner either the same as ‘tush kuro’ or cattle feed. While dismissing the petition,the Court upheld the findings of the revisional authority and substituted the same by acting as an appellate authority. Non Adherence to Circular of TN Commercial Taxes Department: Madras HC quashes non speaking Assessment Order-ThirumangaiRamachandiran vs State Tax Officer-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 288 The Madras High Court quashed the non speaking assessment on the ground of non-adherence to the Circular of Tamil Nadu (TN) Commercial Taxes Department. The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “It is not clear as to whether the above mentioned Clause in the Circular was adhered to by the respondent before passing the impugned Assessment Order. Even though the Circular referred to supra came in later point of time, the instructions given in the said Circular ought to have been adhered to by the respondent before passing the impugned Assessment Order and only then, it can be construed that the respondent has adhered to the principles of natural justice.” Deduction u/s 80P(4) allowable to Cooperative Society involved in the Business of Banking: Orissa HC-Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 286 While considering a writ petition, the Orissa High Court (HC) has held that deduction under section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable to Cooperative Societies involved in the business of banking. Chief Justice M S Raman held that the Appellant-Assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the deduction under Section 80P(4) of the Act since it is a Cooperative Society involved in the business of banking. It is open to the Assessee after the appeal effect is given based on the present order, to apply for a refund by the law. Delhi HC to decide on Whether Payments made by Ranbaxy India to TEVA Israel are taxable-TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 (1) (1)-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 285 Delhi is about to decide on whether payments made by Ranbaxy India to TEVA Israel are taxable. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tarot Vitasta Ganju observed that “According to us, the matter requires examination. We are also told by Mr Salve that there are four writ petitions pending consideration between the same parties and are listed for arguments before the court on 02.05.2023.” ‘The fact that there are other writ petitions also pending consideration between the same parties, qua one issue or the other, is not disputed Mr Sunil Aggarwal, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue '' the Court said. Truth cannot be Unearthed when Petitioner Absent for Personal Hearing: Madras HC grants Opportunity for Appearance-Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation vs Special Secretary-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 283 The Madras High Court granted opportunity for appearance to the petitioner, Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation, on the ground that truth cannot be unearthed when petitioner is absent for personal hearing. The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that “Necessarily, the petitioner will have to participate in the personal hearing and state all his objections with regard to the action launched by the State Authority under the TNGST Act, 2017. Unless and until the petitioner participates in the impugned proceedings viz., the impugned Summons, truth cannot be unearthed with regard to the petitioner’s contentions.” “Since the petitioner did not participate in the personal hearing afforded to him as per the impugned Summons, this Court deems fit to grant one more opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the personal hearing” the Court opined. Delhi HC confirms Penalty for Issuance of Unauthorised Airway Bills on Red Sandalwood-SH. MANISH GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF WLM INDIA vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 282 The Delhi High Court confirmed the penalty for issuance of unauthorised Airway Bills on Red Sandalwood. The Coram consisting of Justice VibhuBakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was remiss as he had not made proper enquiry. The Tribunal had also observed that the appellant was aware of the prohibited goods and accordingly dismissed the appeals. It is clear from the impugned order that the Tribunal had found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority.” Independent decision to be taken by Customs Authorities for Provisional Release of detained Goods: Madras HC-M/s.Isha Exim vs The Commissioner of Customs-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 280 The Madras High Court observed that an independent decision to be taken by Customs Authorities for Provisional Release of detained goods. The Court of Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that “As seen from section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962, an independent decision will have to be taken by the Customs Authorities with regard to the request made by any importer seeking for provisional release of the detained goods which has been detained under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 as in the present case.” “Whether the petitioner has responded to the Show Cause Notice issued by the Customs Authorities or not is immaterial for the purpose of deciding the application seeking for provisional release of the detained goods under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962” the Court said. No Penalisation for Inadvertent Error in submitting erroneous information which has since been rectified: Delhi HC-M/S SHRI SHYAM FOOTWEAR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND ANR-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 281 The Delhi High Court observed that no penalisation for inadvertent error in submitting erroneous information which has since been rectified. The Bench comprising Justice VibhuBakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that “It is apparent from the above that the rectified information as submitted by the petitioner was not taken into account by either of the concerned authorities while considering the petitioner’s grievance regarding non-payment of its refund, as claimed.” “We are of the view that it was essential for the concerned authorities to examine the information as submitted by the petitioner and process its claim for refund in accordance with law. Clearly, the petitioner cannot be penalised for the inadvertent error in submitting an erroneous information against Column No. 7 of its form, which has since been rectified” The Court opined. Non-issuance of SCN on refund of amount debited from E-Credit and Cash Ledger: Jharkhand HC quashes Summary Order-M/s Solex Energy Limited vs The State of Jharkhand-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 279 The Summary Order on Form GST DRC-22 was nullified by the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan bench of the Jharkhand High Court (HC). The authorities made a severe procedural error and an infraction of natural justice by failing to issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN). Also directed for re-adjudication in accordance with law. The Division Bench expressed its opinion after hearing the arguments that the assessment proceedings suffer from major procedural flaws due to the lack of a sufficient show-cause notice. A formal adjudication order is not included before the summary of order that was issued in Form GST DRC-07 on January 21, 2019, either. Provisional Attachment of Bank Account not Hamper Daily Operations: Gujarat HC quashes attachment order-SMITA AND SONS COAL PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF GUJARAT-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 277 The Gujarat High Court (HC) chaired by Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Sandeep N. Bhat quashed the attachment order issued by the authorities. Also, ruled that the provisional attachment of the bank account should not hamper daily operations. The HC ordered that the tax money that the Bank has been told not to part with be released once there is a direction, subject to the crystallisation of the petitioner’s liability and subject to the decision of the Appellate Authority if an appeal is filed within the statute’s allotted window of time. Further directed that the remaining amount of penalty and interest, the petitioner shall furnish the bond before the authority concerned. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Appeal in Old Corruption Matter not yet disposed: Bombay HC grants bail to accused Income Tax Officer-Rajkumar Bhatia vs State of Maharashtra & Anr-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 278 The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to the corruption accused Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), observing that the appeal is not likely to be decided within a short period. Considering that, “The applicant was on bail during trial. The incident is old. The date of complaint is 19/01/2009. Even after his conviction he is granted bail by the Trial Court under Section 389 of the Cr PC.”, the single bench of Sarang V Kotwal at Bombay High Court granted bail to the accused on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Failure to Follow Procedure under Rule 142 (1A) of OGST Rules concludes the Deposit of Tax: Orissa HC-Shri D. Murali Mohan Patanaik vs Secretary to Government of Odisha-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 271 The High Court (HC) of Orissa has held that the tax demanded can’t be Contested when Assessee failed to follow the procedure under Rule 142 (1A) of OGST Rules. Three months after making such payment, he sent a vague letter contending that the liability is “not acceptable” here nor there since the Petitioner had already made the full payment of the tax demanded. While dismissing the petition, the Court held that “since there is no material to support the contention of the Petitioner that he made payment of the demanded tax under protest, the Court is not persuaded to accept such submission at this stage.” Declarant making Voluntary Disclosure ineligible for applying under SVLDR Scheme U/S 125 of Finance Act of 2019: Bombay HC-Mindset Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 270 The High Court (HC) of Bombay has held that the declarant making a voluntary disclosure is ineligible for applying under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute) Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR) under section 125 of the Finance Act of 2019. A two-member bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that the Scheme is clear that the declarant making a voluntary disclosure, is ineligible for applying under the scheme if it was subjected to audit as of 30 June 2019. Since it is demonstrated that the Petitioner was subjected to an audit commenced earlier on 30 June 2019 the Petitioner was within the class declarants excluded from the Scheme, as referred to under Section 125 of the Act of 2019. The petition was dismissed. Inadvertent Mistake Rectified by Amending of Shipping Bill for MEIS,DGFT can’t reject Application as not being filed Online: Bombay HC-Technocraft Industries (India) Limited vs Union of India-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 272 The Bombay High Court (HC) has held that the Director General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) can’t reject the application as not being filed online when an inadvertent mistake was rectified by amending the shipping bill for Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ( MEIS ). A two-member bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that the Policy Relaxation Committee has correctly pointed out that in the computerised environment when the governance of MEIS is online, it is difficult to proceed unless amended shipping bills are transmitted online. The Court directed the concerned