Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: March 2024

Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131

Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133

M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134

M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135

M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136

M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137

M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155

M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 162

M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171

Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188

ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH

Where Statutory Appeals Filed After Making Pre-Deposit, Stay Applications Must Be Decided In Reasonable Time: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam Moti Jheel And Another

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 131

The Allahabad High Court has held that were a statutory appeal has been filed and the condition for pre-deposit has been complied with, stay applications filed along with such appeals must be decided within a reasonable time.

“It is necessary to observe, where statutory appeals are filed after making due compliance of pre deposit condition, it is incumbent on the learned court below to pass appropriate orders on the stay application within a reasonable time. Passing of routine orders requiring the stay application to be put up on the date fixed do not serve the cause of justice.”

Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Applicant Accused Of Availing Excess Input Tax Credit, As Proceedings U/S 70 And 74 Pending Since Long

Case Title: Qamar Ahmed Kazmi vs. State of U.P.

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 133

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the applicant accused of availing excess input tax credit as the proceedings under Section 70 and Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were pending since long.

The Court held that the punishment for wrong availment of input tax credit is imprisonment which shall extend upto 5 years and fine under Section 69 read with section 132 of the Act. For a registered person, every second offence or thereof shall be punishable. The Court further relied on Section 138 of GST Act which provides that for compounding of all offences can be done before or after prosecution is commenced when payment is made by such person.

S.5 Limitation Act Applies To Rectification Of Orders U/S 31 Of UP VAT Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Sanyo Koreatex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Trade Tax And Another

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 134

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to rectification of orders passed by officer, authority, Tribunal or the High Court under Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

GST | Truck Moving Slowly Due To Fault In Engine, Not Extending E-Way Bill Technical Breach: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty U/S 129

Case Title: M/S Riadi Steels Llp vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 135

The Allahabad High Court has held that when the GPS tracking system showed slow movement of the truck due to mechanical issues in the engine, penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could not have been imposed for not extending time-period in e-way bill. The Court held that not extending time period in such case was a technical breach.

No Difficulties In Generating E-Way Bill After April 2018: Allahabad High Court Upholds Penalty U/S 129 GST For Late Production Of E-Way Bill

Case Title: M/S Jhansi Enterprises Nandanpura Jhansi vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136

The Allahabad High Court has held that when the Goods and Services Tax Regime was launched in 2017, there were difficulties in downloading e-way bills. However, the difficulties were resolved and from April 2018 there were no difficulties in generating the same. The Court held that goods not accompanied by both tax invoices and e-way bill is not a common mistake. It shifts the burden on the assesee to show that there was no intention to evade tax.

Writ Jurisdiction Discretionary, To Be Exercised For Petitioners Acting In Good Faith, With Clean Hands: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Genius Ortho Industries vs. Union Of India And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 137

While dealing with a petition against cancellation of GST registration, the Allahabad High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands. The Court held that once there is concealment of facts, writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any relief to the petitioner.

GST | Vehicle Number In 'Bilty' Couldn't Be Changed As Goods Were In Transit, E-Way Bill Was Updated: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty Order

Case Title: M/S Abhishek Sales vs. Sate Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 155

The Allahabad High Court has held that for goods in transit, vehicle number in bilty (consignment note) cannot be changed upon change of vehicle due to breakdown. The Court quashed the penalty order on grounds that vehicle number was updated in Part-B of the e-way bill.

Customs Act | “Reason To Believe” For Confiscation Of Goods Must Be Based On Credible Material: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader v. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) And 2 Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 162

The Allahabad High Court has held that for natural products that are also grown inside India, presumption cannot arise that they have been smuggled. The Court held for assuming jurisdiction in such cases, the custom authorities must show that credible material exists to give rise to “reason to believe” to empower them to confiscate the goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

CGST | 'Capital Goods' Are For Long-Term Use, 'Inputs' For Day-To-Day Operations, Not Capitalized In Books Of Accounts: Allahabad HC Clarifies

Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'capital goods' as defined under Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are for long term use whereas 'inputs' are meant for day-to-day business operations and are not capitalized in the books of accounts.

“Capital goods are intended for long-term use and are typically subject to capitalization. However, inputs, are goods used in the day-to-day operations of the business and are not subject to capitalization,” held Justice Shekhar B.

CGST | Travelling Beyond SCN Erodes Trust In Integrity & Impartiality Of Adjudicatory Process: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

The Allahabad High Court has held that Department travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice undermines the right to fair hearing of an assesee and also erodes the trust in integrity and impartiality of the adjudicatory process.

The Court held that Department must clearly outline the allegations against the assesee. Under no circumstances can the Department travel beyond the allegations stated in the show cause notice as would “trample upon the recipient's right to defend itself.”

Consistency Sacrosanct In Taxation Matters, Department Can't Take Different Stand In Identical Situations: Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Samsung

Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

The Allahabad High court has held that the Department must take consistent stands in identical fact situations for different tax periods as consistency is paramount in tax regime. The Court held that “the principles of consistency is sacrosanct in taxation matters.”

It was held that the Department cannot arbitrarily without the refund for a tax period when it has consistently allowed the same for other tax periods in absence on any material change in circumstances. The Court held that such denial of refund “is contrary to the principles of fairness and equity.”

S75(4) UPGST | 'Or' Is Disjunctive In Nature, Each Option To Be Considered Independently: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171

The Allahabad High Court has held that the use of word 'or' in Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is disjunctive in nature which means that there are two situations provided in which opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assesee and both situations must be considered independently while applying Section 75(4).

S.144B Income Tax | Burden to Provide Registered Email Shifts On Assessee Only If It Can't Be Obtained From ITR/Portal/MCA Website: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India , New Delhi And Others

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188

The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature. The Court held that if the assessing authority is unable to obtain the registered email address from the income tax returns or from the designated portal of assesee or website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, then it is upon the assesee to provide the email address to the authority.