Supreme Court & 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 30th November 2024 to 6th December 2024.

Enormous Delay of 1788 Days for Second Appeal Filing by Dept: Supreme Court imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Costs on Madhya Pradesh Govt. in SLP [Read Judgment] State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramkumar Choudhary CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (SC) 291

Recently, the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the Madhya Pradesh government for its delayed filing of a second appeal concerning a land dispute.

In its ruling, the Court noted that delays in legal proceedings, especially by state entities, should not be excused as a matter of generosity. It reiterated that the rules of limitation are rooted in public policy and must be applied strictly to maintain the credibility of the judicial process.The State has been directed to deposit the imposed fine within two weeks. If the amount is not deposited, the Supreme Court Registry will take necessary legal steps to recover it.

GST ITC Blocking allowed Even with Zero ITC Balance in ECL: Madras HC delivers Detailed Interpretation of Rule 86A [Read Order] Tvl.Skanthaguru Innovations Private Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2404

The Madras High Court has ruled that the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) can be blocked even with zero ITC balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). It was clarified that the negative blocking can continue up to the stage of accumulation of ITC to the extent of wrongful availment of credit in the ECL.

Thus, the court concluded that State Authorities are empowered to block ITC equivalent to the fraudulently availed amount, regardless of ECL balance at the time. In this case, they could block up to ₹13.10 Crores. The decisions of the Gujarat and Delhi High Courts were not followed as they did not consider the latter part of Rule 86A.

State GST Proceedings Post-Central Dept’s Search Valid if Quantum of Amount and Period of Demand is Different: Madras HC [Read Order] Tvl.Skanthaguru Innovations Private Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2406

The State GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) proceedings are valid even after the search conducted by the Central GST department if the quantum of amount and period of demand is different from the Central GST’s, ruled the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court observed that the State Authorities acted within their jurisdiction in this case, and it is premature to determine whether the principle of cross-empowerment applies.

Lack of Progress of Trial, accused CHA behind Bars for 3 Years: Bombay HC grants Conditional Bail in 191.60 KG Heroin Seizure Case [Read Order] Kondiba Gunjal vs The Union of India CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2405

The Bombay High Court has granted conditional bail to a Customs House Agent ( CHA ) accused in a high-profile drug case involving the seizure of 191.60 kg of heroin. The applicant had been in custody for over three years without significant progress in the trial.

The court observed that Sending documents for consignment clearance is part of the applicant’s role as a clearing agent and cannot be presumed as participation in illegal activities.

Proceedings Based on Delayed Audit Report u/s 41(4) of OVAT Act cannot be Initiated by Dept: Orissa HC [Read Order] M/s. Aman Enterprises vs State of Odisha and others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2402

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court has held that the department cannot initiate the proceeding consequent to delayed audit report under section 41(4) of Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004.

A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held that with the time limit not having been adhered to as far as the present case is concerned, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that all proceedings consequent including the assessment order are unsustainable in law. The court set aside the assessment order and all proceedings.

No Reversal of ITC when claim IGST instead of CGST and SGST: Kerala HC [Read Order] REJIMON PADICKAPPARAMBIL ALEX vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2403

In a recent case related to the wrongful use of Integrated Goods And Service Tax(IGST) , the Kerala High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) not reversible when claim IGST instead of CGST and SGST. The bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the Writ Petition by quashing order and declaring that the appellant shall not be seen as having availed excess credit for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.

The court of Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar & Justice K. V. Jayakumar copied the order passed by Shri.Hareendran K, IRS, Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, East Division-6, Bengaluru, which considered an identical issue regarding the availment of input tax credit as CGST and SGST instead of IGST. The bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and allowed the Writ Petition by quashing order and declaring that the appellant shall not be seen as having availed excess credit for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.

Objections from Assessment Audit of Exim Goods u/s 99A of Customs Act to be notified to Assessee: Delhi HC directs Refund [Read Order] DESIGNCO vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2400

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the responsibilities of a Proper Officer to apprise the auditee of ‘objections’ that may arise during audit conducted in respect of Assessment of imported or exported goods under Section 99A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and Others (2010), the Court echoed the “need for notices issued by any statutory authority to consist of reasoning as opposed to a simpliciter recordal of definitive conclusions and which would thus lead the noticee to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that a right of representation would be an empty formality.”