departments of the Respondents to take necessary steps within four weeks from the date order is uploaded. Tax Payment Delayed due to failure of Designated Committee to issue Sanction in an Electronic Form SVLDRS-3,No Interest on Tax Dues: Bombay HC-Virtusa Systems (India) Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 273 Recently, the High Court (HC)of Bombay has held that no interest shall be paid by the assessee when the respondent failed to issue the sanction through an electronic form SVLDRS -3 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS). A two-member bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that to date, the Respondents have not issued an electronic form SVLDRS-3 as required. Therefore, the obligation of the Petitioner under section 127 (5) of the Act of 2019 to pay the amount within 30 days had not arisen at all. It was observed that there is no fault on the part of the Petitioner and the Court held that “the Petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for as to the benefit of the Scheme.” Completion of Investigation not a Condition Precedent for Eligibility under SVLDR Scheme 2019: Bombay HC-Access Platform Equipments Limited vs The Union of India-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 274 Be the Fi In a recent judgement, the High Court (HC) of Bombay has held that the completion of the Investigation is not a condition precedent for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. A two-member bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja observed that the Petitioner is entitled to succeed as there is no other ground except the above on which the Petitioner is held to be ineligible under the Scheme. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned rejections of the declarations filed by the Petitioner on 15 January 2020 under the Scheme of 2019 and the Respondents will process the declarations filed by the Petitioner for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as per law. SCN Must Clearly State Allegations that the Concerned Notice has to Meet: Delhi HC Quashes Notice through GST Portal-SURENDER KUMAR JAIN vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 276 The Division Bench of Delhi High Court has quashed the notice issued through GST portal holding that the show cause notice (SCN) must clearly state the allegation that the concerned notice has to be met. The Bench also held that, If the concerned authorities find that they were unable to communicate the allegations in respect of which the response was elicited by way of a show cause notice, by selecting the options as available on the electronic system; the concerned authorities may consider issuing a physical show cause notice. Relief to CISCO Systems: Delhi HC directs to Refund Duty paid on Enhanced Value of Goods under Protest The Division Bench of Delhi High court has granted relief to CISCO Systems directing it to refund duty paid on enhanced value of the goods under protest. “It is difficult for this Court to accept that the payment of custom duty imposed pursuant to an order while appealing the same can be construed as payment of duty without protest. The very act of filing an appeal against an order imposing customs duty is a protest against the duty as assessed. The entire purpose of such an appeal is to seek reduction of the levy. It is, thus, obvious that the assessee does not accept the said levy and payment of the same would necessarily have to be construed as payment under protest.” SCN by DGGI for Levy of Service Tax on Permanent Transfer of Copyright in Musical Works Valid: Madras HC-M/s.Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management vs The Principal Commissioner of CGST-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 269 The Madras High Court has recently rejected the pleas of three well-known music composers, AR Rahman, G V Prakash Kumar, and Santhosh Narayan, who challenged the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of the GST Department, holding that, Show Cause Notice issued by Director General of GST Intelligence for service tax on permanent transfer of copyright in musical works is valid. In conclusion, the Madras High Court dismissed the petitions filed by composers AR Rahman, G V Prakash Kumar, and Santhosh Narayan and ruled that the proceedings initiated by the Goods and Services Tax Department were valid. The composers were given the opportunity to follow the appeals process, but the interpretation of contractual clauses was left to the authority. Violation of Natural Justice and HC Order: Madhya Pradesh HC quashes Post-decision hearing notice of disallowance of GST ITC Credit Claim-N.P. INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 268 Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed and set aside the post-decisional hearing notice served on the assessee on rejection of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claim. The Madhya Pradesh High Court thus directed that “the Nodal Officer shall take a decision thereupon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter only the respondents shall proceed further in the matter pursuant to the notice”, quashing the impugned notice and order. Inability to pay Full Amount for VAT & CST Appeal : Gujarat HC reduces Pre-Deposit form 20% to 15%-VINOD KUMAR DUGAR, PROPRIETOR OF ARIHANT ENTERPRISE Vs STATE OF GUJARAT-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 265 A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has recently reduced the pre-deposit from 20% of the tax amount to 15%, considering the inability of the petitioner-Vinod Kumar Dugar to pay the full amount. Observing “There had been no challenge to the direction of 15% of the tax amount during the pendency of the adjudication”, the authority concerned was directed to accept the pre-deposits of 15% of the tax demand, by the Gujarat High Court Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Sandeep N Bhatt. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: Madras HC directs Re-Adjudication of IGST Refund Claim by Lenovo-M/s.Lenovo India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise –2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 265 The Madras High Court (HC) presided by Justice Abdul Quddhosh directed for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The respondent side had violated natural justice, according to the bench. Quashed as well, and the case must be returned to the respondent for an if further of the merits and compliance with the law, within a time range to be established by this Court. Lack of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court nullifies Revisional Order imposing 10% VAT on Godrej-M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. vs THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER- 2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 122 The Supreme Court presided by Justice Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Dipankar Datta nullified or quashed the Revisional Order of the revising authority which imposed 10% on the product of Godrej.The division bench inclined to the view that it is not the Assessing Authority’s orders but those passed by the Revisional Authority, which suffer from a patent illegality and thus quashed the order. Remarks “Risky Exporters” for Grant of IGST Refund and Falsely Withhold the Claim: Gujarat HC directs to refund-M/S. CHOKSI EXPORTS vs UNION OF INDIA- 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 266 In pursuance of section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) of 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017, the Gujarat High Court (HC), presided over by Justice Sonia Gokhani and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, ordered the authorities to refund the claim of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) that is allegedly withheld illegally. As shown by Section 54(6) of the CGST Act read with Rule 91 of the CGST Rules, the Division Bench ordered the respondents-authorities to grant the amount of IGST refund to the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner and credit such amount to the petitioner’s account within three weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order One Time leasehold premium charged by CIDCO liable to GST: Supreme Court-BUILDERS ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS-2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 121 The Supreme Court (SC) presided by Justice Prakash D. Naik and Justice Dharmadhikari upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court. It was ruled that one time leasehold premium charged by City Industrial and Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) is liable to Goods and Services Tax (GST). The apex court sided with the Bombay High Court and believed that they had correctly concluded that the service in question was taxable and that the service tax could have been assessed and sought based on the payment made. Furthermore, CIDCO’s request for payment of the GST is legitimate. Madras HC dismisses Plea against GST Service Tax Demand by A R Rahman, Santhosh Narayan and G V Prakash-Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management, Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 264 The Madras High Court recently rejected the pleas of three well-known music composers, AR Rahman, G V Prakash Kumar, and Santhosh Narayan, who challenged the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of the GST Department. In conclusion, the Madras High Court dismissed the petitions of the three music composers, AR Rahman, G V Prakash Kumar, and Santhosh Narayan, and ruled that the proceedings initiated by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department were valid. The liberty of the composers to follow the appellate procedure was preserved, but the interpretation of contractual clauses were left to the authority. Capital Gains earned by Blackstone not liable to Income Tax: Delhi HC quashes Proceedings and Order of Reassessment-BLACKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 256 The Delhi High Court has recently ruled in favour of Blackstone Capital Partners, that there is no capital gain earned by the petitioner liable to tax in India in the matter before them. Thus, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Blackstone Capital Partners held that the impugned reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned Order and subsequent draft Assessment Order under Section 144C of the Act were quashed. Fake ITC claim worth Rs. 24 crores: Delhi Court dismisses Bail Plea of GST Accused The bail request made by the accused who fraudulently claimed Input Tax Credit worth Rs. 24 Crores was dismissed by the Delhi Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), presided over by Judge Snigdha Sarvaria. Given the apparent facts and arguments, the bench inferred that there is insufficient evidence to support the grant of bail given the preliminary nature, seriousness, and manner of the offence, the claimed role of the accused, and the fact that the matter is still under investigation. Income Limit u/s 149 IT Act not met: Rajasthan HC stays Time barred Re-assessment Proceedings-Rajendra Bana vs Income Tax Officer &Anr.-2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 258 The Rajasthan High Court (HC) stayed the time barred reassessment proceedings. The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni and Justice Sanjay Mehta observed that the income limit did not meet. The respondent was given 4 weeks to file their requested reply after the bench accepted their request. The court postponed the ensuing actions and notices against the petitioner in the interim. Additionally, it should be emphasised that the responders are free to transfer a request for a vacation or extension of stay if they so choose. Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Supreme Court and High Courts weekly Round-Up

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics