Caselaws posters list
Note: Only one Filter can be used at a time
Pl note that latest updated Case Law is at the top in the following list
| OneClick update Date | Case Law Date | Subject | Details | Dept | Citation | Parties | Court |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19-04-2025 | 20-03-2025 | Reassessment Notice Quashed for Exceeding Limitation Period | Facts:
A search related to the Om Kothari Group in July 2020 revealed that Synod Farms had purchased a flat, making part of the payment in unaccounted cash (commonly referred to as on-money).
The AO recorded his satisfaction for reopening assessments for AYs 2015-16 to 2021-22 on 11.03.2023, but strangely issued a notice u/s 148A(b) for AY 2014-15, which was not part of the satisfaction note.
Synod Farms challenged the notice, arguing that there was no recorded satisfaction or fresh material justifying reopening for AY 2014-15, and the notice was issued beyond the legally permitted time limit.
Decision: The Delhi HC held that the statutory time limit u/s 149 for reopening an assessment must be counted from the date of the AOs satisfaction, not from the date of the original search. Since there was no specific information or reasoning recorded for AY 2014-15, and the reopening was initiated after more than 10 years, it was considered barred by limitation. The Court therefore invalidated and quashed the reassessment notice for AY 2014-15. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) No. 12772 of 2024 | Synod Farms and Infra Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax Central, Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 19-04-2025 | 17-03-2025 | Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10 Allowed for Charitable Trust Due to Administrative Reasons | Facts:
The assessee-trust, registered u/s 12AA and running educational institutions, filed Form No. 10 (for accumulation under section 11(2)) belatedly due to internal administrative issues.
The AO denied the benefit u/s 11(2), and the application for condonation of delay filed u/s 119(2)(b) was also rejected.
The trust had consistently fulfilled conditions for exemption u/s 11 in previous years and provided a detailed explanation for the delay.
Decision: The Gujarat HC held that the delay due to internal administrative issues was a procedural lapse and should not defeat a substantial exemption claim. The court relied on similar decisions, including Parshwanath Bhakti Vihar Jain Trust and Sarvodaya Charitable Trust, which allowed condonation of delay in similar circumstances. The court quashed the rejection order. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24687 of 2022 | Brahmchari Wadi Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 14-04-2025 | 20-03-2025 | Quashing of Parallel GST Proceedings by CGST & SGST Authorities for Same Period Held Impermissible | Facts:
Both CGST and SGST tax authorities initiated separate but identical proceedings against the assessee for the same financial year (2018-19) u/s 73 of the GST Act.
The assessee objected, arguing that such dual proceedings were legally barred u/s 6(2)(b) of the GST Act.
When the request for correction and adjustment was rejected, the assessee approached the HC by filing a writ petition.
Decision: The Karnataka HC held that parallel proceedings by both CGST and SGST authorities were not permissible, and thus quashed all related SCNs and orders. The matter was remitted to the SGST authority (Deputy Commissioner) to re-initiate proceedings from the stage of replying to the show cause notice, and to conclude the matter lawfully. | GST | WRIT PETITION N0. 30042 OF 2024 (T-RES) | Fortune Healthcare Services v. Assistant Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |
| 14-04-2025 | 18-03-2025 | Assessment order quashed for ignoring assessees reply and violating principles of natural justice | Facts:
The petitioner, a GST-registered manufacturer, filed returns for FY 2017-18, which were audited u/s 65 of the TNGST Act, revealing certain defects.
The SCN was issued, and the petitioner submitted detailed replies on multiple dates.
Despite this, the AO passed the impugned order without granting a personal hearing or considering the replies submitted.
Decision: The Court held that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice due to lack of hearing and non-consideration of replies. It found the order to suffer from non-application of mind and accepted the petitioners objections. The respondent was directed to redo the assessment after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering all objections. | GST | W.P. No.12117 of 2024 W.M.P. Nos.13215 and 13217 of 2024 | Procandour Automotive Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial / State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 13-04-2025 | 17-03-2025 | Court Directs Restoration of GST Registration on Payment of Dues and Costs | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was cancelled for not filing returns for over six months due to financial hardship.
He filed a writ petition seeking restoration of the registration, explaining the delay was due to payment delays from customers.
The petitioner was willing to pay all dues and interest, and the Respondents had no objection to restoration upon payment.
Decision: The Court directed the authorities to compute and communicate the dues within a set timeframe. On payment of dues within 48 hours of restoration, the registration would be restored; otherwise, it may be cancelled again without notice. The petitioner must also pay Rs. 40,000 as costs to the Courts Welfare Fund, failing which the petition would be dismissed. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 29525 OF 2024 | Stanley Aphonsus Dsilva v. State of Maharashtra | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 13-04-2025 | 19-03-2025 | Court Remits Case for Reconsideration, Granting Eligibility for GST Amnesty Scheme | Facts:
The petitioner contested an order passed u/s 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, claiming that the proceedings were actually u/s 73, making them eligible for the GST Amnesty Scheme u/s 128A.
The petitioner argued that the order lacked the necessary details to satisfy Section 74, and the proceedings should be treated as Section 73 proceedings.
The petitioner also pointed out that the order was passed ex parte without sufficient opportunity to present their case.
Decision: The Court found that the impugned order lacked the necessary details required u/s 74 and that the proceedings were, in fact, u/s 73 of the Act. The Court agreed that the petitioner was eligible for the GST Amnesty Scheme u/s 128A, as the proceedings were u/s 73. The Court set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter for reconsideration, and directed that the proceedings be treated as u/s 73(9) of the Act, allowing the petitioner to claim the amnesty benefits. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 7313 OF 2025 (T-RES) | Srinivasa Shetty v. Commercial Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |
| 13-04-2025 | 20-03-2025 | HC of Delhi Permits Filing of Appeal for Non-Receipt of Show Cause Notice | Facts:
M/s. ABC Enterprises challenged an order u/s 73 of the Delhi GST Act, 2017, for the 2019-2020 period, claiming they did not receive the SCN.
The department stated that automated emails and SMS were sent to the taxpayers registered contact details for all years, including 2019-2020.
The petitioner only became aware of the impugned order in January 2025 when notified by their accountant via the GST portal.
Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks against the impugned order, acknowledging the non-receipt of the notice. It stated that any delay in filing the appeal could be considered for condonation by the appellate authority. The court disposed of the petition, noting the petitioner did not press for challenges to the relevant notifications or seek additional relief. | GST | W.P.(C) 2543 of 2025 CM APPL. 11999 of 2025 | ABC Enterprises v. Sales tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 12-04-2025 | 03-04-2025 | Refund cannot be denied on extraneous grounds beyond CGST Act and binding circulars; lawful entitlement must be honored | Facts:
Tata Steel Ltd. filed a refund application for Rs. 1.23 crore for accumulated Compensation Cess on goods exported under LUT (without payment of tax).
The refund was rejected, citing non-furnishing of proof of payment, export within 90 days, declarations, and undertakings—none of which were strictly required under the CGST Act or rules.
Despite replying to the SCN and providing relevant documents, the appeal was dismissed, prompting Tata Steel to file a writ petition.
Decision: The Court held that all five grounds for rejection were extraneous and contrary to the CGST Act, Rules, and binding circulars. The refund rejection order and the appellate order were both set aside as unsustainable in law. The respondents were directed to refund Rs. 1,23,22,617/- along with interest u/s 56 of the CGST Act within 12 weeks. | GST | W.P. (T) No. 2900 of 2024 | TATA Steel Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 10-04-2025 | 21-03-2025 | SC Upholds Business Right to Correct GST Filing Errors | Facts:
Aberdare Technologies had filed its GST returns within the prescribed due dates.
In December 2023, the assessee realized that some clerical or arithmetical mistakes had been made in those returns, and requested the GST authorities to allow rectification.
The authorities denied the request, but the Bombay HC allowed the rectification, observing that the errors were bona fide and there was no loss of revenue to the government.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the CBIC, agreeing with the HCs view that the order was fair and justified. The Court emphasized that the right to correct genuine clerical or arithmetical errors is a natural extension of the right to carry on business, and should not be denied unless there is a strong and valid justification. It further held that software or procedural constraints cannot be used as a reason to deny correction of bona fide mistakes. | GST | SLP (CIVIL) No. 7903 of 2025 | Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Aberdare Technologies (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 09-04-2025 | 18-02-2025 | Statutory Appeal Not to Be Bypassed When Matter Requires Detailed Factual Adjudication | Facts:
The assessee challenged an adjudication order citing denial of natural justice-no hearing, no chance to file written reply, and refusal to allow cross-examination. The writ was filed late, in January 2025, against a July 2024 order. The Single Judge still allowed the assessee to file an appeal under section 107. The assessee also claimed a refund was earlier granted, proving genuineness, and requested adjustment of recovered amounts as pre-deposit.
Judgment: The Court held that the case required detailed factual adjudication and was not fit for bypassing the statutory appeal. It upheld the Single Judges view and dismissed the intra-court appeal. The assessee was directed to file a statutory appeal within 30 days. All issues can be raised before the appellate authority, which must also consider the request for adjusting recovered amounts towards pre-deposit. | GST | M.A.T. 214 OF 2025 I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 | LGW Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 30-03-2025 | 30-08-2024 | SC Confirms No Review Allowed Under Section 254(2) for Tribunal Orders | Facts:
Vijay Channabasav Suttatti filed an application u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act for rectification of a prior order from the ITAT.
The ITAT concluded that the application was essentially a request for a review of its earlier decision, which is not allowed u/s 254(2).
The HC upheld the ITATs rejection of the application, stating it was a review request.
Decision: The SC agreed with the HCs decision and found no reason to interfere with it. The SC confirmed that the application was indeed seeking a review rather than a rectification. The SLP was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal against the ITATs order if desired. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 34825 of 2024 | Vijay Channabasav Suttatti v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 30-03-2025 | 17-02-2025 | GST Registration Cancellation Upheld Due to Non-Existent Business and Failure to Respond to SCN | Facts:
The petitioner obtained GST registration for a business at Howrah. A Bureau of Investigation inquiry found that no business activities were conducted at the declared location.
The SCN was issued, citing fraudulent misrepresentation. The petitioner failed to respond, leading to the cancellation of GST registration on 7th August 2023.
The petitioner appealed u/s 107 of the CGST Act, but the appellate authority upheld the cancellation. He then filed a writ petition, arguing that relevant evidence was not properly considered.
Decision: The petitioner did not contest the Bureau of Investigations report, which confirmed that the registered business did not exist at the stated location. The cancellation order was supported by valid evidence, and since the petitioner failed to respond or appear in the appeal process, the authorities decision was deemed reasonable. The HC found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the petition without imposing costs. | GST | WPA 30825 of 2024 | Md. Firoz v. Assistant Commissioner, Bally Salkia | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 29-03-2025 | 14-02-2025 | HC Allows GST Appeal Despite Delay, Emphasizing Justice Over Procedural Lapses | Facts:
The petitioner challenged an order reversing ITC for 2019-20, arguing that the notice was uploaded in an additional section of the GST portal, which their consultant failed to notice.
The petitioner only became aware of the order when their bank account was attached on 16.11.2024, after which they filed an appeal with a 35-day delay.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 03.01.2025, stating it was filed five days beyond the condonable period.
Decision: The court noted that the appellate authority had strictly applied the law without considering the circumstances. Given the petitioners unawareness and compliance efforts, the court ruled that the delay should be excused. The court set aside the rejection and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on its merits within two months. | GST | W.P.(MD)No. 3995 of 2025 W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 2880, 2881 and 2883 of 2025 | Tvl. Chennais Pet v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 29-03-2025 | 19-02-2025 | Marginal Delay Not a Bar: Calcutta HC Allows GST Appeal to be Heard on Merits | Facts:
Bina Medicos appeal against a CGST demand order was delayed by 8 days, and a condonation request was filed along with the required pre-deposit.
