Supreme Court Immunity Under Income Declaration Scheme Available Only To The Declarant; Can't Be Extended To Another Assessee : Supreme Court Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) versus M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323 The Supreme Court has found fault with a Gujarat High Court judgement for extending the...
Supreme Court
Immunity Under Income Declaration Scheme Available Only To The Declarant; Can't Be Extended To Another Assessee : Supreme Court
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) versus M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323
The Supreme Court has found fault with a Gujarat High Court judgement for extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme.
High Courts
Delhi High Court
1. Non Specification Of Penalty Provisions In Penalty Notice And Denial Of Immunity; Delhi High Court Holds That Assessee Is Eligible For Immunity, Says Tax Payer Should Be Incentivised
Case Title: Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, New Delhi And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities denying the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act to the assessee on the ground that penalty was initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the penalty notice issued by the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that since the authorities had failed to specify whether action was taken against the assessee for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income under Section 270A of the Act, the order of the income tax authorities denying immunity from imposition of penalty was erroneous and arbitrary.
2. Disputed Tax Demand, Pre-Condition To Deposit 20 % Of The Disputed Tax For Stay Of Recovery Proceedings, Can Be Relaxed In Appropriate Cases: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Tata Teleservices Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court has ruled that requirement of payment of twenty per cent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite in all cases for putting recovery of demand in abeyance during the pendency of the first appeal.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, held that the order of the income tax authority disposing of assessee's application for stay against recovery of disputed tax demand without considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the assessee was a non-reasoned order.
Madras High Court
1. Serious Allegations Of Availing Fraudulent GST ITC In Electronic Credit Ledger: Madras High Court Refuses Refund Of Amount
Case Title: M/s.MNS Enterprises Versus The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan refused to grant a refund of the amount lying in the assessee's electronic cash ledger on the grounds that there were serious allegations against the assessee for having an availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger on the strength of a bogus and fictitious input tax invoice for discharging GST liability with no supply.
2. No Wilful Evasion Of Tax - Madras High Court Quashes Prosecution Under Section 276C (2) Of Income Tax Act
Case Title: S.P. Velayutham Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court has ruled that prosecution under Section 276C (2) of the Income Tax Act for wilfully attempting to evade payment of tax cannot be initiated against an assessee who merely defaults to pay tax on time under the Act.
The Single Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar held that in the absence of mens rea to avoid payment of tax, a "wilful attempt" to evade tax cannot be attributed to assessee in order to prosecute him under Section 276C (2).
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Against Tata Communications Transformation Services
Case Title: Tata Communications Transformation Services Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | Writ Petition No. 1334 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 114
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar and Justice K.R. Shriram has quashed the reassessment notice against the Tata Communications Transformation Services.
The court held that Section 297 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides a saving clause for the applicability of various provisions of the 1922 Act, even though the Act itself has been repealed. In the absence of such a saving clause for the applicability of erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the amended provision would apply from 1st April, 2021.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Udaya Sounds versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the income tax department is not authorized to retain the title deeds seized by them under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that a Special Leave Petition filed by the Assessee against the assessment order is pending before the Supreme Court.
The Single Bench consisting of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that since the Income Tax Act confers the tax authorities the power to retain seized documents beyond the assessment order only till proceedings under the Act are completed, therefore documents seized by the department cannot be retained by them on the ground of pendency of Special Leave Petition (SLP) since an SLP filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat High Court
1. Fraudulent Claim of ITC, Revenue Interest is Protected by Attachment: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail
Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Gita Gopi has granted bail to the accused of fraudulently availing the input tax credit (ITC) as the department has attached the immovable properties, which were much beyond the alleged GST evasion.
2. Dealer's GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to pay a hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the chartered accountant's mistake.
3. Attachment of Immovable Properties Of Director Despite settlement of Tax Dues Under Tax Resolution Scheme: Gujarat High Court Condemns Dept.
Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the act of the department for attaching the personal immovable properties of the director even though the tax dues were settled under the Tax Resolution Scheme.
