Supreme Court and High Courts Weekly Round-Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key tax judgements of the Supreme Court and all High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from May 20 to May 26 2023. No Service Tax on User Development Fee Collected By Mumbai International Airport and Hyderabad Airport: Supreme Court CENTRAL GST DELHI - III vs DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 185 The Supreme Court has held that no service tax is leviable on user development fees collected by Mumbai International Airport and Hyderabad Airport. It was noted that neither the imposition of development fees nor their collection is contingent on their deposit in the public coffers. In addition, it should be noted that UDF is a statutory charge and that no service is required for collection. It was further noted that legal oversight and regulations govern how money is used. It was decided that just because the money isn't physically put in a government treasury, that doesn't make it any less of a legal levy or obligatory exaction. The two-member bench comprising Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) wherein it was held that User Development Fee collected by Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd, Delhi International Airport Pvt Ltd and Hyderabad International Airport Pvt Ltd were not subject to Service Tax. Attaching Taxpayer’s Bank Account merely based on Suspicion and Without Tangible Material is not Valid: Delhi HC SIDHIVINAYAK CHEMTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 839 The Delhi High Court has held that attaching a taxpayer’s bank account merely based on suspicion and without tangible material is invalid. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan, who made up a two-judge panel, noted that the claimed harsh measure is illegal simply because it is based on suspicion and does not have any supporting evidence. The fact that the petitioner's director is/was a worker for M/s Best Crop Group and is partly in the domain of assumptions is the second indication that the petitioner is a fictitious business. The mere suspicion that the petitioner is a dummy company, which is founded based on statements that one of the directors of the petitioner company was, or is an employee of M/s Best Agrolife Group, and is in complete disregard of the corporate documents of the petitioner, would fall foul of the requirement of forming an opinion, as it does not meet the standards required for taking an action under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Court set aside the attachment. Bitumen not ‘Valuable Article’, Carrier of Bitumen not ‘Owner’ u/s 69A of Income Tax Act: Supreme Court M/s.D.N. SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 186 In a major ruling the Supreme Court of India observed that bitumen cannot be treated as a ‘valuable article’ under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ownership of the goods did not pass to the assessee, who was a mere carrier of goods and whose possession of bitumen began as a bailee. Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy of the Supreme Court's two-judge panel made the comment in response to an appeal filed against the Patna High Court's decision to uphold the Assessing Officer's (AO) additions to the bitumen that the assessee, a carriage contractor, had allegedly lifted but not delivered to the consignee, the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar. In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that bitumen is not a valuable article for the purposes of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act and that the assessee in this case was not the owner of the concerned bitumen. Authoritative Representative of Petitioner does not allow to appear for Personal Hearing without Proper Verification and Instructions : Madras HC M/s.Bhavadharani Builders vs The Deputy Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 840 While entertaining the writ petition, a Single Bench of Justice. S. Srimathy observed that without instructions and without verifying the records, the petitioner cannot direct his representatives to appear. Moreover, the petitioner is having full knowledge of the transactions, thus he has to appear for the personal hearing. The petitioner is the only individual who has complete knowledge of the transactions, the judgement ruled. The petitioner must also instruct and verify the documents, which takes time. He must also brief his attorney on the circumstances. The Madras High Court instructed the petitioner to cease requesting new adjournments after upholding the appeal. The petitioner must also give the respondents Rs. 2,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only) over the course of two installments. Requirement to furnish certified copy of order within 7 days of filing of appeal under Rule 108(3) of TNGST Rules is procedural, can be condoned: Madras HCM/s.PKV Agencies vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 841 In a major ruling a Single Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the requirement to furnish certified copy of impugned order within 7 days of filing of appeal under Rule 108(3) of Tamil Nadu GST Rules(TNGST), is only procedural requirement which can be condoned as it is only technical defect. The Orissa High Court held that in the context of supplying a certified copy within the time frame specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 108, the requirement to furnish a certified copy of the impugned order within seven days of filing an appeal is only a procedural requirement, which can be excused by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Bench cited this ruling in M/s. Atlas PVC Pipes Limited vs. State of Odisha and others. Entertainment Tax collected by Commercial Tax Officers under Bihar Entertainment Tax Act is ultravires of 101st Amendment: Patna HCM/s DEN Networks Limited vs The State of Bihar CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 844 The Patna High Court observed that the entertainment tax collected by Commercial Tax Officers under Bihar Entertainment Tax Act is ultravires