The appellate authority issued an SCN, but the petitioner did not respond, leading to a rejection of the appeal.
The petitioner approached the Calcutta HC, arguing that the explanation of the delay was overlooked.
Decision: The marginal delay of 8 days and the provided explanation were not properly considered by the appellate authority. Since the GST Appellate Tribunal was not constituted, the petitioner had no alternative appellate remedy. The court set aside the appellate order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, subject to a Rs. 5000/- cost payment. | GST | WPA 31064 of 2024 | Bina Medico v. State of West Bengal | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 24-03-2025 | 24-02-2025 | Interest on Delayed Tax Refund under DTVSV Scheme: Court Awards 6% pa interest | Facts:
The assessee opted for the DTVSV Scheme, 2020, and the tax refund was approved on 12-05-2022 but was not credited timely.
The assessee raised multiple grievances, but the refund of Rs. 2.20 crores was only credited on 25-01-2024, nearly two years later.
The revenue argued that the delay was due to the assessees failure to validate the bank account, while the assessee claimed entitlement to interest on the delayed refund.
Decision: The assessee is entitled to interest on the delayed refund despite not qualifying u/s 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The interest was fixed at 6% per annum for the delay period (01-06-2022 to 31-01-2024), citing equitable principles. The revenue was directed to pay Rs. 22.04 lakhs in interest within three months from the orders receipt. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20804 of 2023 | Sahil Total Infratech (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 24-03-2025 | 19-02-2025 | Delhi HC Sets Aside Notice Under Section 148A(b) Due to Insufficient Response Time | Facts:
The AO issued a notice u/s 148A(b) on 21-08-2024, granting only five days to respond instead of the required seven days.
The assessee submitted a reply on 27-08-2024 via email as the portal did not allow filing after five days, but the AO ignored it and proceeded to issue a notice u/s 148 on 31-08-2024.
The assessee filed a writ petition, arguing that the shorter response time violated Section 148A(b) and the principles of natural justice.
Decision: The Revenue conceded that the assessee should be given another opportunity to respond. The court set aside the impugned order and notice and directed the AO to consider the assessees reply submitted on 27-08-2024. The AO must pass a fresh order within four weeks, and if issuing a new Section 148 notice, must obtain fresh approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) 2167 of 2025 CM APPL.Nos.10263 & 10264 of 2025 | Anuj Ghuliani v. Income-tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 19-03-2025 | 19-02-2025 | GST Assessment Order Without DIN Held Invalid by Andhra Pradesh HC | Facts:
The petitioner received an assessment order dated 18.07.2023 for the period April 2021 to March 2022, but it did not include a DIN, which is mandatory under GST rules.
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh HC, arguing that the absence of a DIN made the order invalid.
The Government Pleader confirmed that the impugned assessment order did not contain a DIN.
Decision: The court ruled that any order issued without a DIN is legally non-est (invalid), relying on the SCs judgment in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India (2022). Since the order violated CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, the court quashed it as legally unenforceable. The authorities were given permission to conduct a new assessment, ensuring compliance with legal requirements, including the assignment of a DIN. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO: 4524 of 2025 | Challa Infra Projects (P.) ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner State Tax | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 19-03-2025 | 18-02-2025 | Voluntary Penalty Payment Ends Proceedings, No Mandate for Form GST MOV-09 Issuance | Facts:
The petitioners truck, transporting a consignment, was detained, and a notice was issued u/s 129(3) of the OGST Act, 2017.
Due to the urgency in completing the consignment, the petitioner voluntarily paid a penalty of Rs. 5,37,656 on the same day and secured the release of the detained vehicle.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition, contending that since no formal order in Form GST MOV-09 was issued within statutorily prescribed seven-days, proceedings were irregular.
Decision: The court noted that the penalty amount was determined in Form GST MOV-07, which the petitioner acknowledged and promptly paid, leading to the immediate release of the truck. By virtue of Section 129(5) of the OGST Act, the payment of the prescribed penalty automatically concluded all proceedings initiated u/s 129(3), rendering any further adjudication unnecessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition. | GST | W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 | Khanna Engineering v. Commissioner of CT & GST | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 16-03-2025 | 13-02-2025 | Capital Gains on Sale of Alleged Agricultural Land: Judicial Determination on Lands Commercial Nature | Facts:
The assessee, upon selling a parcel of land, asserted that the land in question qualified as agricultural property and, therefore, should be exempt from capital gains taxation under the applicable provisions of tax law.
The AO, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the ITAT collectively examined the nature of the land and concluded that there was no substantive evidence demonstrating actual agricultural activity on the property.
Various factors, including the lands geographical location, the substantial expenditure incurred on its commercial development strongly indicated that the property had been repurposed for non-agricultural, commercial use.
Decision: The HC affirmed the determinations made by the lower tax authorities, holding that the land did not retain its agricultural character and was, therefore, subject to capital gains taxation. The court reasoned that the mere classification of land as agricultural in revenue records was insufficient to establish its agricultural nature, particularly when contradicted by other substantial evidence suggesting its commercial utilization. Consequently, the court dismissed the assessees appeal. | Income Tax | INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2011 OF 2018 | Prashant Jaipal Reddy v. Income-tax Officer Ward-9(1)(3) | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 16-03-2025 | 14-02-2025 | HC Sets Aside Demand Order Due to Improper Uploading on GST Portal | Facts:
The SCN u/s 73 of the GST Act was uploaded on the Additional Notices and Orders tab instead of the Due Notices and Orders tab, making the assessee unaware of it.
Due to this, the assessee could not respond or appear before the authority, and an order creating a tax demand was passed on 05.04.2024.
The assessee challenged the order, relying on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P., where a similar issue had been decided in favor of the taxpayer.
Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, holding that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to respond. The court directed the AO to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days of clear notice in the correct manner. Further proceedings were to take place only after proper service of notice, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 423 of 2025 | Inbox Media (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 13-03-2025 | 17-02-2025 | SC Affirms Taxpayers Right to Appeal After Settlement Application Abatement | Facts:
The assessee submitted an application for settlement, but the AO proceeded to pass an assessment order.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessees appeal as untenable, citing the pendency of the settlement application.
Following the abatement of the settlement application, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which condoned the delay and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue, thereby affirming the decisions of the ITAT and the HC. The Court held that the assessee retains the right to challenge the assessment order on merits if the settlement application is ultimately rejected. It was directed that the Commissioner (Appeals) must keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance until the Settlement Commission renders its decision. | Income Tax | SLP (CIVIL) Diary No. 3153 of 2025 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. MD Industries (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 13-03-2025 | 18-02-2025 | HC Rules Against Reopening of Assessment Based on Mere Opinion Change | Facts:
Lupin Ltd. had availed tax deductions u/s 35AC and 80G of the IT Act, which were duly examined and approved by the AO during the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3).
Subsequently, the AO issued a notice u/s 148, asserting that the deductions claimed for CSR expenses were incorrectly allowed, resulting in an underassessment of income.
Decision: The Bombay HC held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were initiated without the emergence of new tangible material warranting a reassessment. Since the AO had already examined and accepted the deductions during the original assessment, reopening the case on the same grounds amounted to an impermissible change of opinion, which is not permissible under tax law. The court set aside the reassessment notice. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 1530 OF 2022 | Lupin Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-3(4) | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 09-03-2025 | 27-02-2025 | Clerical Errors Will Not Invalidate Reassessment: Substance Over Form Prevails | Facts:
AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, seeking to reopen the petitioners assessment. However, annexure attached to the notice contained information related to a different assessee, leading to confusion.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that the incorrect annexure made the reassessment proceedings defective and legally unsustainable.
AO dismissed the petitioners objections without addressing the issue of the incorrect annexure. As a result, petitioner filed a writ petition before Delhi HC, seeking relief.
Decision: The Delhi HC held that the presence of an incorrect annexure was a procedural error and did not render the reassessment notice invalid, as long as the core intent of reopening the assessment was clear. The Court found that the AO had failed to properly consider the petitioners objections and, therefore, set aside the rejection order. AO was directed to correct annexure and provide petitioner with fresh opportunity. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) No. 2043 of 2025 CM APPL. Nos. 9611 & 9612 of 2025 | Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income-tax Department | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 09-03-2025 | 18-02-2025 | GST Demand Order Quashed Due to Lack of Personal Hearing | Facts:
The assessee was subjected to a demand order issued u/s 73 of the GST Act without being afforded a fair opportunity for a personal hearing.
The official notice served to the assessee explicitly mentioned N.A. in the column designated for the date of the personal hearing, indicating that no such hearing was scheduled.
Aggrieved by this procedural lapse, the assessee challenged the validity of the order.
Decision: The court ruled that the provisions of Section 75(4) of the GST Act impose a mandatory obligation on the authorities to grant an opportunity for a personal hearing before confirming a tax demand. Given that no such opportunity was provided to the assessee, the court found the impugned order to be procedurally defective and legally unsustainable, leading to its annulment. Consequently, the court directed that the matter be remanded to the appropriate authorities for fresh adjudication. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 83 of 2025 | Jain Distributors v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 03-03-2025 | 28-01-2025 | No Cash Inflow, No Section 68: Delhi HC Upholds Share Allotment Against Goodwill | Facts:
The assessee-company allotted shares worth Rs. 20 crores to Mr. Surinder Kumar Kaushik in lieu of goodwill, without any monetary consideration.
The AO made additions u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, treating the transaction as an unexplained cash credit.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT deleted the additions, leading to an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to the Delhi HC.
Decision: Section 68 was not applicable as there was no actual receipt of cash, only a book entry adjusting goodwill against share capital. The company followed due legal procedures, and the transaction was adequately explained, ruling out any tax evasion. The HC upheld the ITATs decision, dismissed the appeal, and ruled in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | IT Appeal No. 175 of 2022 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zexus Air Services (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 03-03-2025 | 14-02-2025 | HC Quashes Reassessment Notice Due to Violation of Natural Justice in Alleged Bogus Purchases Case | Facts:
The AO issued an SCN u/s 148A(b), alleging bogus purchases from ZMEPL, but the assessee clarified that its transactions were with ZIEPL, not ZMEPL.
The AO conducted a physical verification at ZIEPLs address and found no such entity, concluding it was bogus without issuing a fresh notice to the assessee.
Based on this conclusion, the AO issued an order u/s 148A(d) and a reassessment notice u/s 148 without giving the assessee a chance to respond.
Decision: The court held that the AO violated natural justice by not informing the assessee about the non-existence finding before passing the reassessment order. Since the original assessment had concluded, the AO needed to present fresh incriminating material to justify reopening, which was not done. The reassessment order and notice were set aside. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) 1662 of 2025 CM APPLN. Nos. 8125 and 8126 of 2025 | Vivo Mobile India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 28-02-2025 | 31-01-2025 | Writ Petition Dismissed as Assessee Fails to Act on Detained Goods and Penalty Order | Facts:
The petitioners vehicle carrying goods was detained, and a penalty of Rs. 5,40,000 was imposed u/s 129(3) of the GST Act.
The petitioner claimed that the goods were only being moved to its parking yard, so an e-way bill was not required, but this claim was rejected.
Despite having 15 days to claim ownership, the petitioner failed to take timely action, and the case was handled casually, including a delayed writ petition.