Relief to BHEL: Andhra Pradesh HC quashes SCN for Non-Payment of Stamp Duty, Finds it issued without Jurisdiction [Read Order] Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2401

In the recent ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, quashed a show cause notice ( SCN ) issued to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. ( BHEL ) for alleged non-payment of stamp duty, finding it was issued without jurisdiction and applied to an unregistered agreement, which falls outside the purview of Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

In short, the Court quashed the impugned notice as it was issued without jurisdiction and allowed the appeal, ordering that there would be no costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Personal Hearing mandatory if Rectification Application decision affects filer Adversely: Madras HC [Read Order] M/s.Suriya Cement Agency vs The State Tax Officer (ST) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2407

Recently, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court clarified that the 3rd Proviso of the Section 161 of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act mandates personal hearing if the decision on rectification application filed by the assessee affects him adversely.

Thus,the impugned rectification order was set aside, for failing to follow the procedures mentioned under the GST Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the rectification application and pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to present their case.

‘An Audit Report is not an Order of Determination u/s 106 (1) of the Finance Act, 2013’: Delhi HC [Read Order] PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST vs FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA LIMITED & ANR CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2408

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and held that an audit report is not an order of determination under Section 106 (1) of the Finance Act, 2013.

The high court, comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and held that the taxpayer cannot be deprived of the benefit of VCES as the SCN did not cover any of the dues in respect of which the declaration was filed. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Purchases Claimed by Assessee not Proven to be Non-Business Related: Delhi HC Upholds ITAT’s Findings [Read Order] PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S PARAMOUNT RESIDENCY LTD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2409

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) and held that the purchases claimed by the assessee were solely and exclusively for business purposes, as there was no evidence to show that the purchases claimed by the assessee were non-business related.

The bench further observed that ‘As noted by the learned ITAT, there is no evidence to suggest that the amounts paid by the assessee for the supplies booked in its books of accounts had been returned to the assessee in a form of cash or through any accommodation entry. ‘ The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and upheld the decision of ITAT.

Delhi HC Rejects Challenge to Assessment Order u/s 143(3), Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost for Frivolous Litigation [Read Order] BT GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INIDA PVT.LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2410

In a recent ruling, the Delhi passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The High Court rejected a petition challenging the assessment order passed under Section 143( 3 ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was frivolous and imposed a Rs. 1 lakh cost.

The HC, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, noted that the clear language of the contents of the impugned order is unsustainable. There was no scope for raising such a challenge after the AO had amply clarified that the impugned order was issued under Section 143(3) of the Act and the assessee’s contentions to the contrary are insubstantial. The HC dismissed the above petition and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh due to frivolous litigation.

Cross Empowerment of State Officials under GST: Kerala HC refers matters to Division Bench [Read Judgment] PINNACLE VEHICLES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED vs JOINT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2411

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has remanded the matter of cross empowerment of State Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Officials to take actions such as issuance of show cause notices ( SCN ) in the absence of specific notifications under Section 6(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

It was thus held that, “ Since the issue raised in this writ petition will affect several proceedings, and taking note of the view expressed by the Madras High Court in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure (Supra), which is contrary to the prima facie view that I have taken, I am of the opinion that this issue requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court.” The case is still under consideration and will proceed to a Division Bench for further analysis. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Reassessment Based on Insight Portal Information must be u/s 147/148, Not Section 153C: Delhi HC [Read Order] DAISY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) NEW DELHI CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2414

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that reassessment was initiated based on insight portal information so it must be under Section 147 or 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not under Section 153C.

The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16.

Assessment Year in Dispute falls beyond the period of Ten years stipulated u/s 149: Delhi HC Restrains Reassessment Proceedings [Read Order] KAD HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2415

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the assessment in question falled beyond the period of ten years stipulated under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and restrained the department from initiating reassessment proceedings for the assessment year ( AY ) 2015-16.

The bench relied on the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax—Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Limited, in which the bench held that ‘the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the year in which the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued.; By relying on the above judgment, the High Court, comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, set aside the impugned notice.

Delhi HC Quashes GST Proceedings Against HCL Amalgamated Company Over Issuance to Non-Existent Entity Post-Merger [Read Order]HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2413

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) proceedings against HCL Infosystems’ amalgamated company due to issuance in the name of the non-existent entity after the merger.

The court quashed the SCN dated December 3, 2023, and the final order dated April 27, 2024. The court allowed the department to initiate fresh proceedings against the amalgamated entity if permissible by law.

Jharkhand HC Upholds GST Cancellation due to Lethargic Approach of Filing Appeal u/s 107 of GST After 1 year [Read Order] Marang Buru Trust vs The State of Jharkhand CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2416

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand held that the lethargic approach of filing appeal under section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Act 2017 before the appellate forum after a delay of 1 year and 20 days is not acceptable and upheld the cancellation of GST Registration.