of the 101st Constitutional Amendment. "Since it is not imposed and collected by a local self-government entity, the entertainment tax as it was imposed under the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948, cannot survive after the 101st Amendment. After the 101st Amendment, the State likewise lost the ability to implement legislation similar to the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948, the Bench said. Limitation Period to file Appeal begins when Order is Uploaded in GST Portal: Gujarat HC GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 845 In a major decision the Gujarat High Court ruled that the limitation period to file appeal begins when order is uploaded in the GST Portal. Although the petitioner received a physical copy of the adjudication ruling, the time limit for filing an appeal would not begin until the judgement was uploaded to the GST portal, according to the two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner was unable to submit the appeal without the order. The Bench further stated that, in its opinion, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the basis of limitation is unjustifiable because the petitioner cannot be punished for the lack of clarity of the provision when the new law is enacted simply because the petitioner manually filed the appeal after exhausting all efforts to ensure filing of the appeal in a proper and legal manner. GST Dept Cannot Ignore the Refund allowed on Zero Rated Supply because of Appeal to be Filed: Delhi HC NETGEAR TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GST CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 846 The Delhi High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department cannot ignore the refund allowed on zero-rated supply because of an appeal to be filed against the said order. The Revenue cannot disregard the Order-in-Appeal and refuse the benefits of the same on the grounds that it intends to appeal the said order, according to the two-judge panel made up of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan. The Court ordered the respondent to distribute the petitioner's claim for refund with relevant interest as quickly as feasible, within a period of four weeks, because the petitioner had been deprived the benefit of the ruling in its favour for more than two years. Delhi HC directs ICAI to Re-Adjudicate on Non-Speaking Order in Plea against unusual Salary Difference caused by Accelerated Promotion Scheme ALOK MALHOTRA vs THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 847 The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has been served with a direction to re-adjudicate on plea against the unusual pay difference between senior and junior employees, by the Delhi High Court owing to the lack of reasons cited in the non-speaking order. The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh instructed ICAI to reevaluate the representation of the petitioner and the problems brought up in the writ petition and that "Respondent shall take a decision and pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks from today." The petitioner will receive notice of the order within a week of it being passed, and if they are unhappy with it and are advised as such, they are free to pursue legal remedies. Customs authorities issue Penalty Order despite Interim order of Division Bench not to take Coercive steps: Madras HC sets aside Penalty Order Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd vs The Commercial of Customs CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 848 In a recent ruling, a Single Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the penalty order imposed by the Customs Authorities against the petitioner despite the interim order of the Division Bench. The bench noted that the respondent authorities had instructed the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 within 7 days of receiving the notice and had warned that if she did not, she would be subject to punishment under Section 142(1)(c)(iii) of the Customs Act of 1962. Additionally, the court accepted the appeal and ordered the respondents to abide by the temporary orders issued by the Division court of this Court. Retaining Explanation to Section 245A of the Income Tax Act serves the purpose of explaining the scope of Section 245A, literal interpretation is sufficient: Delhi HC SUSHIL KUMAR GOYAL & ORS. vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 843 In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court ruled that the Retaining Explanation to Section 245A of the Income Tax Act serves the purpose of explaining the scope of Section 245A of the Income Tax Act and that the literal interpretation is sufficient. The claim that the literal interpretation of the law is against the legislative intent is rejected by our team as having no substance. Instead, keeping the Explanation to Section 245A of the Income Tax Act (and later revising it) accomplishes the desired result of adequately describing the application of Section 245A of the Income Tax Act. The Bench came to the conclusion that there is no ambiguity in Section 245A of the Income Tax Act that would require or make it appropriate for the court to ignore the literal reading of the text of Section 245A. Non-Payment of Amount Due to Bank is Default under S. 3(12) of IBC: SC Dismisses Appeal M. Suresh Kumar Reddy vs Canara Bank & Ors CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 184 The Supreme Court viewed the non-payment of the amount due to the bank as a default under Section 3(12) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)and dismissed the appeal. A two-judge panel made up of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted that the first respondent had informed the corporate debtor in a letter dated January 18, 2021, that the competent authority had not taken into account the corporate debtor's request to extend bank guarantees and secured overdraft facilities. According to the observation, "the Corporate Debtor committed a default within the meaning of Section 3(12) of the IB Code due to non-payment of the amounts due to