Decision: The court dismissed the petition, citing inaction and a lack of seriousness by the petitioner. The assertions made in the petition could not be taken at face value, as the petitioner failed to prove ownership within the given time. The petitioner was advised to seek an alternative remedy by filing an appeal with the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 2098 of 2024 | HDB Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 28-02-2025 | 31-01-2025 | HC Quashes Provisional Bank Account Attachment Due to Lack of Justification Under GST Act | Facts:
The petitioner engaged in real estate development, had its bank account attached u/s 83 of the MGST Act for allegedly availing ineligible ITC u/s 17(5)(d).
The department claimed the attachment was necessary to protect revenue but failed to provide any material evidence showing the petitioner was likely to defeat the demand.
The petitioners parent company was a major FDI investor with significant financial resources and no project borrowings, contradicting the assumption of potential tax evasion.
Decision: The court set aside the attachment order, stating that it lacked proper reasoning and material evidence. Citing Radha Krishan Industries (2021), the court emphasized that Section 83 is a harsh measure and must be backed by clear justification. The department was directed to unfreeze the petitioners bank account immediately. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3275 OF 2025 | Goisu Realty (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 26-02-2025 | 31-01-2025 | GST demand on royalty quashed; fresh order to be passed after considering SC proceedings. | Facts:
The assessee was issued a tax demand u/s 74 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017, for alleged suppression and misstatement regarding royalty payments.
The assessee argued that the issue of tax on royalty was pending before the SC and sought interim relief.
The revenue admitted that the pending SC case was not considered while passing the impugned order.
Decision: The impugned order u/s 74 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to communicate the HCs order to the adjudicating authority by February 10, 2025. A fresh order would be passed after hearing the assessee, failing which the impugned order would automatically stand restored. | GST | W.P.(C) No. 693 of 2025 | Iliyas Granites v. Superintendent GST and CE | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 26-02-2025 | 05-02-2025 | HC directs reconsideration of Vodafone Idea’s GST refund claims, allows alternative filing due to GSTN portal issues. | Facts:
Vodafone Idea Ltd.s refund claims were denied by the appellate authority despite earlier favorable rulings by both the adjudicating and appellate authorities.
The rejection contradicted previous final orders that had already settled the same issues in favor of the assessee.
The GSTN portal did not allow the assessee to refile refund claims for the same period under the Export of Services category.
Decision: The court quashed the appellate authoritys orders and directed it to reconsider the refund claims. The appellate authority must follow judicial discipline and natural justice while re-evaluating the claims. If the GSTN portal does not permit claims under Export of Services, the assessee must be allowed to file under Others. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23733 OF 2024 | Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 26-02-2025 | 05-02-2025 | SCN Issued Beyond the Time Limit U/s 73(2) of CGST Act Held Invalid by HC | Facts:
The petitioner received an SCN on 30.11.2024 for the AY 2020-21, alleging short payment of tax.
As per Section 73(2) of the CGST Act, the last date for issuing the notice was 28.11.2024, making it two days late.
The petitioner argued that the delay made the notice invalid, while the authorities claimed the time limit was directory, not mandatory.
Decision: The court held that the time limit u/s 73(2) is mandatory, and any delay renders the notice invalid. Since the notice was issued beyond the deadline, it was time-barred and legally non-existent (otiose). The writ petition was allowed, and the SCN quashed with no order as to costs. | GST | W.P.No.1463 of 2025 | Cotton Corporation of India v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Audit) (FAC) | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 23-02-2025 | 31-01-2025 | Reassessment Quashed: No Justification for Reopening U/S 148 Without New Material | Facts:
BSIFS P. Ltd., engaged in share trading, filed a return declaring a business loss, which was assessed u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14.
After four years, the AO issued a reopening notice u/s 148, stating the loss should be classified as speculation loss under Explanation to Section 73.
The HC quashed the notice, ruling that Section 73 had already been considered during the original assessment and there was no failure of disclosure by the assessee.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the Income Tax Department. It upheld the HCs decision, confirming that the reopening notice u/s 148 was invalid. The Court found no reason to interfere and disposed of all pending applications. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 59843 of 2024 | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. BSIFS P. Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 23-02-2025 | 31-01-2025 | No Prosecution for Delayed Tax Payment After Revised Return Post-Search | Facts:
The assessee initially claimed deductions on LTCG/STGL, which were accepted by the AO.
After a search operation, the assessee filed revised returns, waiving the earlier deduction claims.
The Revenue initiated criminal proceedings u/s 276C(1), alleging wilful tax evasion.
Decision: The HC held that it was a case of delayed tax payment, not wilful evasion. Merely disallowing deductions does not prove intentional tax evasion. The SC dismissed the SLP, leaving the question of law open for future cases. | Income Tax | Petitions Special Leave to Appeal (Crl).Diary No. 55223 of 2024 | Income-tax Department v. Bioworth India (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 20-02-2025 | 12-12-2024 | Relief Granted for Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation, Subject to Payment of Dues | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was cancelled through an order dated 20th March 2024, following an SCN issued on 6th February 2024, with subsequent rejection of the revocation application on 15th October 2024.
The petitioner was ready to pay all dues, including tax, interest, late fees, and penalties, to regularize the registration.
The petitioner relied on the precedent set in Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner CT & GST, seeking condonation of delay in invoking Rule 23 for revocation.
Decision: The delay in invoking Rule 23 of the OGST Rules was condoned, as per the precedent in Mohanty Enterprises. The petitioner was directed to deposit all outstanding dues and comply with the required formalities for revocation or cancellation. The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to proceed with the revocation application in accordance with the law. | GST | W.P.(C) No.30622 of 2024 | Ashok Kumar Jena v. Additional Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 20-02-2025 | 06-02-2025 | HC: No Stage-Wise Adjudication Under Section 74, Composite Order Must Be Passed | Facts:
The assessee, engaged in the sale of gold, silver, and diamond ornaments, was issued an SCN u/s 74 of the CGST/SGST Act for alleged suppression of outward supply, leading to a tax demand of Rs. 4.88 crore and Rs. 11.85 lakh as flood cess.
The assessee challenged the SCN, arguing that part of the alleged suppressed turnover belonged to a separate entity with a different GST registration, making the notice invalid.
The Single Judge directed the adjudicating authority to first decide the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the SCN before proceeding further, which was challenged by the Revenue.
Decision: The court held that the CGST/SGST Act does not permit adjudication in stages and that a single composite order must be passed. The HCs jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to seek part adjudication of a pending tax dispute unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction. | GST | WA NO. 238 OF 2025 | Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 17-02-2025 | 24-12-2024 | HC Allows Appeal Filing Extension Without Precedent in GST Pre-Deposit Waiver Case | Facts:
The petitioner was issued an SCN in May 2024, alleging excess ITC claims for 2019-20, resulting in a demand of Rs. 4.89 crore.
The petitioners review application against the final order of August 2024 was rejected in November 2024, prompting the petitioner to seek an appeal.
The petitioner sought a waiver of the mandatory 10% pre-deposit u/s 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act, citing financial constraints, which was opposed by the GST Department.
Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to file the appeal within four weeks (by January 20, 2025) but did not decide on the permissibility of waiving or reducing the pre-deposit requirement, leaving the issue open for future adjudication. The court clarified that this decision was specific to the unique facts of the case and not a general precedent. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal in accordance with the applicable laws, without examining the legislative scheme regarding pre-deposits. | GST | W.P.(C) 17631 of 2024 CM APPL. 74939 & 74940 of 2024 | Aarn Iron and Steel (P.) Ltd. v. GST Officer Ward 64 New Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 17-02-2025 | 20-12-2024 | Delayed Tax Payment Not Equivalent to Willful Evasion, Prosecution Quashed | Facts:
The assessee initially claimed deductions for LTCGs and STCGs in returns for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13, which the AO accepted.
Following a search operation on the assessee and related entities, revised returns were filed retracting the claims for deductions.
The Income Tax Department initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1), alleging willful tax evasion. The assessee contested this, arguing it was a case of delayed tax payment rather than evasion.
Decision: The HC ruled that delayed tax payment due to filing revised returns post-search does not amount to willful evasion u/s 276C(1) and quashed the prosecution. The SC dismissed the Revenues SLP, finding no grounds for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court upheld the HCs view and left the question of law open for future cases while disposing of all pending applications. | Income Tax | Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 18209 of 2024 | Income-tax Department v. Kum Kum Bagaria | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 11-02-2025 | 17-12-2024 | Quashing of Criminal Proceedings u/s 276CC for Belated Filing of Revised ITR Due to Seizure of Records | Facts:
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the late filing of the revised ITR.
The delay in filing was due to the seizure of the appellants records during a search operation.
Penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act were dropped, and a refund was issued to the appellant.
Decision: The Court found that the appellant eventually filed the revised return, albeit belatedly, and penalty proceedings were dropped. The Court referred to the Guru Nanak Enterprises v. ITO case to support quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings u/s 276CC, ruling they were unnecessary given the circumstances, and allowed the appeal. | Income Tax | Criminal Appeal No.5494 of 2024 | R. P. Darrmalingam v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 11-02-2025 | 20-12-2024 | Safeguarding Investigative Integrity: HC Upholds Non-Disclosure of Sensitive GST Documents | Facts:
The petitioner filed a representation seeking documents relied upon for issuing an SCN, claiming these documents had not been provided.
The respondent authorities argued that the requested documents comprised sensitive intelligence reports, disclosure of which could compromise third-party interests and national security.
The respondents maintained that the SCN itself contained all material facts, and all relied-upon documents had already been furnished to the petitioner.
Decision: The Court ruled that sensitive information gathered by the Intelligence Department should not be disclosed, as it is crucial for maintaining confidentiality and investigative integrity. It determined that withholding such information does not breach the principles of natural justice, as all relied-upon documents were already provided. The writ petition was disposed of. | GST | WPA 30044 of 2024 | Deltatech Gaming Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 08-02-2025 | 17-12-2024 | HC Grants Exemption u/s 10A Based on RBIs Ex-Post Facto Approval for Delayed Realization of Export Proceeds | Facts:
The assessee filed its ITR for AY 2001-02, claiming exemption u/s 10A, with a CAs report supporting the claim.
The AO disallowed the exemption, citing non-fulfillment of Section 10A(3) regarding timely realization of export proceeds.
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the exemption, stating that the RBI had granted ex-post facto approval for the delayed realization, but the ITAT reversed this decision.
Decision: The RBI, as the competent authority under FEMA, granted ex-post facto approval for the delayed realization of export proceeds. The RBIs approval fulfilled the conditions required u/s 10A(3), entitling the assessee to the exemption. The HC set aside the ITATs order and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the exemption u/s 10A. | Income Tax | ITTA 105 of 2008 ITTASR 305 of 2007 | Trigeo Image Systems (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA |
| 08-02-2025 | 21-01-2025 | Court Remands GST Dispute for Fresh Adjudication, Emphasizing Unaddressed Contention | Facts:
The petitioner was issued an SCN (16-07-2024) for alleged GST liability on a Deed of Assignment, where a lessee transferred land and a constructed building to a third party.
The petitioner argued that the transaction fell under Item 5 of Schedule III (not taxable) rather than Item 2 of Schedule II (taxable) but this contention was not addressed in the impugned order (19-08-2024).
The impugned order also wrongly stated that no reply was filed, even though the petitioner had submitted a response on 22-07-2024.
Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was allowed to file a detailed reply within two weeks, and the authorities were directed to provide a personal hearing. The GST Authorities must consider the Gujarat HCs ruling, which held that similar transactions were not taxable under GST. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.13587 OF 2024 | Panacea Biotec Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 06-02-2025 | 21-01-2025 | HC Ensuring Fair Hearing - Authority Must Address Assessees Contentions Before Issuing SCN | Facts:
The appellants received an intimation on 10th July 2024 u/s 74(5), stating tax was payable due to claimed ITCs on goods from non-existing entities.