4. Gujarat High Court Rejects Application Seeking Benefits And Interests On The Ground Of Delay Under Contempt Of Courts Act
Case Title: Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S)
Averring that there was no delay in making payment of pensionary benefits as alleged by the Appellants, the Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere in the Letters Patent Appeal seeking Respondent authorities to pay all the consequential pensionary benefits and 18% interest on delayed payment.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores. The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.
2. Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B
Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion.
Allahabad High Court
Survey Not Disputed By The Partner Of The Firm Who Was Present - Can't Question Later: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 155
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has ruled that once the partner of the firm was available at the time of the survey, who must have signed the survey report, he could very easily request to correct the entries or refuse to sign the survey report, if it was not recorded as per his statement.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Income Disclosed Under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme Cannot Be Included With Regular Income; Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Subhash Chandra Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Indore And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 84
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that income disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be included with the regular income declared under Income Tax Act as the tax paid under the Scheme cannot be refunded at any cost.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath Kesharwani, has held that tax paid under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and tax paid under Income Tax Act are different and there cannot be any adjustment between them. The Bench added that an assessee cannot be permitted to disclose part of his income under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and other part of his income in an income tax return filed belatedly under the Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Issue Of Notice Of Hearing Is A Statutory Requirement Under Section 75(4) Of CGST Act Before Imposition Of Tax Or Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case title: SM/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there was no notice given to him before contemplating to pass an adverse Tax Assessment Order which is violative of Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.
Jharkhand High Court
1. No Manufacturing Activity Within State , ITC Cannot Be Denied Under JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Exide Industries Limited Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Input Tax Credit can be denied on Inter-State sale or transfer of stock under Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 only when some manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee in the State.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, has held that in a taxing statute there is no room for intendment and therefore Section 18(8)(ix) cannot be stretched to cover persons who are not manufacturers so as to deny them Input Tax Credit under the Act.
2. Interest Liability Under GST Can't Be Raised Without Initiating Adjudication Process If Assessee Raises Dispute: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has ruled that if an assessee disputes the liability of interest, either disputes its calculation or the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate a proceeding either under Section 74 or 74 of the CGST Act for adjudication of the liability of interest.
ITAT
1. Performance Guarantee Commission Is Not Business Income Under DTAA: Delhi ITAT
Case Title: Dynamic Drilling & Services Pvt. Ltd Versus ACIT, New Delhi
The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member), has ruled that performance guarantee commission received by an assessee from its foreign Associated Enterprise is not its business income under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The ITAT thereore allowed foreign tax credit under Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee against the tax withheld under the Singapore Income Tax law on the commission paid by a Singapore Entity.
2. Foreign Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied For Delay In Filing Form 67: Bangalore ITAT
Case Title: M/S. 42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore
The Bangalore Bench of ITAT has ruled that Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied to the assessee for delay in filing Form 67.
The Bench, consisting of members Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) has ruled that Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules which requires the assessee to submit Form 67 before filing the income tax return for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is directory in nature and not mandatory, thus FTC cannot be denied for delay in filing Form 67.
AAR
1.18% GST Payable On Supply Of Functional Cattle Feed Plant, Inclusive Of Erection, Installation, Commissioning: AAR
Applicant's Name: M/s IDMC Ltd
The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the 18% GST is applicable on supply of a functional Cattle Feed Plant, inclusive of its Erection, Installation and Commissioning and related works.
2. Payment Of Equated Yearly Instalments And Interest On Delayed Payment Is Exigible To GST: Telangana AAR
Applicant's Name: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
The Telangana Bench of Authority for Advance Ruling, consisting of members B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, has ruled that payment of Equated Yearly Instalments made under Annuities Model, including interest on delayed payments made to a contractor, is exigible to GST.
3. Transportation Of Parcels By GSRTC In Its Buses Attracts 18% GST: AAR
Applicant's Name: M/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of Atul Mehta and Arun Richard has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the transportation of parcels by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) in its buses.