the Bank." Delhi HC reserves judgement on PIL against Exchange/Deposit of Rs. 2000 Notes without ID Proofs In the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the Delhi High Court regarding the exchange or deposit of Rs. 2000 notes without identity proofs, a Division Bench including the Chief Justice reserved the judgement on May 23rd 2022. Recently, the Reserve Bank of India has withdrawn the Rs. 2000 denomination bank notes from circulation. Also, on 22nd May 2023, the Reserve bank issued the format for exchange or deposit of Rs. 2000 notes without ID proof. Notice of Proceedings u/s 110(1B) of Customs Act must be issued to Owner of Seized Goods: Delhi HC GANESH SAWANT vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 849 The Delhi High Court has held that notice of proceedings under Section 110(1b) of the Customs Act, 1962 must be issued to the owner of seized goods. The owner or the individuals from whom the goods were seized must receive notice of the process under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, according to a two-judge panel made up of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan. It was determined that the respondent's argument that no notice of the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act must be served is invalid. The Court determined that the petitioner has the right to seek that the proceedings under Section 110(1D) of the Customs Act be started from scratch in view of the precedent set in the case of Ishwar Parasram Punjabi v. Union of India. Absence of Notice on Freezing of Bank Account: Madras HC orders fresh EnquirySrikals Graphics Private Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 852 The Madras High Court ordered fresh enquiry in the absence of notice on freezing of the bank account as it would be fair and equitable to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioner subject to being put on terms. The court ruled that upon receipt of such money, the respondents must make sure that the Writ Petitioner's bank account is immediately unfrozen. It goes without saying that the first respondent will then undertake a new investigation, and the petitioner will have the chance to make a personal appearance and offer written and oral testimony regarding the purported arrears owing. Odisha Honey Trap Case: Orissa HC rejects anticipatory bail to Khageswar Patra on failure to comply S.45 PMLA Khageswar Patra vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 851 The Orissa High Court rejected the anticipatory bail to Khageswar Patra, an accused in the Odisha Honey Trap case on failure to comply Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 (PMLA). The Court denied the anticipatory bail after taking into account the seriousness and nature of the accusations made against the petitioner, as well as the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the rules established by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhury and Others v. Union of India. Section 245C (1) Application under Income Tax Act, not Maintainable in Absence of Case for Relevant AY: Delhi HC BISHAN DAS GOYAL HUF vs THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 853 The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 245C (1) application under the Income Tax Act is not maintainable in the absence of a case for the relevant Assessment years (AY). Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan, who made up the two-judge Delhi Court panel, stated that "A plain reading of Explanation (i) to Clause (b) of Section 245A of the Income Tax Act clearly indicates that the proceedings in relation to assessment, reassessment, or re-computation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act had not commenced in respect of the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-14, and 2014-15." In its final statement, the Bench stated, "We find no infirmity with the decision of the Commission that the petitioner's application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act in respect of the said assessment years, was not maintainable." Delhi HC directs JC Flowers to approach Appellate Tribunal u/s 26 of PMLA to claim Beneficial Interest in Property J.C. FLOWERS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 850 A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court directed J.C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited, the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to claim beneficial interest in the property. Accordingly, the court's conclusion is that the petitioner who asserts a beneficial interest in the property should seek the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court of Justice Prathiba M Singh stated. The petition is consequently rejected as withdrawn, with the right to appeal granted by the Appellate Tribunal established in accordance with Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court said. Municipality Recruitment Scam: Calcutta HC dismisses Review Petition Directing ED to Continue Investigation Soumen Nandy vs State of West Bengal & Ors CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 855 A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the review petition directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to continue the investigation in the much-celebrated Municipality Recruitment Scam. The Court stated in dismissing the review petition that it believes the State, including its departments, should cooperate with the investigating agencies and ensure that the ongoing investigation comes to a logical conclusion as soon as possible so that the offenders can be arrested and properly dealt with in accordance with the law. No Cancellation of GST Registration by merely describing Firm as Bogus: Allahabad HC directs to issue Fresh Notice u/s 29(2) of UP GST Act M/S Star Metal Company vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 858 The Allahabad High Court directed to issue fresh notice under Section 29(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(UPGST Act) and observed that no cancellation of the GST registration can be made by merely describing the firm as bogus. Based