The appellants responded with a detailed explanation and supporting documents, disputing the tax demand.
The SCN issued on 8th August 2024 was a replica of the intimation, not addressing the appellants contentions.
Decision: The Court found the SCN to be inadequate as it did not consider the appellants reply or the issues raised. The Court directed the assessing authority to review the appellants reply before proceeding with the SCN. The Court set aside the SCN and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing the authority to issue a new notice if necessary. | GST | M.A.T. No.2291 of 2024 IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 | Jyoti Tar Products (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 06-02-2025 | 20-01-2025 | Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Tax Practitioner, Imposing Security and Cooperation Conditions in GST Fraud Case | Facts:
The petitioner, a tax practitioner, was accused of facilitating the registration of P.K. Traders using fake documents to evade GST. However, he claimed it was not his duty to verify the documents.
The petitioner stated there were no allegations of financial gain from the ITC fraud, which was alleged only against the co-accused.
The petitioner, an established advocate and tax practitioner, promised to cooperate with the investigation and provide security for his bail.
Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering his professional background and commitment to cooperate with the investigation. The petitioner was required to deposit a cash security of Rs. 50,000 and a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The petitioner must submit his mobile number and Aadhar card and ensure his cooperation with the investigation, including appearing before the Investigating Officer when needed. | GST | A.B.A. No. 2096 of 2024 | Satya Prakash Singh v. State of Jharkhand | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 30-01-2025 | 20-12-2024 | Gujarat HC Quashes GST Demand Due to Non-Consideration of Reply in Turnover Mismatch Case | Facts:
Revenue issued an SCN for 2017-18 alleging a turnover mismatch between GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C due to discrepancies in Table 5R of GSTR-9C.
The petitioner explained the discrepancy arose from mistakenly including Pan-India turnover instead of Gujarat-specific turnover and submitted supporting documents clarifying GST had been paid in other states.
The Adjudicating Authority upheld the demand without properly considering the petitioners reply or documents, citing non-appearance as the basis for confirming the tax demand.
Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders as the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the petitioners reply and supporting documents, reflecting a lack of application of mind. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, requiring the authority to properly evaluate the petitioners submissions. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 4160 & 4170 of 2024 | Cosmos Business Machines Partnership Firm through Ashok Kisan Sawant v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 30-01-2025 | 02-01-2025 | Delay condoned for GST registration revocation, subject to full compliance with tax and penalties | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was canceled following an SCN dated October 8, 2022, and an order dated November 10, 2022.
The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all due taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties to enable acceptance of their returns by the GST department.
The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing for revocation of registration, relying on the precedent in M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack.
Decision: The delay in invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the OGST Rules was condoned, subject to payment of all due amounts and compliance with other formalities. The GST department was directed to consider the petitioners application for revocation of registration in accordance with the law. | GST | W.P.(C) No. 32334 of 2024 | Subhrajit Behera v. Additional Commissioner GST (Appeals), Bhubaneswar | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 27-01-2025 | 18-12-2024 | Procedural Violation in GST Assessment: Impugned Order Set Aside for Lack of Personal Hearing | Facts:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order (Form GST DRC-07, dated 30.04.2024), claiming it was issued without a mandatory personal hearing u/s 75(4) of the GST Act.
The petitioner argued that the absence of a personal hearing violated the statutory mandate, making the order procedurally defective.
The case was heard by the Patna HC to address this procedural lapse.
Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, finding that the absence of a personal hearing violated Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The matter was remitted to the AO, directing the petitioner to appear on 15.01.2025 or a subsequently adjourned date. The AO was instructed to issue a fresh order after hearing the petitioner, within three months or the remaining limitation period, whichever is later. | GST | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11543 of 2024 | Raymond Lifestyle Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 27-01-2025 | 24-01-2025 | Bombay High Court Restores Section 87A Rebate Rights for Taxpayers | Facts:
The Chamber of Tax Consultants and individual taxpayers filed a PIL against changes in the online tax filing utility, which denied Section 87A rebate claims for the 2024-25 AY if part of the income was taxed at special rates.
Petitioners argued that the restriction violated the Income Tax Act, 1961, and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265.
They sought restoration of rebate functionality, allowance for manual filing, and removal of restrictions on taxpayers ability to self-compute income.
Decision: Court directed the restoration of the Section 87A rebate for eligible taxpayers, including those with income taxed at special rates. It ordered the Income Tax Department to modify the filing utility to ensure unrestricted and lawful rebate claims. Authorities were instructed to rectify past rejections and ensure future compliance with the IT Act. | Income Tax | PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.32465 OF 2024 | The Chamber of Tax Consultants v/s Director General of Income Tax (systems) | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 23-01-2025 | 07-01-2025 | Examining the Legality of Reopening Assessments Based on Flagged Financial Transactions | Facts:
The assessees return for AY 2016-17 was accepted under limited scrutiny, focusing only on Chapter VI-A deductions, without examining cash receipts of Rs. 1.30 crore and credit card transactions of Rs. 19.09 lakh.
The Risk Management Strategy (RMS) of CBDT later flagged these transactions as potential undisclosed income, prompting a notice u/s 148A(b).
The assessee challenged the reopening, arguing it was based on incorrect assumptions, misuse of jurisdiction, and lack of application of mind in the approval process u/s 151.
Decision: The reopening of the assessment u/s 148 was valid as the flagged transactions were not scrutinized in the original limited scrutiny assessment. Approval u/s 151 was deemed proper, with due application of mind based on the information received. The court refused to intervene, allowing the AO to reassess and leaving disputes on merits for the reassessment or appellate process. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2025 | Sanjay Ratra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 23-01-2025 | 17-12-2024 | Joint Assessment Validated for Circular Trading and Fake ITC Claims Across Multiple Firms | Facts:
The petitioners firms were involved in circular trading, generating fake ITC between 2017 and 2022 to inflate turnover and avail ineligible ITC.
Searches were conducted on six firms, uncovering fraudulent activities and issuing a joint SCN u/s 74 and 122 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The petitioners challenged the joint SCN, arguing that separate notices should have been issued for each assessment year.
Decision: The court upheld the joint assessment for the six firms, as they were all involved in the same fraudulent circular trading activities. The court dismissed the petitioners argument, stating that a collective assessment was necessary u/s 74 of the CGST Act. The writ petition was dismissed, and the court affirmed that the SCN and joint assessment proceedings were valid. | GST | WRIT PETITION No. 8015 of 2024 | Rahul Steels v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH |
| 21-01-2025 | 17-12-2024 | Kerala HC Allows Reconsideration of ITC Claim Based on Judicial Precedent | Facts:
The petitioner challenged the denial of ITC u/s 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts, claiming that the directions from M. Trade Links v. Union of India (2024) should apply to their case.
The petitioner faced difficulties in tracing the suppliers, which hindered their ability to avail the benefits of the Circulars referenced in the M. Trade Links case.
The petitioner requested that the court extend the ITC benefit, provided they could present the necessary documentation.
Decision: The court directed the first respondent to consider the observations in the M. Trade Links case and extend the same benefit to the petitioner if the facts were similar. The court set aside the previous order denying ITC u/s 16(2)(c) and 16(4) and instructed the first respondent to reconsider the claim. The court specified that the petitioner must produce the required documents. | GST | WP(C) NO. 44849 OF 2024 | Champadan Kandiyil Vijeesh v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 21-01-2025 | 12-12-2024 | Concluded Settlements under Vivad Se Vishwas Act Cannot Be Reopened by Designated Authority | Facts:
S A N Garments Manufacturing (P.) Ltd. filed a return of income for AY 2012-13, later reopened u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a reassessment with additional undisclosed expenditures.
The petitioner made a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) to settle the tax arrear, and the Designated Authority issued a certificate u/s 5, confirming the payment for full settlement.
The petitioner challenged the issuance of a modified Form No. 3, which effectively sought to reopen the concluded settlement under the DTVSV Act.
Decision: The court ruled that once a final certificate (Form No. 5) is issued u/s 5(1) and the determined amount is paid, the dispute over the tax arrear is conclusively settled. It held that the Designated Authority cannot reopen a settled matter or initiate any further action regarding the tax arrear. The issuance of the fresh Form No. 3 was found to be without legal authority and was set aside, with the petition being allowed in favor of the petitioner. | Income Tax | .P.(C) 932 of 2024 CM APPL. 3891 of 2024 | S A N Garments Manufacturing (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax 7 | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 18-01-2025 | 20-12-2024 | HC Quashes GST Order for Lack of Reasoning and Non-Consideration of Assessees Submissions | Facts:
Holy Land Marketing (P.) Ltd. received an SCN alleging under-declaration of output tax and discrepancies in its GSTR-09 return for FY 2019-20, demanding Rs. 46,49,420.
Despite submitting detailed replies with supporting documents, the assessees contentions were dismissed without explanation in the final order dated 31st August 2024.
The court observed that the officer used a templated, non-reasoned approach in multiple cases, reflecting non-application of mind.
Decision: The impugned order was quashed due to the lack of reasoning and failure to consider the assessees replies. The case was remanded to a different Proper Officer for fresh adjudication with proper reasoning and consideration of the submissions. The adjudication was directed to be completed within two months, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. | GST | W.P.(C) 17637 of 2024 CM APPL. No.74952 of 2024 | Holy Land Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 14-01-2025 | 24-12-2024 | MAT Calculation Excludes Long-Term Capital Gains Exemptions, Rules High Court | Facts:
The assessee earned LTCG from selling shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) while excluding the amount from book profits u/s 115JB for MAT.
The AO denied the exemption and included the LTCG in book profits for MAT purposes, which was partly upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, confirming the LTCG exemption and rejecting the Revenues appeal.
Decision: The court held that LTCG exempt u/s 10(38) is valid for normal income if statutory conditions are satisfied. The proviso to Section 10(38) applies only to MAT computation and cannot disallow exemption under normal provisions. The HC upheld the ITATs decision, dismissing the Revenues appeal and affirming the exemption. | Income Tax | IT Appeal 468 OF 2024 | Pr Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hespera Reality (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 13-01-2025 | 13-12-2024 | Reopening of assessment without proper basis quashed; no escapement of income established. | Facts:
The AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 based on information from NSEL, claiming the assessee had received amounts for bogus sales that had escaped assessment.
NSEL alleged that the assessee had received payments against sales of commodities but failed to deliver the goods or repay the amount, indicating fictitious transactions.
The HC ruled that there was no actual sale or purchase between the assessee and NSEL during the relevant AY, making the AOs assumption of income escapement unfounded.
Decision: The HC quashed the notice u/s 148, stating the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The SC dismissed the revenues SLP due to both a 122-day delay and lack of merit. The court upheld the HCs finding that there was no escapement of income. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 54516 of 2024 | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. N.K. Industries Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 13-01-2025 | 23-12-2024 | HC Dismisses Britannias Writ Petition Against GST SCN for Tax Exemption and ITC Issues | Facts:
Britannia Industries Ltd. received a GST SCN for Rs. 1,05,11,99,662, alleging misclassification of Kulcha as bread for exemption, non-reversal of ITC for destroyed/sample goods, and non-compliance with Section 34 of the CGST Act.
The SCN invoked the extended limitation period u/s 74, claiming fraud or suppression of facts, which Britannia contested, arguing there was no such evidence.
Britannia challenged the SCN through a writ petition, citing jurisdictional errors, procedural flaws, and lack of fraud, seeking HC intervention.
