Exporter Can't Be Denied Interest On Refund U/S 56 Of CGST Act For Period Of Delay Attributable To Revenue Dept: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently clarified that an exporter (Petitioner) is entitled to interest u/s 56 of the CGST Act for the period starting from the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing the shipping bill up to the date of grant of refund, although during the interregnum, the exporter's name was red flagged on the Customs' portal.The High Court held so while considering the prayer...

Tax Quarterly Digest: July To September 2024

1. [UP Trade Tax Act] Because Of Refund Due From Assessment Proceedings, Can't Escape Liability Of Depositing Tax Realized: Allahabad High CourtThe Allahabad High Court has held that a registered dealer cannot withhold the tax realised by him from a purchasing dealer only because he had deposited an excess amount of tax at the time of the transaction.The Court held that he cannot escape...

Expenses Incurred For Payment Of Foreclosure Premium Of Loan Is Allowable As Business Expenditure U/S 37(1): Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently ruled that the expenditure incurred for payment of foreclosure premium for restructuring loan and obtaining fresh loan at a lower rate of interest is allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.Such ruling came while dealing with a case where scrutiny proceedings were initiated, leading in revisional assessment u/s 263, based on the...

Scrutiny Notice Was Issued In Amalgamating Company's Name Despite Dept Knowing Of Amalgamation: Calcutta HC Declines To Apply S.292B Of Income Tax Act

The Calcutta High Court has refused to apply Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a scrutiny notice issued in an amalgamating company's name, despite the Assessing Officer being aware about the company's amalgamation. Section 292-B provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in...

Factual Examination Of Dispute Regarding 'Addition' Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of IT Act Is Beyond Scope Of Appeal U/S 260A: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that it cannot indulge in factual examination of the material produced or not produced by an assessee-company to explain the share capital and premium received by it, in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya thus refused to interfere with an...

Transfer Of License Is “Deemed Sale,” Consideration Received Cannot Be Subjected To Service Tax: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transfer of a license constitutes a “deemed sale” under article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution and, therefore, any consideration received from it cannot be subjected to service tax. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has...

Premature Withdrawal Of Investment From 'Capital Gain Tax Exemption Bonds' Defeats Legislative Intent Behind S. 54EC Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an investor of 'Capital Gain Tax Exemption Bonds' cannot seek premature withdrawal through judicial intervention. A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula ruled that such an act would defeat the legislative intent behind Section 54EC of Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision stipulates that long-term capital gain will not be charged on...

CGST Act | Commissioner Empowered To Withhold Refunds Both From Electronic Cash Ledger And Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that refunds, be it from the balance left in Electronic Cash or the Electronic Credit Ledger, are treated at par and the Commissioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act may withhold both in exercise of its powers under Section 108. Section 108 empowers the revisional authority to place in abeyance “any order” made under the CGST Act, which in...

[Confiscation] No Provision For Waiver Of Show Cause Notice U/S 124 Of Customs Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of an OCI cardholder whose luxury watch was confiscated by the Customs Department when she landed at IGI Airport, without issuance of any show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 124 stipulates that no order confiscating any goods shall be made unless the owner of the goods is given a notice informing...

Assessee Is Not Responsible For Disclosing Individual Transactions In ST-3 Returns: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that ST-3 Return does not require transaction wise details. There is neither any responsibility on the assessee nor any scope to disclose individual transactions in the ST-3 returns. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “it...

'Capital Grant Subsidy' Paid To Contractor To Meet Economic Shortfall In Revenue Is Not Liable For TDS Deduction: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that 'capital grant subsidy' which may be extended by the National Highways Authority of India to its contractors is not liable to TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, since such grant cannot be construed as payment for a “work”.Section 194C requires deduction of tax at source on any sum which may be paid to a contractor for carrying out...

Refund Rejection Order Passed Without Hearing Opportunity Violates Rule 92(3) Of CGST Rules, Principles Of Natural Justice: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that refund rejection order passed without hearing opportunity violates rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 and principles of natural justice. The Bench of Justices M. S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “……in any event, proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, contemplates reasonable opportunity to be heard, implying that such hearing should...