on the ruling in Apparent Marketing Private Limited, a single Allahabad High Court bench led by Justice Piyush Agarwal stated: "The registration once granted might be withdrawn only if one of the five statutory prerequisites was found present. Simply stating that the company that received the registration was "bogus" will not result in its cancellation per se. The Bench said that the respondent-author is free to issue a new notice on any specific basis listed in section 29(2) of the GST Act, and that if that action is taken, it will be resolved on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this judgement. Orissa HC stays Penalty and Interest Demanded by GST Department in absence of Second Appellate GST Tribunal A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court stayed the penalty and interest demanded by the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department in absence of Second Appellate Goods and Service Tax (GST) Tribunal. The Court of Justices Dr. BR Sarangi and MS Raman stated, "Since the Petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching second appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, the amount of penalty and interest demanded by authority shall remain stayed during pendency of the writ petition subject to the Petitioner depositing the entire amount of tax demanded within a period of fifteen days from today." Joint Commissioner of State Tax has Power to Search and Seizure: Orissa HC upholds Order passed u/s 130 of IGST Act The Orissa High Court has held that the Joint Commissioner of State Tax has the power to search and seizure and upheld the order passed under section 130 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. It was noted that the search and seizure authority had exceeded its authority and rejected the order under Annexure-10. Instead, the authority acted in accordance with its jurisdiction to issue such an order. As a result, the argument made that he cannot be a judge of his own cause is untrue in this instance. The writ petition was dismissed by a two-judge panel made up of Dr. Justice B. R. Sarangi and Justice M. S. Raman, allowing the petitioner to seek redress from the proper authority. Time-barred Re-Assessment Proceedings: Delhi HC issues notice for Re-examination MUKESH GOEL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 62(1) CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 861 The Delhi High Court issued the notice for re-examination since the reassessment was time-barred. The requirements of Section 149(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and the third proviso are therefore applicable, according to a two-judge panel consisting of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia. The judges also noted that the proceedings brought against the petitioner are time-barred. Since the matter needs to be examined, the court sent notice to the defendant and declared that "the Assessing Officer will have the liberty to continue with the reassessment proceedings." However, until additional instructions from the Court, any order that is granted and is against the petitioner's or assessee's interests is not to be implemented. Excise Duty for Ghutka for July and August, 2008 to be Computed as per PMPM Rules: Delhi HC COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX vs OM FRAGRANCES & ANR CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 857 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court observed that the excise duty for Ghutka for July and August, 2008 to be computed as per the Pan Masala Packing Machines(PMPM) (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008(PMPM Rules). "In the present case, we are unable to accept that it is implicit in the provisions of the amended Rule 17(2), that it applies retrospectively for purposes of determining duty in respect of searches conducted prior to 20.10.2008," the bench composed of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan stated. The duty would be established by assuming - unless established to the contrary - that the machines found were operational from 01.07.2008 and by applying the computational provisions of Rule 7 of the PMPM Rules for searches conducted after the Second Amendment Rules came into force, the Bench stated. Section 50C of Income Tax Act Cannot be Applied on Compulsory Acquisition of a Capital Asset: Calcutta HC PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S. THE DURGAPUR PROJECTS LIMITED CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 860 The Calcutta High Court has held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be applied to the compulsory acquisition of a capital asset. The provisions of Section 50C cannot be applied in cases of compulsory acquisition of capital assets such as land, buildings, or both, according to a two-judge panel made up of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya. This is because there is no need to pay stamp duty to complete the transfer in question. The National Highways Act of 1956's provisions were used to acquire the property. The property vests by operation of the aforementioned statute, and no payment of stamp duty is necessary for this property vesting. As such there was no necessity for an assessment of the valuation of the property by the stamp valuation authority in the case on hand. It was held that the provisions under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to the case on hand. Power of Reopening Assessment is a Power, which is to be Sparingly used for Adequate Reasons: Calcutta HC quashes Assessment Order on Failure to Comply Natural Justice Principles Pramod Kumar Madhogarhia vs The Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 863 Quashing the assessment order on failure to comply natural justice principles the Calcutta High Court remarked that the power of reopening assessment is a power, which is to be sparingly used for adequate reasons. The Assessing Officer shall redo the process in accordance with law, and the Assessee shall not raise the point of imitation before the Assessing Officer as this order has been passed accepting the case of the