Decision: The HC held that the issues involved complex questions of fact and law, which required adjudication by the appropriate authority, not the Court. It ruled that there were no exceptional circumstances to bypass statutory remedies, advising Britannia to respond to the SCN and participate in adjudication proceedings. The Court dismissed the writ petition and emphasized that the adjudicating authority must independently decide the case without judicial interference at this stage. | GST | W.P.A. No. 24534 of 2024 | Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 07-01-2025 | 03-01-2025 | GST on Assignment of Leasehold Rights: Gujarat HC Declares Transactions as Exempt from Tax | Facts:
Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry challenged the applicability of GST on the assignment of leasehold rights for plots leased by GIDC for 99 years.
Authorities issued notices post-GST implementation, demanding an 18% GST on these transactions, classifying them as services.
Petitioners argued that these transactions involve immovable property and are exempt under the GST Act.
Decision: The court held that the assignment of leasehold rights does not qualify as a service under the GST Act but as a transfer of immovable property. Transactions involving immovable property are exempt from GST under Schedule III, and the assignment does not fall under taxable services. The GST notices were quashed as invalid, and the petitioners were granted relief. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11345 of 2023 | GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY & ORS. v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 06-01-2025 | 09-12-2024 | Reopening Beyond Limitation Period Invalidates Notice Under Section 148 | Facts:
The AO issued a reopening notice u/s 148 on 31-08-2024 for the AY 2016-17.
The petitioner challenged the notice, arguing it was barred by limitation, as the six-year period from the end of AY 2016-17 expired on 31-03-2024.
The petitioner relied on prior judicial rulings, including the Delhi HC decision in Manju Somani v. ITO and the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the time limits for issuing reopening notices.
Decision: The court held that the six-year limitation period for issuing a notice for AY 2016-17 expired on 31-03-2024, making the notice dated 31-08-2024 time-barred. It affirmed that the new ten-year time limit u/s 149(1)(b) does not apply retrospectively to extend the permissible period for reopening assessments. The court set aside the notice u/s 148 and allowed the petition in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) No. 16000 of 2024 | Curadev Pharma Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income -tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 06-01-2025 | 13-12-2024 | Relief Granted to Assessee with Payment of Dues for GST Registration Revocation | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was cancelled on 20th January 2021 following an SCN issued on 5th January 2021.
The petitioner expressed willingness to pay all taxes, interest, late fees, penalties, and other due sums to have the registration revocation considered.
The petitioner referred to a similar case (M/s. Mohanty Enterprises v. Commissioner CT & GST) where delay in invoking Rule 23 was condoned.
Decision: The court condoned the delay in invoking Rule 23 of the Odisha GST Rules, as the petitioner was willing to pay all dues. The court directed that the petitioners application for revocation would be considered upon payment of the taxes, interest, penalties, and fulfilling formalities. The writ petition was disposed of, granting relief to the petitioner, following the precedent in the Mohanty Enterprises case. | GST | W.P.(C) No.30949 of 2024 | Chitrasen Sahu v. Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 02-01-2025 | 16-12-2024 | SLP Dismissed by Supreme Court in Reassessment Case on Loan Diversion Allegations | Facts:
The assessee was engaged in property development and filed its return for AY 2016-17.
The AO issued a reassessment notice alleging that Rs. 330.33 crore out of Rs. 780.04 crore was diverted to a sister concern instead of addressing statutory liabilities and creditors.
The Delhi HC upheld the AOs authority to examine the entire case, including the original allegations forming the reasons to believe.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee, refusing to interfere with the Delhi HCs order. It confirmed that the AO was entitled to reassess the case based on credible information and allegations of fund diversion. All pending applications were disposed of along with the SLP. | Income Tax | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26787 of 2024 | Alankar Apartments (P.) Ltd. v. Assisstant Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 02-01-2025 | 28-11-2024 | Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirement for GST Appeal Cannot Be Waived Without Exceptional Circumstances | Facts:
The petitioner challenged a GST demand of Rs. 2.29 crores u/s 73 of the CGST Act, alleging that the excess ITC claimed in GSTR-3B was not reconciled with GSTR-2A.
The petitioner sought a waiver of the mandatory 10% pre-deposit required for filing an appeal, citing financial hardship and claiming the demand was without jurisdiction.
It was admitted that an alternate appellate remedy was available but argued to be inefficacious due to the statutory pre-deposit requirement.
Decision: The court ruled that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to justify bypassing the alternate appellate remedy or waiving the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The statutory pre-deposit was held mandatory, and the demand characterization as without jurisdiction was deemed insufficient to waive compliance. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 1146 OF 2023 | Supreme Construction & Developers (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 29-12-2024 | 05-11-2024 | Opportunity Granted to Upload Form GST ITC-01 and Claim ITC Due to Portal Glitches | Facts:
The petitioner switched from the Composition Scheme to the Regular Scheme in April 2024 and needed to upload Form GST ITC-01 to claim ITC on closing stock as of 09.04.2024.
Despite multiple attempts, the petitioner was unable to upload the form due to technical glitches on the GST portal and raised a complaint with the GST Help Desk on the last filing day, 08.05.2024.
The GST Help Desk acknowledged the complaint but closed it later, claiming non-response from the petitioner, although the issue remained unresolved.
Decision: The court recognized the technical glitches and held that the petitioner should not lose the opportunity to claim ITC due to these issues. The GST authorities were directed to enable the portal for the petitioner to upload Form GST ITC-01 within one week of portal activation. The court ruled that ITC cannot be denied if the form is uploaded within the extended timeframe, regardless of the original filing deadline. | GST | WP(C) NO. 24271 OF 2024 | Mariya Agencies v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 29-12-2024 | 12-12-2024 | GST Demand Set Aside for School Construction Under Government Contract Due to Non-Speaking Order | Facts:
The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority granted the petitioner a lease to construct a higher secondary school, with most of the premium already paid, except Rs. 5,97,852/-.
A GST demand of Rs. 5,52,31,637/- was raised, which the petitioner claimed was contrary to exemption notifications and an advance ruling.
The petitioner argued that the demand was non-speaking, failing to reference any notification removing exemptions or demonstrating non-compliance with exemption conditions.
Decision: The GST demand was set aside as non-speaking and contrary to exemption notifications, advance rulings, and relevant judgments. The respondents were directed to consider relevant notifications and rulings before issuing a fresh speaking order if pursuing GST liability. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 1783 of 2024 | Smt Angoori Devi Educational and Cultural Society (Regd.) v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 26-12-2024 | 11-11-2024 | No Preferential Payment to Appellants in Winding-Up Proceedings - Equal Treatment of Creditors Under Company Law | Facts:
Appellants deposited Rs. 27,50,000/- for a commercial unit with a buy-back clause but did not receive the refund after exercising the option.
They filed a winding-up petition; the respondent deposited the amount in court, but other creditors also filed winding-up petitions.
The Company Court admitted the petitions, appointed an Official Liquidator, and rejected the appellants application for release of funds.
Decision: Appellants are not entitled to preferential payment and must stand with other creditors u/s 529. Their petition does not grant precedence, and claims of ill advice are irrelevant as the winding-up process applies equally. Appellants can file claims with the Official Liquidator, who will process disbursement as per law. | Company Law | CO.APP. 30 of 2024 | Mrs. Usha Jain v. Vigneshwara Developwell (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 26-12-2024 | 11-12-2024 | Advance ruling to be decided on merits despite subsequent pre-show cause notice | Facts:
The assessee filed an advance ruling application on December 20, 2023, seeking clarity on the taxability of the sale of land and buildings, but no ruling was pronounced within the 90-day statutory period u/s 98(6) of the MGST Act.
A pre-SCN was issued on October 22, 2024, during the pendency of the advance ruling application, u/s 73(5) of the MGST Act, causing apprehension that the advance ruling would not be decided on merits.
The legal question revolved around whether the issuance of the pre-SCN barred the authority from deciding the advance ruling application when the issue was not pending or decided at the time of filing.
Decision: The court held that the advance ruling application must be decided on merits, as the issue was neither pending nor decided in any other proceedings at the time of filing. The issuance of the pre-SCN does not bar the advance ruling authority from adjudicating the application. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.17122 OF 2024 | General Motors India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 24-12-2024 | 09-12-2024 | HC Disposes of Petition for GST Differential Payment Following Rate Change | Facts:
The petitioner sought payment of GST at 18% due to a rate change, as only 12% was initially paid by the Public Works Department (PWD).
The respondents acknowledged that the GST difference was payable and committed to making the payment in the next budget.
The respondents later confirmed to the court that the GST difference had been paid, which the petitioner did not dispute.
Decision: The court noted that the GST differential had been paid by the respondents. The petitioners counsel confirmed there was no dispute regarding the payment. The court disposed of the petition as the claim had been resolved. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 1493 of 2024 | Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 20-12-2024 | 18-11-2024 | Writ Petition Dismissed Due to Pending Appeal and Review Proceedings in Assessment Dispute | Facts:
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. challenged a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, claiming it lacked the required sanction u/s 151 and was issued to a non-existent entity.
The petitioner had already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and a review application u/s 264 before the Principal Chief Commissioner, both of which were pending.
The petitioner relied on precedents declaring such notices invalid, while the revenue argued against invoking writ jurisdiction due to the availability of alternate remedies.
Decision: The court declined to entertain the writ petition since the petitioner had alternate statutory remedies already in progress. Appellate and revisionary authorities were directed to consider the petitioners contentions, including the validity of the notice, in light of relevant case law. A stay was granted on the assessment order until the appeal and review proceedings were resolved, preserving the petitioners rights. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 33793 OF 2024 | Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 20-12-2024 | 04-12-2024 | Bail Granted in GST Fraud Case Involving Fake Firms and Bogus Invoices | Facts:
During a search at Deepak Kumars premises, evidence revealed a racket involving 44 fake firms, issuing bogus invoices, and availing fraudulent ITC of Rs. 123.38 crores, with the applicant allegedly playing an active role.
The applicant admitted to his involvement in creating fake firms and passing fraudulent ITC through M/s Galaxy Trading Company, involving Rs. 6.4 crores availed and Rs. 3.4 crores passed on.
The applicant claimed he was an employee of Deepak Kumar, had no prior criminal history, and argued that his documents were misused.
Decision: Bail was granted to the applicant, considering his clean record, the co-accused more significant role, and the precedent of the co-accused already being released on bail. The applicant must comply with conditions, including providing sureties, not tampering with evidence, and not committing similar offenses. | GST | CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33795 of 2024 | Dheeraj Saini v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 17-12-2024 | 07-11-2024 | High Court Upholds Lock-In Period for 54EC Bonds, Denies Premature Redemption | Facts:
The petitioner sold his residential property and invested Rs. 48 lakhs in PFC bonds to avail of capital gains tax exemption u/s 54EC.
After learning he could have used the sale proceeds for purchasing a property in Noida to claim the exemption, he requested premature redemption of the bonds.
PFC rejected the request, stating the bonds had a five-year lock-in period, and the petitioner filed a writ petition for cancellation and refund.
Decision: The court upheld the five-year lock-in period, emphasizing it is a statutory and contractual requirement to ensure long-term investment. It ruled that the petitioners request for premature redemption violated the legislative intent of Section 54EC. The writ petition was dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the terms of the bonds. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) No. 12196 of 2024 | Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 16-12-2024 | 13-11-2024 | Limitation for Appeal Under Section 107 Starts From Date of Order Communication | Facts:
The petitioner appealed against the adjudicating order dated 13.03.2024 but submitted it on 19.07.2024, with an eight-day delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, calculating the limitation period from the order date and not its communication date, without giving the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.
The petitioner argued that the delay fell within the 30-day condonation period u/s 107 of the CGST Act, and the limitation period should start from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order.
Decision: The court held that the limitation period begins from the date of communication of the order, as per Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authoritys order was set aside for failing to record the date of communication and for dismissing the appeal without granting an opportunity for a hearing. | GST | D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15759 of 2024 | V. R. India Trader v. State of Rajasthan | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 16-12-2024 | 01-10-2024 | Gujarat HC Grants Condonation of Delay in Filing Tax Return Under Section 119(2)(b) | Facts:
The petitioner, a long-time taxpayer, failed to file her ITR for AY 2022-23 on time due to her advocates inadvertence, leading to a delay of 375 days.
She applied u/s 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay to claim a refund of Rs. 52,592 arising from excess TDS.
The Department rejected her application, citing a lack of proof of genuine hardship as required by Circular No. 9/2015.
Decision: The court held that the term genuine hardship in Section 119(2)(b) should be interpreted liberally, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. It directed the Department to avoid a pedantic approach, as the petitioner was entitled to a refund and had no malafide intent or negligence. The court quashed the rejection order, permitting the petitioner to file a belated return and instructing the Department to pass a fresh order within 12 weeks. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3188 of 2024 | Nirzari Amitbhai Mehta v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 11-12-2024 | 14-10-2024 | Disallowance of ITC Beyond Show Cause Notice Violates Principles of Natural Justice | Facts:
An audit for 2019-20 identified ITC discrepancies, including mismatches between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and ITC on discounts.
The DRC-01 notice alleged excess ITC of Rs. 97,010, but the final order disallowed Rs. 1.13 crore.
The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice, as the order went beyond the notice without allowing a proper defense.
Decision: The final order was set aside for exceeding the scope of the SCN, violating natural justice. The petitioner must deposit tax on disputed ITC issues within 4 weeks, and the impugned order will serve as a fresh notice. If the conditions are unmet, the original order will stand revived. | GST | W.P.(MD).No.24110 of 2024 W.M.P.(MD).Nos.20392 and 20394 of 2024 | Sri Kaleeswari Stores v. Assistant Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 11-12-2024 | 11-09-2024 | Court Upholds Natural Justice, Cancels Reassessment Due to Delay and Lack of Awareness | Facts:
The petitioner and his sister sold vacant land in 2012-13 for Rs. 60.30 lakhs, and the petitioner used his share of the proceeds to construct a residential house within the prescribed period u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act.
The IT Department issued a notice to the petitioner in 2023, seeking to assess Rs. 65.40 lakhs as STCG, despite the sale occurring in 2012-13.
The petitioner, being illiterate and a non-taxpayer, was unaware of the notices sent online and relied on a Power of Attorney, which failed to respond properly, leading to the impugned orders.
Decision: The Court ruled that the petitioner, being unlettered and a non-taxpayer, could not be expected to monitor the online portal or respond after a long delay of 8 years. The Court set aside the impugned assessment and penalty orders. | Income Tax | W.P. No. 26223 of 2024 W.M.P. Nos. 28652 of 2024 | Punniakotti v. Income-tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 03-12-2024 | 11-11-2024 | GST Registration Cancellation Set Aside Due to Violation of Natural Justice | Facts:
The petitioner, Aditya Developers, filed a reply to the GST SCN dated 10 November 2020, but the cancellation order dated 9 April 2021 incorrectly stated no reply was submitted.
The petitioner was not granted an opportunity for a hearing before their GST registration was cancelled.
The petitioner alleged that the cancellation order violated principles of natural justice, as their reply was not considered and no hearing was conducted.
Decision: The court set aside the cancellation order due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice, including failure to consider the reply and absence of a hearing. The matter was remanded to the authority for fresh adjudication, ensuring consideration of the petitioners reply and granting a hearing. The petitioners GST registration was ordered to be immediately restored. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 28181 OF 2024 | Aditya Developers v. State of Maharashtra | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 01-12-2024 | 13-11-2024 | Withdrawal of Appeals Mandatory to Avail Benefits under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 | Facts:
The appellants challenged the HCs decision affirming interest liability under MAT provisions (Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961).
The appellants sought to resolve the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, which required appeals pending as of 22-07-2024 to be withdrawn subsequently.
CBDT Circular No. 12 of 2024 clarified that taxpayers must withdraw appeals and provide proof with payment details to avail of scheme benefits.
Decision: The court held that as per Section 91(3) of the scheme, appeals must be withdrawn, and proof furnished along with payment intimation u/s 92(2). The appeals were disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the appellants to approach authorities for scheme benefits. The court clarified that the scheme required full settlement of disputes, disallowing partial resolution. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO.7569 and 7570 OF 2012 | Electrex (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 01-12-2024 | 02-08-2024 | Opportunity Granted to Assessee to Contest Demand Due to Non-communication of Notices by Accountant | Facts:
The assessees accountant failed to inform about the notices and the impugned order confirming the demand for the AY 2017-18.
The assessee became aware of the order only when the tax department insisted on payment of the disputed tax.
The respondent argued the writ petition was time-barred under GST Act provisions and cited relevant case law to support their stand.
Decision: The court quashed the impugned order, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their grievance upon depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The case was remitted for fresh proceedings, with the impugned order treated as an addendum to the original notices. A final order was to be passed within three months of the petitioners reply. | GST | W.P.(MD).No.18462 of 2024, W.M.P(MD)No.15699 of 2024 | Diamong Cargo Movers v. State Tax Officer II | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 01-12-2024 | 04-11-2024 | Reopening Notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18 Quashed Due to Limitation Period Expiry | Facts:
The assessee challenged a notice u/s 148A(d) issued on 01-05-2024 for AY 2017-18, arguing it was beyond the limitation period prescribed in Section 149(1).
The petitioner referred to previous judgments, including Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, to argue the notice was invalid.
The notice was issued after the six-year limitation period for AY 2017-18 had expired on 31-03-2024 under the old regime.
Decision: The court ruled that the notice issued on 01-05-2024 was barred by the limitation period u/s 149(1). It cited Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to emphasize the prospective application of the new time limits u/s 149(1)(b). The court quashed the notice and the order, allowing the petition in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) 12632 of 2024 CM APPLs. 52458 and 52459 of 2024 | Sheetal International (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 25-11-2024 | 14-11-2024 | Validating Post-Search Evidence and Cross-Examination in Assessing Undisclosed Income from Benami Liquor Vends | Facts:
A search revealed incriminating materials, including unaccounted sales, partnership deeds, rent agreements, and other documents linking the assessee to undisclosed income from liquor vends operated through ghost and benami entities.
Seized documents, such as challans and operational details, indicated the assessee as the real owner of the vends, supported by truckloads of seized materials from multiple locations.
The assessee contested the findings, alleging insufficient opportunity for cross-examination and improper reliance on material outside the search.
Decision: Evidence from the search and post-search inquiries was validly considered u/s 158BC, establishing the assessees undisclosed income. Cross-examinations were conducted, and no credible evidence refuted the findings; documents like signed rent agreements directly implicated the assessee. The Tribunals conclusions were factual and upheld. | Income Tax | IT Appeal No. 51 of 2007 (O & M) and 243 OF 2008 | Mange Ram Mittal v. Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA |
| 25-11-2024 | 06-11-2024 | Bail Granted in GST Fake Invoice Case Due to Prolonged Custody and Pending Investigation | Facts:
The accused was charged with issuing fake invoices through nine firms, enabling GST evasion via wrongful ITC claims.
The department claimed these firms were untraceable but provided no conclusive evidence of their non-existence or GST registration cancellations.
The accused was in custody for over seven months, while the maximum punishment for the offense was five years, and an investigation against a co-accused was still pending.
Decision: The court deemed the offenses compoundable, triable by a Magistrate and noted the trial would take significant time. Considering prolonged custody and lack of necessity for further detention, the accused was granted bail with conditions, including a bond and sureties. The accused was restricted from leaving India and required to cooperate with the trial and investigation. | GST | S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4191 of 2024 | Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 25-11-2024 | 23-10-2024 | Duplicate GST Order for Same Tax Period Quashed by Delhi HC | Facts:
The petitioner was served with an SCN on 30-12-2020 for the tax period July 2018 to March 2019, which resulted in a final order dated 01-02-2021 (under challenge in appeal).
On 23-04-2024, a second order was issued by the Revenue for the same tax period, referring to the original SCN dated 30-12-2020.
The petitioner challenged the second order, arguing that proceedings for the tax period had already concluded with the final order.
Decision: The court held that the second order dated 23-04-2024, about the same tax period, was unsustainable as the matter had already been finalized by the order dated 01-02-2021. The impugned order dated 23-04-2024 was quashed on the grounds of duplication. The court clarified that all rights and contentions related to the final order dated 01-02-2021 remain open. | GST | W.P.(C) No.12860 of 2024 CM APPL. No.53682 of 2024 (interim relief) | Jain Cement Udyog v. Sales Tax Officer Class-II/ Avato Ward 201 Zone 11 Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 22-11-2024 | 20-08-2024 | SC Upholds Original Intent of Section 80DD, Rejects Retrospective Amendment | Facts:
Section 80DD provides a deduction for annuity or lump sum payments to benefit disabled dependents upon the subscribers death.
The Finance Act, 2022, amended Section 80DD, allowing subscribers aged 60 or more to discontinue payments and access accumulated benefits, effective from 1-4-2023.
The petitioner sought retrospective application of this amendment to policies issued before 2014, arguing it would benefit both subscribers and disabled dependents.
Decision: The amendment could not be applied retrospectively as it would conflict with the original objective of supporting disabled dependents after the subscribers death. Allowing withdrawal at 60 would undermine the policys intent and adversely affect the interests of disabled dependents. Insurance contracts, being commercial agreements, cannot have their terms retroactively altered; the petition was dismissed. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.706 OF 2020 | Ravi Agrawal v. Union of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 22-11-2024 | 17-10-2024 | Appellate Authority Cannot Dismiss Appeal on Maintainability After HCs Direction for Alternative Remedy | Facts:
The petitioner adjusted its electronic cash ledger to settle GST interest for July 2017, but recovery orders for Rs. 90,90,696 were issued u/s 79 of the CGST Act.
A writ petition was filed (WP No. 648 of 2022), which was dismissed with a direction to avail of the alternative remedy u/s 107 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner filed an appeal, but the appellate authority dismissed it on 29.2.2024, citing maintainability issues, leading to this challenge.
Decision: The HC held that the appellate authority could not dismiss the appeal on maintainability after the writ court directed the petitioner to seek remedy u/s 107. The appellate authoritys order was set aside for being legally unsustainable. The case was remanded to the appellate authority to reconsider the matter on its merits, disregarding any objections about maintainability. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 1733 of 2024 | New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 16-11-2024 | 30-09-2024 | HC Rules Consolidated GST SCNs for Multiple Assessment Years Invalid; Separate Notices Required | Facts:
Chimney Hills Education Society received a single consolidated SCN u/s 74 of the CGST Act for multiple FYs (2017 to 2023).
The assessee challenged the notice, arguing that each AY should be treated independently and that consolidation violated the CGST Act.
Prior cases, including Bangalore Golf Club and Titan Company Ltd., supported the position that individual notices should be issued for each year.
Decision: The court held that consolidating multiple AYs into a single SCN under Section 74 is impermissible. It quashed the consolidated notice, emphasizing that each AY must be independently addressed. The court granted the Revenue permission to reissue separate notices for each FY in line with CGST Act provisions. | GST | Writ Petition No. 26164 OF 2024 (T-RES) | Chimney Hills Education Society v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |
| 16-11-2024 | 15-10-2024 | HC Quashes GST Order for Lack of Proper Notice After Registration Cancellation | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was cancelled on March 18, 2019, and no business was conducted thereafter.
The SCN was uploaded only on the GST portal without alternative service.
