Supreme Court and High Courts Weekly Round-Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court (SC) and High Court (HC) reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from June 1 to June 11, 2022.

Dynasoure Concrete Treatment Private Limited & Anr vs Chairman, Goods and Service Tax Network CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 459
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to allow amendment in GSTR-1 in order to rectify a mistake in mentioning the GSTIN.

Anil Kumar vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal and another CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 443

The division bench of Punjab and Haryana has upholds charging 3% on total turnover of assessee, who provides accommodation entries to dealers to reduce tax liabilities.

M/S TOSHIBA CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 445
The Delhi High Court held that while deciding stay application, Assessing Officer have to consider, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

M/S SHAKTI OIL AND CHEMICAL CO. vs COMMISSIONER OF DGST DELHI & ORS CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 458
The Delhi High Court ordered the GST department to de-seal the business premises of the assessee, M/S Shakti Oil and Chemical Co., sealed on the ground that no relevant documents were submitted in consequent to a search conducted in the premises.

Mahendra Feeds and Foods vs The Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 457

The Madras High Court has upheld the legality of the show cause notice based on mismatch in returns filed by the supplier and the dealer by holding that the same amount to a mere technical breach.

PHOENIX CONTACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), NEW DELHI CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 456

In a major relief to Phoenix Contact India Private Ltd, the Delhi High Court held that IGST refund is allowable on zero-rated supplies. Earlier, the department has denied the claim pointing out the correction in two shipping bills and higher duty draw back claim.

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 446

The Delhi High Court quashed the demand of 8 crores and directs fresh adjudication in a matter relating to Baxter India.

M/S TATA TELESERVICES LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 455
The Delhi High Court held that TDS deduction on payment of interconnect user charges cannot be categorized as the fee for technical service.

THE VICE CHAIRMAN SETTLEMENT COMMISSION vs ZYETA INTERIORS PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 453
The Karnataka High Court has held that the absence of strict adherence to the ratio at the time of payment never leads to paying double tax.

PREM BROTHERS INFRASTRUCTURE LLP. vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 454

The Delhi High Court held that penalty under Section 270A will not attract by mere reference of misreporting of Income.

M/S ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 451
The Delhi High Court while directing the department to re-open the e-portal the assessee has the right to get adequate time to submit reply to the income tax notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

SHUBHAM THAKRAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), DELHI CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 452
The Delhi High Court, while quashing an income tax order for the violation of natural justice principles, held that fresh adjudication is required since the assessee did not get the minimum time as mandated under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

SURESH CHAND GUPTA & ANR vs STATE OF GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR CITATION:2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 450
The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings u/s 135(1)(a) of Customs Act can’t be initiated against value of the goods less than Rs.1 Crore.

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 448

The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax proceedings against M/s Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd wherein the department treated IGST Refund as income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

BHAGWAN SINGH vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 449

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that SARFAESI Act and RDB Act have an overriding effect on the provisions of HPVAT.

S K SRIVASTAVA vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 447

The Delhi High Court held that writ petition can be filed only when statutory remedies are entirely exhausted to meet demands of extraordinary situations.

MEENU CHAUFLA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49(1), DELHI CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 439
The Delhi High Court held that period of thirty days u/s 148A(b) can be extended by the application of the assessee.

KSHIPRA JATANA vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 63(1) & ORS CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 442
The Delhi High Court has directed to refund amount adjusted towards disputed tax demand prior to issuance of setoff of refund order u/s 245.

M/S DELHI AND DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 435
In a major relief to the Delhi and District Cricket Association, the Delhi High Court has allowed a petition seeking refund of excess service tax along with interest.

Tvl. GK Digital Printing vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 436
The Madras High Court has directed the GST Network (GSTN) to allow the payment of tax, penalty and fine by the taxpayer whose GST registration is cancelled due to non-filing of returns.

M/S.Abi Technologies vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 434
The Madras High Court has allowed a refund claim of the exporter and held that that the strict application of GST rules to deny legitimate export incentives to the exporters would defeat the legislative intent of export incentives.

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs A. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 147
The Supreme Court recently held that liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a “financial debt” within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and a holder of such Recovery Certificate would be a “financial creditor” under Section 5(7) of the IBC.

MAMTA GUPTA vs ADDL./JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 425

While dismissing a writ petition challenging a re-assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Delhi High Court has held that ‘change of opinion’ cannot be alleged if there is fresh tangible material with the Assessing Officer.

SURESH CHAND GUPTA & ANR vs STATE OF GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ANR CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 431

The Delhi High Court has quashed Criminal Charges u/s 132 of Income Tax Act without any material on record for prima facie satisfaction.

M/s. Raghav Industries Ltd vs Union of India CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 433
The Madras High Court has quashed a single judge decision wherein the rebate of duty paid out of credit availed on capital goods was denied to the exporter on the ground the a higher rate of drawback was also availed, it will amount to double benefit and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.