Supreme Court and High Courts Weekly Round-up

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from March 28st to April 3rd, 2022. VINAY KANT AMETA vs UNION OF INDIA - 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 128 In a recent case of a GST scam worth Rs. 869, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has granted bail to one of the Directors of M/s Miraj Products Private Limited on a condition to deposit Rs. 200 crores as a pre-requirement of releasing him on bail. While hearing an appeal filed by the appellant against the orders of the authorities and the order of the High Court, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh granted the bail on depositing of Rs.200 Crores. Sohan Singh Rao vs Union Of India - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 233 The Rajasthan High Court, while hearing a bail application filed by a director of a company allegedly involved in a GST scam worth Rs. 869 crores have refused to grant bail. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha observed that the petitioner and Vinaykant Ameta were directors in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. As per the prosecution story, they had evaded a tax of Rs. 869 Crores. GST department had seized one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. SUBHASH CHANDRA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INDORE REGION - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 234 The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the voluntarily disclosed income is not liable to be included with regular income declared in the return under section 139 as tax paid under VDIS is not liable to be refunded. DAR CREDIT AND CAPITAL Ltd vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 236 The Calcutta High Court has held that the rejection of objection against the re-assessment notice does not mean that the re-assessment is final and held that the assessee will get ample opportunity to defend his case throughout the proceedings. Pacific Industries Ltd vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 238 The Rajasthan High Court allows Assessee to avail Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B Return due to non-availability of FORM GST ITC-02A on GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion. The Hon’ble Division Bench headed by Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta and Hon’ble Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani held that the action of GST Department is grossly illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. Further, the Hon’ble Bench allowed the Petitioner to avail input tax credit through the GSTR-3B return and directed the respondent to regularize the input credit as per the entitlement. S.P. Velayutham vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 235 The Madras High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated by the income tax department under section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that there is no willful evasion of tax. Justice N. Sathish Kumar observed that to prosecute a person there must be a willful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of any tax, penalty, or interest. THE BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1934) PVT LTD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST & ANR - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 237 The Delhi High Court has admitted a petition by the British Motor Car Company (1934) Pvt. Ltd wherein the petitioner challenged the action of the department rejecting manual filing of TRAN-1 despite having a Court order directing the same. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S. M. R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD - 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 129 The Supreme Court has held that the immunity under the Income Declaration Scheme was available only to the declarant and not to another assessee. The immunity under Section 192 is available only to the declarant. Exide Industries Limited vs The State of Jharkhand - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 239 The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Input Tax Credit cannot be denied on Inter-State sale or transfer of stock under Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 since there is no manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee within the State. Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 241 The Bombay High Court, while concurring with the views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court has quashed the re-assessment notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 without following the new procedure laid down under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SHRI SHAKTI COTTON PVT. LTD. vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 242 A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the provision allowing attachment under section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act is being misused to the maximum. While concluding, the Court added that “Over a period of time, we have noticed that Section 44 of the GVAT Act is being misused to the maximum. Either the authorities concerned have no idea about the scope and true purport of Section 44 of the GVAT Act or they just pretend to be ignorant of the correct interpretation of Section 44 of the GVAT Act.” Emami Agrotech Limited vs Union of India & ors. - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 244 The Calcutta High Court, while allowing a writ petition filed by Emami Agrotech Limited has directed the Customs department to grant an opportunity to the assessee to defend the case during the proceedings since the legal consultant could not represent his case earlier due to covid-19. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs CRI LIMITED - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 245 The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal on the ground of maintainability by holding that the question relating to the eligibility of exemption notification is related to the rate of duty. Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the division bench held that “In this regard, we have considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 –vs- Motorola India Limited reported in (2019) 9 SCC 563. It was pointed out that when the question involved is whether an assessee is covered by an exemption notification or not is a question relatable to the rate of duty. If that be the legal position, then this Court cannot entertain this appeal. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Ghosh is sustained and appeal is held to be not maintainable before this Court. As a result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” M/S DILIPKUMAR CHANDULAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 247 A division bench of the Gujarat High Court has directed the GST department to recall the order for cancellation of GST registration as the default on the part of the assessee was due to the mistake done by the Chartered Accountant who was handling the matter. M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow - 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 253 The Allahabad High Court has held that a partner of the Firm who was present during the Survey cannot question the validity of the same later. Allowing the contentions of the Revenue, Justice Piyush Agarwal held that the assessee, himself, has accepted that one of the partners was present at the time of the survey, who himself, on estimation (Anuman Se) stated that the stock is for 24-25 tons, but he never requested to correct the stock entries or objected before the surveying authority about the noting the same as “40 tons”. At this juncture, the counsel for the applicant submits that there is no provision to object to the entries incorporate during the survey.

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