The petitioner argued that they were not obligated to monitor the portal after registration cancellation, leading to a claim of natural justice violation.
Decision: The court held that uploading an SCN on the GST portal alone is insufficient after registration cancellation. It quashed the impugned order due to a violation of natural justice and lack of proper notice. The department was directed to issue a fresh notice through proper means and proceed lawfully. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 1676 of 2024 | Ahs Steels v. Commissioner of State Taxes | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 16-11-2024 | 19-09-2024 | HC Remands GST Demand Order for Fresh Hearing Due to Absence of hearing opportunity in ITC Mismatch Case | Facts:
The petitioner faced a demand for Rs. 19.95 lakhs due to an alleged mismatch in ITC claims between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B.
The petitioners tax consultant, holding essential documents to substantiate the claims, was unavailable due to illness, resulting in the petitioners inability to present these documents during the hearing.
The tax authority proceeded to issue a demand order without allowing adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present the necessary evidence.
Decision: The HC set aside the demand order, citing insufficient opportunity for the petitioner to defend against the alleged mismatch. The case was remanded for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks. Upon compliance, the tax authority is to allow the petitioner to submit objections with relevant documents and conduct a personal hearing. | GST | W.P.No.26762 of 2024 WMP Nos.29264 & 29265 of 2024 | ARS Irons v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 12-11-2024 | 03-10-2023 | Income Tax Reassessment: Court Defines Assessing Officers Authority | Facts:
Vivek Saran Agarwal filed a 2015-16 return with Rs. 12,69,380/- income. Previous assessment completed under section 143(3).
Amendments introduced reassessment provisions (sections 147, 148, etc.). Notices issued based on another entitys search operation info.
AOs order under section 148A(d) cited incriminating documents. Indicated potential unaccounted income.
Decision: Decision scope limited, excludes detailed inquiry on available information. Act avoids detailed inquiry, allows defense in section 148 reassessment proceedings. Merits subject to reassessment via section 148 notices. Challenge during reassessment proceedings after section 148 notice. Writ petition dismissed; no grounds to challenge 148A(d) order or 148 notice. | Income Tax | WRIT TAX NO. 968 OF 2023 | Vivek Saran Agarwal v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 12-11-2024 | 03-04-2024 | Petitioner Challenges SCN; Jurisdiction and CBIC Instruction Violation | Facts:
Sonex Engineers Co-operative Society Ltd. challenged an SCN alleging jurisdictional issues and violation of CBIC Instruction No. 05/2023-GST.
The HC of Calcutta acknowledged the petitioners challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority.
Despite usual reluctance, the court considered the jurisdictional challenge seriously and directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice within two weeks.
Decision: The court instructed the adjudicating authority to decide on jurisdiction within two weeks of receiving the petitioners reply, after granting a hearing. Coercive action by the authorities was prohibited until the reply was disposed of. Failure by the petitioner to reply within the deadline would nullify the interim protection, allowing authorities to proceed according to the law. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 6345 OF 2024 | Sonex Engineers Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 11-11-2024 | 09-09-2024 | Joint Rental Income to be Taxed as AOP; Plinths Not Eligible for Depreciation as Buildings. | Facts:
The assessee and co-owners jointly purchased a property, built godowns and plinths, and rented them to government agencies, receiving rental income in a joint account.
The IT Department treated this rental income as income of an AOP rather than as individual property income, since the income had no defined shares among co-owners.
The assessee claimed depreciation on the plinths, treating them as buildings.
Decision: The court held that the rental income was correctly assessed as income of an AOP, given the joint nature of ownership, undivided shares, and single account deposit. The court ruled that plinths, being foundational slabs without walls or a roof, do not qualify as buildings, and therefore, rental income from plinths cannot be considered property income under Section 22. Consequently, the court denied the depreciation claim on the plinths. | Income Tax | IT Appeal No. 20 of 2008 (O & M) | Y. S. & Co-owners v. Income-tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA |
| 11-11-2024 | 02-09-2024 | HC Directs Police to Address Assessees Complaint on Unauthorized Data Access During GST Raid | Facts:
During a GST raid on November 16, 2023, two individuals allegedly accessed and copied data from the petitioners computer without authorization, posing as GST officers.
The petitioner claims that these individuals were not GST officials and accessed private information without a proper Panchnama.
The petitioner complained with the police and relevant authorities, providing CCTV footage as evidence of the unauthorized access.
Decision: The court directed the police to process the complaint regarding unauthorized data access in accordance with the law. GST authorities were instructed to consider the complaint and take action if found merited, after reviewing the CCTV footage provided by the petitioner. The GST authorities must adjudicate the SCN by considering the petitioners response and allowing a personal hearing. | GST | W.P.(C) 12135 of 2024 CM APPL. 50466, 50467, 50468 of 2024 | R.K. Jain and Sons Hospitality Services (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 07-11-2024 | 30-09-2024 | Court Overturns GST Registration Cancellation Due to Ambiguous Grounds and Zero Amount Due | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for six months, based on a vague SCN issued on 23.03.2023.
The cancellation order dated 06.04.2023 mentioned that no amount was payable by the petitioner, but his appeal was dismissed on 20.06.2024 solely on the grounds of limitation.
The petitioner challenged the cancellation and appeal dismissal, arguing that the SCN and cancellation order reflected a lack of clarity and non-application of mind.
Decision: The court found that both the SCN and cancellation order showed non-application of mind as they failed to specify any payable amount or clear violations. The court set aside both the order of cancellation and the order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN, and the petitioner was given the right to challenge any future orders in accordance with the law. | GST | WRIT PETITION No. 19011 of 2024 | Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Ministry of Finance | HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH |
| 07-11-2024 | 16-10-2024 | HC Orders GST Refund with Statutory Interest Due to Unjustified Delay by Deputy Commissioner | Facts:
Bawa Internationals refund claim under GST was approved by an appellate authority, and no appeal or challenge was filed against this decision, making it final.
Despite the appellate approval, the Deputy Commissioner withheld processing of the refund, citing perceived discrepancies in turnover values and missing invoice details.
The assessee filed a writ petition seeking release of the refund along with statutory interest, as the appellate order was not being honored.
Decision: The court held that the Deputy Commissioners refusal to process the refund was unjustified, as the appellate decision had attained finality and was binding. It ruled that the assessee was entitled to statutory interest: 6% per annum if the refund was delayed after the first application, and 9% if delayed after the second application following the appellate order. The court directed the respondents to release the refund promptly along with the applicable statutory interest. | GST | W.P.(C) 8472 of 2024 | Bawa International v. Joint Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 03-11-2024 | 01-10-2024 | Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 143(2) by Authorized Income-Tax Authority | Facts:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that it was issued by an officer not authorized as a prescribed income-tax authority.
The petitioner contended that even if the officer was designated as a prescribed authority, they could only serve the notice and not issue it.
CBDT had issued notifications authorizing the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) to issue Section 143(2) notices as a prescribed authority.
Decision: The court held that both the AO and prescribed income-tax authorities are empowered to issue notices u/s 143(2). It confirmed that the CBDT has the authority to designate the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as a prescribed authority for issuing such notices. The petition was dismissed, with the court upholding the notices validity and allowing the assessment process to continue. | Income Tax | .P.(C) 13831 of 2024 CM APPL. No. 57943, 57944 & 57945 of 2024 | Ambience (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 03-11-2024 | 03-10-2024 | Penalty u/s 271D cannot be levied without recorded satisfaction of Section 269SS violation by the AO. | Facts:
The assessee received Rs. 6.65 crores as a loan and repaid Rs. 7.70 crores, with an excess payment of Rs. 1.05 crores.
The AO added Rs. 1.05 crores as unexplained income u/s 69A but did not record any finding of a violation of Section 269SS regarding cash loans.
The Joint Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 6.65 crores u/s 271D, which the assessee contested, arguing no recorded satisfaction of a Section 269SS violation by the AO.
Decision: The court observed that the AO failed to record any finding of a Section 269SS violation or satisfaction that cash loans were accepted. Citing the necessity of recorded satisfaction for penalty imposition, the court held that the penalty u/s 271D could not be upheld. The court set aside the penalty order, ruling in favor of the assessee due to the AOs lack of documented satisfaction. | Income Tax | WP No. 32190 of 2023 | Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 31-10-2024 | 20-09-2024 | Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred Set Aside; Court Orders Fresh Hearing with Proper Notice and Reasoned Decision | Facts:
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.s appeal against an order dated 26th December 2023 was dismissed as time-barred by the Appellate Authority.
The petitioner provided email evidence showing the order was communicated on 29th December 2023, making their appeal on 28th March 2024 within the 3-month limitation u/s 107 of the CGST Act.
The petitioner was not given a chance to prove the date of receipt or notified properly for a personal hearing.
Decision: The Court found a violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not allowed to prove the date of receipt of the order. The Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration with proper notice for a personal hearing. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass a reasoned order dealing with all submissions and dispose of the appeal by 30th November 2024. | GST | Writ Petition(ST) No. 28724 of 2024 | Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 31-10-2024 | 01-10-2024 | HC Rules Gift from Uncle to Nephew as Non-Taxable under Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii) | Facts:
The assessee received a property as a gift from his uncle, who is his fathers brother. The AO considered the gift taxable, as nephew was not explicitly mentioned under the definition of relative in the explanation to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
Based on this interpretation, the AO issued a notice to reopen the assessees assessment, arguing that income from the gifted property had escaped assessment.
Decision: The court held that Explanation (e) to the proviso of Section 56(2)(vii) explicitly includes the brother or sister of either parent of the individual, thereby covering the uncle as a relative. The absence of the term nephew does not alter this interpretation, as the explanation considers the relationship between the assessee and the donor sufficient to qualify as a relative under the Act. Consequently, the court set aside the reopening notice. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) No. 13712 of 2024 | Sumeet Kawatra v. Income-tax Officer Ward 35(1) New Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 28-10-2024 | 17-09-2024 | HC Allows Manual Resubmission of Corrected GSTR-1 Due to Inadvertent IGST Error on Export Invoices | Facts:
The petitioner mistakenly marked exports as without payment of IGST instead of with payment of IGST in GSTR-1 for October and November 2022, while GSTR-3B reflected the correct details.
The petitioner sought to rectify the mistake after a partial refund was granted but was unable to access the GST portal for corrections.
Customs and State authorities confirmed the mistake but lacked control over the portal to allow the correction.
Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to manually resubmit the corrected GSTR-1 within three weeks. The GST authorities were directed to receive the corrected form manually and facilitate its uploading on the portal. The petitioner should not be prejudiced from availing legitimately entitled credit due to a genuine mistake. | GST | WPA 14380 of 2024 | Nivriya India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 23-10-2024 | 10-09-2024 | Ex-parte Adjudication Order Set Aside; Case Restored to Show Cause Stage | Facts:
An ex-parte adjudication order was passed u/s 73 for the tax period 2018-19 because the appellant did not respond to the SCN or attend the hearing.
The appellant claimed their consultant failed to take necessary steps due to unforeseen circumstances, leading to the ex-parte order.
In a similar case for the 2017-18 tax period, the department dropped the demand, which attained finality.
Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judges order directing the appellant to pursue an appellate remedy. The case was restored to the stage of the SCN, allowing the appellant 15 days to submit a reply. The court instructed the adjudicating authority to conduct a personal hearing and issue a fresh order based on merits, ensuring consistency with the earlier AY. | GST | M.A.T. NO. 1739 OF 2024 WITH I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2024 | Flemingo Dutyfree Shop (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Salt Lake Charge | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 23-10-2024 | 26-09-2024 | HC Directs Manual Processing of IGST Refund Due to Error in GSTR-1 Filing | Facts:
Assessee exported goods but mistakenly did not include the IGST amount in Form GSTR-1, although it was included in Form GSTR-3B and GSTR-9.