While dismissing the appeal, the court observed that “neither there is any perversity in the order of cancellation of GST registration; nor is there any necessity for interference with the appellate order, inasmuch as, the same is filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.”

ITC u/s 16(2)(c) of CGST Act Denied: Kerala HC Allows Benefit of Circular [Read Order] ARAFA PLYWOOD AND VENEERS vs STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2417

In a recent case regarding a challenge against the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under section 16 (2)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act , 2017, the High Court of Kerala allowed the benefit of Circular and set aside the orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. allowed the writ petition by setting aside orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M.Trade Links (Supra)after affording an opportunity of hearing to an authorised representative of the petitioner.

Lack of Opportunity to Counter Allegations : Delhi HC upholds ITAT’s Decision to set aside Order Pertaining to India-Singapore DTAA Issue [Read Order] THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES ASIA PACIFIC CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2412

The Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in an issue pertaining to India-Singapore DTAA to set aside the order as the assessee was not given an opportunity to counter the allegations.

The bench observed that the assessee was not given an opportunity to counter the CIT’s allegations that it was a conduit company without substance. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and upheld the decision of ITAT.

Delhi HC Upholds ITAT’s Decision on Genuine Loss Claim in Tool and Die Transactions [Read Order] THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S G-TEKT INDIA PVT. LTD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2420

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s ( ITAT ) decision regarding the loss claim in a tool and die transaction as it observed that the loss incurred by the asseseee was genuine.

It further observed that “there is also no allegation that the assessee is affiliated to HCIL. It is, thus, apparent that the transaction for sale and purchase of dies was a purely commercial transaction entered into by the assessee in its commercial wisdom.” The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, upheld ITAT’s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

Review Petitions Qualify as Pending Litigation Under DTVSV Act, Extending Scope Beyond Appeals, Writs, or SLPs: Delhi HC [Read Order] NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2421

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that review petitions qualify as “pending litigation” under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) expanding the scope of the DTVSV Act beyond appeals, writ petitions, or Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).

The court observed that a narrow interpretation excluding review petitions would defeat the purpose of the Act particularly when other pending applications were allowed to qualify. So, the court set aside the rejection order dated February 13, 2021, and directed the Income Tax Department to accept and process the revised declaration filed by the petitioner on January 28, 2021, as per the provisions of the DTVSV Act.

Relief to Burberry: Delhi HC upholds RPM Method for Distributors Reselling AE Products Without Modification [Read Order] PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S. BURBERRY INDIA PVT. LTD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2419

The Delhi High Court granted relief to Burberry India and upheld the RPM method for the distributors reselling the AE products without modifications.

The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the Tribunal’s decision, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. It found no merit in the argument that AMP expenses disqualified the assessee as a routine distributor. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose and affirmed that the Tribunal’s findings were justified in the provided facts. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

‘Makaan in registered deed was not a residential house’: Delhi HC upholds ITAT’s Interpretation of ‘Residential House’ for S. 54F Exemption [Read Order] HIMANSHU GARG vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1519

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that the reference to a ‘makaan’ in the registered deed was not a residential house and disallowed exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench upheld the findings of ITAT that the reference to a ‘makaan’ in the registered deed was not a residential house The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, upheld ITAT’s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Dissimilar comparables in Transfer Pricing Owing to Intangibles as Goodwill and Product Development Costs: Delhi HC upholds Exclusion [Read Order] PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INDIA PVT CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2418

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the exclusion of dissimilar comparables in transfer pricing due to intangibles such as goodwill and product development costs.

The High Court bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, observed that the functional differences pointed out by the ITAT cannot be considered insignificant. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue as there was no substantial question of law and upheld the decision of ITAT.

Use of Two Flats in Different Floors as Unified Residence Impractical: Delhi HC upholds Disallowance of S. 54 Capital Gains Exemption [Read Order] MRS. KAMLA AJMERA vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2422

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the disallowance of a full exemption claim under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for capital gains used to purchase multiple flats. The Division Bench of the court that heard the case ruled that two flats purchased by the appellant, located on different floors of the same residential tower, do not qualify as a single residential house for exemption purposes.

The court dismissed the appellant’s claim for full exemption under Section 54, affirming the ITAT decision to grant partial exemption only for the flat with the higher investment. The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma and Justice Vibhu Bakhru reiterated that multiple residential units cannot be treated as a single house unless they are physically and functionally unified.

Madras HC quashes Arbitrary Property Tax Revision, Upholds Principles of Natural Justice [Read Order] A.S.Narayanasamy vs The Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2427

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed the arbitrary property tax revision and upheld principles of natural justice.

