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 November 29 to November 4, 2021.
C.C.E. Vs. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd.
The Supreme Court directed integration of technology adopted to streamline, monitor all stages in government revenue litigation, to ITAT, CESTAT, and other Tribunals.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition challenging pattern of Intermediate, Final CMA Exams scheduled to be conducted Online.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea seeking Opt-Out Option for Symptomatic Students Without RT-PCR Report.
The Madras High Court allowed the remission of GST as quantified under SabkaVishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) (SVLDR) Scheme subject to payment of 15% interest. The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumar Sukumara Kurup ruled that the time limit for completion of the payment of taxes, as quantified in Form-3, also stood extended till 30.09.2020. If that is the date on which the appellants were required to complete the payment, then the appellant’s conduct in approaching this Court by filing the writ petitions on 29.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 can very well be reckoned to be a conduct, which will not be hit by delay and laches.
Kerala Pradesh Gandhi Darshanvedhi Vs. UOI
The Kerala High Court while showing discontent to the Centre said that the Pandemic is not an excuse for the Non-Inclusion of Petroleum products under GST. After perusing the statement filed on behalf of the Director of Goods and Services Tax Council, the bench observed, “Even though the matter was taken in the 45th GST Council meeting, three issues seemed to have been considered by the Council for bringing the petroleum products under the GST regime, i.e., (i) the matter involves high revenue implications, (ii) requires larger deliberations and (iii) during pandemic times, it would be difficult to bring petroleum products under the GST regime.” The court observed, “We are not satisfied with the reasons. There should be some discussion and genuine reasons as to why petroleum products cannot be brought under the GST regime. Further, the pandemic period cannot be cited as a reason. It is well known that even during the pandemic, several decisions were taken involving revenue, after deliberations.”
State Tax Officer Vs. Y.Balakrishanan
The Kerala High Court held that the basis for calculating a fine in lieu of confiscation under the GST Act is only market value and not the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that if the goods that are subject to confiscation proceedings carries an invoice and the Proper Officer has no dispute on the value mentioned in the invoice based upon a preliminary appreciation of the amount payable for goods or services of a like-kind or quality, at or about the same time and at the same commercial level, then that shall be the market value. If on the other hand, the tentative amount or the amount assumed to be the market value preliminarily is disputed by the taxpayer, it calls for a determination during adjudication, where an opportunity for showing the true market value of the property will be available to the taxpayer. A reading of the definition, no doubt, reveals that the statute does not reckon MRP as the criteria for determining the fine leviable. The intention and the explicit words used in the statute clearly indicate that the proper officer cannot base the fine on the MRP imprinted on the goods if there are other materials available to fix the market value. The Kerala High Court has held that the goods can be released on payment of the fine in lieu of confiscation during the process of adjudication and post-adjudication.
In a major relief to Nayara Energy, the Gujarat High Court directed the GST Authority to disburse the GST Refund of Rs. 50.88 Crores along with Interest as technical glitch cannot be reason for non-payment. The court ordered that the authority concerned may also consider of taking in advance, the amount of Rs.39,05,121/- from the petitioner of the sum of the Welfare Fund and making the payment to the amount of Rs.51,27,47,703/- to the petitioner is entirety, if that can act as a solution before the software is improvised. However, if nothing materializes, let the amount be paid at the end of four weeks to the petitioner without fail with interest. If not paid at the end of four weeks, the rate of interest on the sum due shall be 12% on the entire sum from the due date of payment till the actual date of payment.
Kashmir Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court granted bail to a person accused of creating fictitious firms, availing bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth Rs.117.25 crores.
Rajputana Stainless Ltd. Vs. UOI
The Gujarat High Court directs matters back to the GST Authority to cross examine witnesses whose statements have been recorded. The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak held that while holding in principle that it is the right of the parties to make a request for the defence witnesses of even those witnesses who have been dropped out by the Revenue, the request, in the instant case, was not of examining them as defence witnesses till the learned counsel stepped in, but, of cross-examining them without examining them as defence witnesses and that simply is impermissible and hence, the order impugned cannot be interfered with.
Schlumberger Solutions Private Limited Vs. Commissioner Centre GST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Form SVLDRS-2 by Designated Committee as Taxpayers cannot be punished for depositing the amount under different heads. The division bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain held that the amount deposited by the petitioner falls in the second category. The provision only talks of amount irrespective of whether it has been paid as tax or interest or penalty. Thus, the view taken by the Designated Committee cannot be sustained. There is another side to the story. Had the petitioner remitted the entire amount paid by him towards tax, the respondents would have given credit of the entire amount and his interest liability would have been waived off as well. The petitioner cannot be punished for depositing the amount under different heads once the provision mandates to discount the amount paid during the investigation dehors the head it has been deposited under.
Gurdit Dang Vs. State of Odisha
The Orissa High Court granted the bail to a person accused of wrongful utilization of bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of fake invoices without physical movement of goods.
Trivedi and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI
The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Authority to enable the taxpayer to file revised TRAN-1 Form electronically or allow Input Tax Credit (lTC) by manually revising TRAN-1.
Smruti Ranjan Sahoo Vs. State of Orisha
The Orissa High Court granted bail to a person alleged of Wrongfully availing and passing Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the name of Bogus Firms.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the deduction under Section 80IB (10) on construction of housing projects as the size or number of housing projects undertaken on a minimum area of one acre of land is not significant.
The Kerala High Court upheld the addition as diversion of funds of the Trust amounting to a violation of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The division bench of Justice S.V.Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji held that the CIT(A) is justified in directing the A.O. to treat an amount of Rs. 72,45,000 as advance as income to the assessee. The assessee was paying interest on borrowings, and therefore, notional interest at the rate of 18% on the advance of Rs.72,45,000 was rightly brought to tax as income of the assessee by the A.O. Therefore, the court saw no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT (A).
Mohamed Babu Paramboor of Malappuram Vs. UOI
The Kerala High Court has admitted the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Faceless Assessment Procedure under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed the Reassessment Notice issued under Income Tax Act after April 01, 2021. The single-judge bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh in the light of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of ‘Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India wherein it was held that the Ordinance, the Enabling Act, and Sections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, as enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, are not conflicted. Insofar as the Explanation appended to Clause A(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 (respectively) are concerned, we declare that the said Explanations must be read, as applicable to reassessment proceedings as may have been in existence on 31.03.2021 i.e. before the substitution of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, 151 & 151A of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment notices in all the writ petitions are quashed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