Assessee that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, as alleged. The Bench further ordered the Assessee to submit a thorough reply enclosing all documents in support of his claim. Excluding Taxpayers from the SVLDR Scheme due to obvious errors is contrary to its object: Delhi HC quashes Order Rejecting SVLDR Declaration CARPET EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 862 Quashing the order rejecting Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) Declaration the Delhi High Court remarked that excluding taxpayers from Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR) scheme due to obvious errors is contrary to its object. The Bench instructed the designated authority to process the petitioner's declaration in accordance with the SVLDR Scheme as quickly as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. "The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's declaration under the SVLDR Scheme is set aside," the Bench stated. No Prejudice to Taxpayer on Non-Formation of GSTAT: Calcutta HC stays Recovery Proceedings JAI VENKTESH CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 864 The Calcutta High Court stayed the recovery proceedings as no prejudice to the taxpayer was caused by non-formation of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya were on a division bench of the Calcutta High Court when they stated, "We are of the opinion that recovery proceedings should remain stayed without imposing any precondition. Therefore, until the writ petition is resolved, the authorities are prohibited from taking any forceful recovery measures. In light of this, the Single Bench's requirement that 20% of the contested tax be deposited is no longer in effect. Denial of IGST Refund based on Notification declared Unconstitutional by Supreme Court: Calcutta HC directs Re-Adjudication of time-barred Claim ETC Agro Processing (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 865 In a recent ruling, a Single Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin of Calcutta High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Authorities to re-adjudicate the claim of refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) which was rejected on the grounds of limitation. Additionally, the cases were returned to the relevant respondent authorities, who were given 12 weeks from the date this order was communicated to reconsider and decide whether to grant the petitioner's request for a refund on the basis of merit and taking the aforementioned Gujarat High Court judgement into account. Issuance of Notice by Dept Proven by Corroborative Evidence: Madras HC dismisses Petition Tvl.Sri Maharaja Industries vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 866 The Madras High Court dismissed the petition since the issuance of notice by the department was proved based on corroborative evidence. A single-judge bench comprising Justice R N Manjula observed that even if the petitioner is aggrieved due to any omission committed on the part of the respondent authority, there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders by way of filing revision/ appeal before the competent authority. The Court dismissed the petition as it was evident that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner. Payment of Tax at 12% at time of Filing Returns and 10% of Disputed Tax as Pre-Deposit: Calcutta HC Remands Matter MOHAMMAD SIKANDAR ALI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 867 A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court remanded back the matter to Assistant Commissioner as payment of tax at the rate of 12% was made at the time of filing returns and 10% of the disputed tax was made as pre-deposit. The Bench stated, "The appeal and the writ petition are disposed of by setting aside the orders passed by the appellate authority and remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner with a condition that the appellant shall pay a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh and upon such payment, the said assessing officer shall consider the documents that the assessee may produce and examine as to whether the assessee was correct in computing the tax." Reassessment made on Entirely a New Set of Facts which were not known to Assessee: Calcutta HC quashes Assessment Order KUNAL DAGA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 868 A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court quashed the income tax assessment order since the reassessment was made on entirely a new set of facts which were not known to the assessee. "The reassessment proceedings have to be redone and even if the assessment order has been passed, the same is required to be set aside and the matter is to be restored to the assessing officer for fresh consideration," the two-judge bench made up of T. S. Sivagnanam, the acting chief justice, and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya concluded. Delhi High Court upholds Income Tax Department decision to Transfer Tax Assessment of Congress Leaders, AAP, Charitable Trusts to Central Circle SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL TRUST vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) & ORS CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 869 The Delhi High Court dismissed a batch of petitions by Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and other and other charitable trusts challenging the Income Tax department’s decision of transferring their tax assessments from faceless assessment to its Central Circle. The assessments of the petitioners have been transferred to the Central Circle in conformity with the law by way of the impugned orders passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, according to a division bench of the Delhi High Court composed of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma. As a result, the interim orders issued by this Court are revoked, and the current writ petitions as well as any pending applications are dismissed without any order regarding costs. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. 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