Delhi High Court

VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65

The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores.

The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim.

Bombay High Court

Assessee Not Entitled for Deduction without A Certificate Declaring The Warehouse as Part Of The Port: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation

The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of a certificate declaring the warehouse to be part of the port.

Nothing New Happened Between The Date Of Reassessment Order And The Date Of Forming The Opinion By AO: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Order

Case Title: Clear Media (India) Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

The Bombay High Court has quashed the Reassessment Order and held that between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of the formation of an opinion by the Assessing Officer, nothing new has happened. There was no new information received, nor was there any mention of new material on file.

CBDT Circulars Can’t Prescribe Limitation To Decide Application For Compounding Of Offence: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Footcandles Film Pvt Ltd. & Anr. versus Income Tax Officer – TDS & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that orders, instructions or directions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 or under the Explanation to Section 279 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot put fetters on the power of income tax authorities under Section 279(2) to consider an application for compounding of offence, by prescribing a period of limitation.

The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Valmiki SA Menezes, took note that Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for compounding of certain offences, either before or after the institution of proceedings, does not provide any rule of limitation.

Madras High Court

Expiry Of E-way Bill Does Not Create Any Scope For Tax Evasion: Madras High Court Imposes Minor Penalty

Case Title: Tvl.Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 24

The Madras High Court has imposed a minor penalty and held that the expiry of the E-way bill does not create any scope for evasion.

The single bench of Justice M. Sunder has observed that assuming there was no breakdown and assuming the portal was active, the maximum penalty would be Rs. 5,000.

Gujarat High Court

Failure Of Taxpayer To Disclose Fully: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Reassessment

Case Title: Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash the reassessment because the taxpayer has not truly and fully disclosed the material.

The division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that if the petitioner or assessee was not remedial and has now questioned the issuance of a notice, he is required by law to cooperate with the authority in the adjudication process. When the authority ultimately passes any adverse order, the entire remedy created under the special statute is very much available to the petitioner.

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Accused On The Payment Of GST Evasion Amount

Case Title: Vikas Bajoria Versus Union Of India

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to the accused as he has already paid the amount of alleged GST evasion.

The single bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal has released the accused on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Taxpayer Cannot Be Compelled To Pay Tax On The Services Rendered By It Twice: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered twice.

The division bench of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Subha Mehta ruled that the petitioner's supply of manpower to a company in Rajasthan is either an inter-state transaction subject to CGST+RGST or an intra-state transaction subject to IGST. The petitioner has deposited 18% of the IGST, and the respondents or department has recovered 35% of the CGST and RGST by attaching the petitioner's accounts.

Calcutta High Court

Consideration For Advisory Services Not Taxable As Fees For Included Services Under India-US DTAA: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing) versus M/s. The Timken Company

The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that consideration for advisory services cannot be treated as Fees for Included Services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Court thus upheld the ITAT’s order setting aside the additions made to the foreign assessee Company’s income for the compensation received by it for rendering advisory services to its Indian subsidiary.

Jharkhand High Court

Benefit Under SVLDRS Scheme Cant Be Denied Based On Dept. Decision To File Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Om Prakash Kashyap Versus UOI

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS scheme), cannot be denied by the designated committee for the reason that the department has decided to file an appeal against the order.

Patna High Court

GST Registration Cancelled Without Granting Opportunity Of Personal Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Order

The Patna High Court has held that the GST registration was canceled without granting him the opportunity of a personal hearing.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Partha Sarthy has quashed the GST cancellation order and held that the authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show cause and the response thereto, which was not done. Not only is the order non-speaking, but it is also cryptic in nature, and the reason for cancellation is not decipherable.

Telangana High Court

Search And Seizure Of Cash And Jewellery By ED Without Recording The ‘Reasons To Believe’: Telangana High Court Quashes Seizure

Case Title: M/s. Musaddilal Gems and Jewels (India) Private Limited Versus UOI

The Telangana High Court has set aside the search and seizure of cash and jewellery by ED as it was done without recording the "reasons to believe."

ITAT

Impossible For A Company To Get Its Accounts Audited On 31st March And Get The Approval In AGM On The Same Date: ITAT Upholds Addition

Case Title: M/s Sagitarius Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus I.T.O.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that it is impossible for a company to get its accounts audited on 31st March and present the same for approval in the Annual General Meeting on March 31st.

Company’s Income Cannot Be Assessed Under ‘Salary’: ITAT

Case Title: Ducere Technologies Private Limited Versus DCIT

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that since the assessee is a company, its income cannot be assessed under the heading "salary."

The bench of K. Narasimha Chary (a judicial member) has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the availability of brought-forward losses for the purpose of setting off the current year's income against losses.

CESTAT

Notice Under Customs Act Can Be Issued Only After The Assessment Is Modified On Appeal: CESTAT

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that once an assessment is made, it stands unless it is reviewed under Section 28 of the Customs Act or modified in an appeal.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member)has observed that any assessment can be modified in two ways: first, through an appeal, and second, through a process of review under Section 28.

Gold Balas Are Gold Ornaments Having Definite Shape To Be Worn By The Local People: CESTAT

Case Title: Sailendra Narayan Panda Versus Pr. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bhubaneswar

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has released the gold balas from custody and held that gold balas are gold ornaments having a definite shape to be worn by the local people.

The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the Gold Control Act of 1968 has already been repealed since 1990. Under the new fiscal policy, the possession of gold is not an offense.

Onus is On The Customs Department To Prove That The Goods are Smuggled: CESTAT

Case Title: Dharmesh B. Bhavsar Versus Principal Commissioner, Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the onus is on the Customs Department to lead evidence in support of an allegation as to the smuggled nature of goods.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (a judicial member) has directed the department to release the goods within a period of 15 days. The appellant shall not be liable for payment of godown rent, detention charges, or demurrage.

“Activation Charges” Of Equipment/Software Features Covered Under The Activity Of Sales Of Goods, Not “Service”: CESTAT

Case Title: Black Box Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad-iii

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the “activation charges” of equipment/ software features are covered under the activity of sales of goods and not covered under the provisions of “Service”.

Excise Duty Not Payable On Test Production: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Tribhuvan Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty is not payable on test production.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant/assessee has done only test production prior to November 11, 2010, and they have been doing mainly trading of finished goods as the factory was not fully set up at the testing stage.

No Case Is Made Out By Customs For Confiscation Of Goods Meant For Export: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Medista Overseas Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is not required from the Drug Controller in respect of an export consignment filed for the export of drugs to Liberia.