The high court bench, comprising of Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back for reconsideration to pass fresh orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The assessee was represented by Mr. M. Velmurugan, and the department was represented by Mr. N. Umapathy.

Reassessment Valid Despite Jurisdictional Challenge: Delhi HC Restores ITAT Proceedings [Read Order] PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs M/S AGROHA FINCAP LTD. CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2424

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the reassessment of income under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid despite challenges to jurisdiction and restored the case to ITAT for proceedings.

The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, allowed the revenue’s appeal and restored the case before the ITAT for consideration on the other grounds raised by the assessee.

Concealment Or Inaccurate Particulars u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Carry Different Meanings, Revenue Fails To Specify: Delhi HC Invalidates Penalty [Read Order] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs GRAGERIOUS PROJECTS PVT. LTD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2425

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court invalidated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act stating the different meanings of “concealment of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” and revenue failure to specify the charge.

The court pinpointed that penalty proceedings are penal require strict procedural compliance, and reliance on vague notices undermines their validity. The court ruled that the revenue’s failure to strike off irrelevant portions of the penalty notices and specify the charge invalidated the proceedings. The court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, upholding the ITAT’s decisions to quash the penalties.

No Customs Duty on Personal Jewellery: Delhi HC [Read Order] SABA SIMRAN vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2428

The Delhi High Court recently quashed an Order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs levying penalty on the Petitioner for not declaring personal jewellery while passing through Customs.

Referencing the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Vigneswaran Sethuraman vs. Union of India (2014), the Division Bench held that the Respondent Joint Commissioner of Customs had misconstrued the scheme as well as the objectives of the 2016 Rules. In light of the observations, the Delhi High Court proceeded to quash the order-in-original dated 21.09.2023 while remitting the matter back to the Joint Commissioner for reevaluation, bearing in mind the observations and outcome of the present case.

Plea Partially Ignored while issuing SCN u/s 74(1) of GST Act: Allahabad HC directs Deposit of 50% of Disputed Tax for Reconsideration [Read Order] M/S Kashi Vishwanath Mfg vs State of U.P CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2423

The Allahabad High Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax of Rs. 73.8 lakhs for providing fresh hearing and issuance of fresh order. The bench noted that the plea of the petitioner was not considered by the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department to some extent while issuing the SCN under Section 74(1) of GST Act, 2017.

If the deposit is made within the directed time, the impugned order dated July 24, 2023, will be set aside, and the respondent will provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a fresh hearing and issue a revised order. Failure to comply with the deposit requirement would result in the dismissal of the writ petition.

Delhi HC Upholds ITAT Decision on Non-Deductibility of TDS for fees paid to Overseas Associated Enterprise under India-US DTAA [Read Order] PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 vs CIENA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2426

The Delhi High Court upheld the ruling of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) on the non-deductibility of TDS for fees paid to overseas associated enterprises under the India-US Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ( DTAA ).

The Delhi HC held that the revenue’s claim that payments constitute fees for included services under Article 12 of the DTAA lacks merit, as no perversity in ITAT’s factual findings was alleged. The High Court, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarna Kanta Sharma, upheld ITAT’s decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

Clear Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: Madras HC remands GST ITC Discrepancy for reconsideration on Rs. 1.4 Cr Pre-Deposit Condition [Read Order] M/s.Aadhi Cars Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2430

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court remanded the case concerning a GST ITC discrepancy for reconsideration, imposing a pre-deposit condition of Rs. 1.4 crore as there was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court, comprising Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy, remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, on the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000 to the respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

GST Payment and TDS Claims must be State-Specific based on Work Executed: Telangana HC in L&T-PES Matter [Read Order] M/s. L and T PES JV vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and 5 others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2431

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court ruled that GST payments and TDS claims must be state-specific based on the proportion of work executed in each state.

It was observed discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7A filings due to the respondent’s erroneous TDS remittance practices and pinpointed that such mismatches could not be used to hold the petitioner liable for tax in Telangana for work executed in Maharashtra. The court directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the refund claims upon submission of relevant documents by the Joint Venture ( petitioner ).

TPO Compared Dissimilar Companies for Determining ALP for Future First Info: Delhi HC Directs Exclusion of Infosys BPO, Acropetal, and e-Clerx as Comparables [Read Order] PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs FUTURE FIRST INFO. SERVICES PVT. LTD CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2429

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed exclusion of Infosys BPO, Acropetal, and e-Clerx as Comparables after Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) compared dissimilar companies for determining Arm Length Pricing (ALP) for Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd., (the petitioner).

The court found no substantial question of law requiring intervention stating that the exclusion of comparables was justified based on functional dissimilarity and precedents like Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. So, the court upheld the ITAT’s decision and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.

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