The company sought a refund of the IGST under the IGST and CGST Acts, but the refund was not processed due to the omission in Form GSTR-1, and attempts to amend the form were denied by revenue authorities.
After various communications to rectify the issue, the petitioner approached the HC seeking a directive to manually process the IGST refund.
Decision: The court directed the revenue authorities to manually process the IGST refund to the petitioner within twelve weeks of receiving the order. The court held that the petitioner should not be deprived of the refund due to an error in Form GSTR-1, affirming the legitimacy of the claim under applicable laws. The court specified that the petitioner would not be entitled to interest on the refund because the error was made by the petitioner. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11905 of 2022 | Bajaj Herbals (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of customs | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 21-10-2024 | 14-10-2024 | HC Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging GST SCN as Vague with Rs 5 Lakh Costs | Facts:
The assessee challenged an SCN under the GST Act, claiming it was vague and lacked necessary details, which deprived them of a fair opportunity to respond.
The assessee filed a writ petition, arguing that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice.
The Revenue contended that the SCN was detailed and contained all relevant particulars, enabling the assessee to understand and respond effectively.
Decision: The court held that the SCN was not vague and contained all necessary information for the assessee to respond. It ruled that the allegations of vagueness were frivolous and an attempt to bypass the available appeal process. The court dismissed the petition with a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, payable to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27725 OF 2024 | Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of india | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 21-10-2024 | 30-09-2024 | HC Quashes GST Appeal Rejection Due to Lack of Reasons, Orders Fresh Hearing | Facts:
New Shanti Restaurants appeal against an order of the proper officer was rejected by the Appellate Authority without providing any reasoning.
The appeal was filed electronically, but only a rejection notice was issued, without a formal order or explanation.
The petitioner argued that no reasons were given for the rejection, violating the principles of natural justice, while the State defended the rejection as time-barred.
Decision: The court ruled that providing reasons is essential for fairness and transparency, and an order without reasons cannot be upheld. The court quashed the rejection order as it lacked valid reasoning. The court remanded the case back to the Appellate Authority, instructing it to pass a reasoned decision after hearing the petitioner within three months. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 1597 and 1604 of 2024 | New Shanti Restaurant v. State Of Up | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 15-10-2024 | 30-09-2024 | HC Reduces GST Penalty from 100% of Goods Value to Twice the Tax Amount | Facts:
The petitioner was imposed a 100% penalty on the value of goods u/s 129(1)(b) of the CGST/UPGST Act for goods detained in transit.
The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the goods, disputed only the quantum of the penalty, requesting it be reduced to twice the amount of tax u/s 129(1)(a).
The petitioner argued that the penalty imposed was harsh and unreasonable, referring to a similar court decision in M/s Green India v. State of U.P.
Decision: The court found the revenue authoritys imposition of the 100% penalty to be harsh and unreasonable. It ruled that the penalty should be reduced to twice the amount of tax by Section 129(1)(a). The court modified the penalty order and disposed of the writ petition with this adjustment. | GST | WRIT TAX No. - 1447 of 2024 | Ram India Company v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 15-10-2024 | 28-08-2024 | High Court Allows Rectification of Erroneous ITC Entry in GSTR-3B Return | Facts:
The petitioner was eligible for Rs. 1,92,867 in ITC under IGST but mistakenly entered it under CGST in the GSTR-3B return.
Due to this clerical error, the tax authorities denied the ITC claim u/s 73 of the TNGST Act.
The petitioner argued the error was inadvertent and requested rectification, contending that the denial was unjust.
Decision: The petitioner was allowed to file a rectification petition u/s 161 of the TNGST Act within two weeks. The tax authorities were directed to review the rectification and provide a hearing before passing final orders. If the rectification petition were not filed within the specified time, the original order denying ITC would be reinstated. | GST | W.P(MD)No.6459 of 2024 W.M.P(MD)No.6040 of 2024 | Tvl.Thendral Electricals v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 11-10-2024 | 04-10-2024 | AO has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed under Section 139(5). | Facts:
The assessee filed a revised return on 29-10-1991 after filing the original return for AY 1989-90, but this revised return was submitted beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5).
The AO did not acknowledge the revised return, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, ruling it time-barred.
The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to consider a claim, but the HC overruled this, holding that no claim could be considered from a time-barred revised return.
Decision: The SC held that the revised return was barred by time u/s 139(5), and thus the AO had no jurisdiction to consider it. The Tribunals direction to consider the claim was incorrect, as the power u/s 254 was not exercised. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the HCs judgment in favor of the revenue. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6274 OF 2013 | Shriram Investments v. Commissioner of Income-tax - III | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 11-10-2024 | 03-09-2024 | Assessee Right to Claim TDS Credit Upheld Despite CBDT Limitation | Facts:
The assessee filed his ITR for AY 2010-11, reporting an income of Rs. 5,26,580, but faced an issue as the TDS deducted on his compensation under the Land Acquisition Act was not reflected in Form 26AS.
In 2017, the assessee filed a writ petition to address the non-reflection of TDS, which led to a revised Form 16A being issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) after the courts intervention.
The assessee sought to file a revised return to claim the TDS credit but was denied by the tax authorities based on a CBDT circular that set a 6-year limit for such claims.
Decision: The court ruled that no CBDT circular can impose a limitation on citizens seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that enforcing a limitation period was inequitable, given that the assessee only received the revised Form after a considerable delay. The court confirmed the assessees right to a refund u/s 237 of the Income Tax Act, directing the authorities to process the revised return and refund claim accordingly. | Income Tax | W.P. (C) NO. 915 OF 2019 | Hari Kishan Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 11-10-2024 | 26-09-2024 | Reassessment Notice u/s 148 Quashed Due to Lack of Prior Approval from Specified Authority | Facts:
The AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reassessment without obtaining prior approval from the specified authority.
Tia Enterprises (P.) Ltd. challenged the notice, arguing that reassessment proceedings cannot begin without such approval.
The HC found that the statutory scheme required the AO to seek approval from the specified authority before initiating reassessment.
Decision: The SC upheld the HCs decision, noting the absence of required approval from the specified authority. It found no grounds to interfere with the HCs ruling, dismissing the SLP. The SC also disposed of all pending applications related to the case. | Income Tax | SLP Diary No(s). 33611 of 2024 | Income-tax Officer v. Tia Enterprises (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 07-10-2024 | 05-09-2024 | HC Quashes Provisional Attachment Order for Lack of Reasoning | Facts:
Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue.
The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment.
The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 4932 OF 2024 | Global Tabacc Legacy v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 07-10-2024 | 13-09-2024 | Reopening of Income Tax Assessment Unjustified Due to Change of Opinion | Facts:
AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. sold shares to SCPL for Rs. 40 lakhs during the AY 2012-13, and the initial assessment u/s 143(3) did not include any additions regarding this transaction.
Four years later, the AO issued a notice to reopen the assessment, claiming the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries.
The HC determined that the AO had the necessary information at the time of the original assessment and could have acted then; thus, the reopening was deemed a change of opinion based on already considered facts.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP against the HCs order, agreeing with the HCs conclusions. The Court noted a gross delay of 489 days in filing the SLP, finding the reasons provided for this delay to be insufficient for condonation. The Court upheld the HCs finding that the reopening of the assessment was unjustified, as it amounted to a mere change of opinion without new evidence or information. | Income Tax | S.L.P. (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 32717 OF 2024 | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 07-10-2024 | 03-10-2024 | Supreme Court clarifies ITC eligibility for immovable property under GST based on functionality | Facts:
Safari Retreats Private Ltd. constructed a shopping mall for the purpose of letting out units to tenants and accumulated over Rs. 34 crores in ITC from goods and services used in the construction.
When Safari sought to offset the ITC against GST payable on rental income, the authorities denied it, citing the exception u/s 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act.
Safari filed a petition challenging the validity of Section 17(5)(d), claiming it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Decision: The SC held that clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act are constitutionally valid and do not violate any fundamental rights. The Court ruled that the plain interpretation of the clauses was clear and unambiguous, thus rejecting the need to read down these provisions. The Court clarified that whether a building (e.g., mall, warehouse) can be classified as a plant u/s 17(5)(d) depends on its functionality in the business, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. | GST | WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 804 of 2022 & 1030 of 2022 and others CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2948 OF 2023 | Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 03-10-2024 | 09-09-2024 | Supreme Court Overturns Bail Cancellation Due to Natural Justice Violation | Facts:
Gautam Garg was granted bail by the trial court u/s 132(1)(c) and (f) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Union of India sought the cancellation of Gargs bail in the Rajasthan HC, where his counsel was absent during crucial hearings.
The HC canceled the bail on 25.07.2024 without hearing Gargs counsel, leading to an appeal to the SC.
Decision: The SC ruled that the absence of the appellants counsel during important hearings constituted a breach of natural justice. The Court set aside the HCs cancellation order and remanded the case for reconsideration, ensuring the appellant could be represented. The SC directed that reasonable opportunity be given for legal representation in future hearings, without making any observations on the merits of the case. | GST | SLP (Crl) No.10864 OF 2024 | Gautam Garg v. Union of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 03-10-2024 | 05-09-2024 | Petition Disposed Due to Typographical Error in Tax Period with Liberty to File Appeal | Facts:
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order where a typographical error altered the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018 (as stated in the SCN) to 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The petitioner argued that this discrepancy would increase the pre-deposit amount required for filing an appeal, making the process more burdensome.
The CGST department admitted the typographical error in the order and sought time to address it.
Decision: The court acknowledged the typographical error in the tax period as submitted by the respondent. The court granted the petitioner permission to withdraw the writ petition and file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within two weeks. The appellate authority was directed to resolve the appeal within six weeks, provided it was in order. | GST | W.P.(T) NO. 2065 OF 2024 | Prasad Explosive & Chemicals v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 03-10-2024 | 03-09-2024 | HC Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Lack of Escaped Income | Facts:
Assessee filed its returns for the AYs 14-15 to 16-17, declaring losses or nil income under the normal provisions but paid tax u/s 115JB (MAT).
A search operation u/s 132 revealed that Hitesh Jain provided bogus accommodation entries to beneficiaries, including the assessee, leading to reopening notices u/s 148 for alleged income escapement.
The assessee challenged the notices, arguing that even if the alleged escaped income was added, the total tax payable would still be less than the tax already paid u/s 115JB.
Decision: The court held that since the assessee had paid more tax u/s 115JB than what would be owed even with the proposed addition, no income had escaped assessment. The court emphasized that the AO failed to show a valid reason to believe that income had escaped, which is a precondition for reopening assessments u/s 147. As a result, the reassessment notices issued u/s 148 were quashed, and all related proceedings were set aside in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 19015, 19017 & 19019 OF 2021 | Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 25-09-2024 | 09-08-2024 | Judicial Guidance Upholds Compliance: No TDS Liability for Land Acquisition Interest Payments | Facts:
The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) was tasked with disbursing compensation and interest on compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Until October 2012.
In October 2012, the LAO stopped deducting TDS on these payments based on a Punjab and Haryana HC order in a similar case.
Despite following the courts ruling, the IT Department later treated the LAO as an assessee-in-default for not deducting TDS, raising a significant tax demand for non-compliance u/s 201(1) of the IT Act.
Decision: The court ruled that the LAO acted by judicial orders and legal advice at the time, and therefore his actions were not considered wrongful or illegal. The court set aside the tax liability imposed on the LAO, stating that the penalty could not be justified. The court also ordered that any amount already paid by the LAO be refunded with 6% interest per annum. | Income Tax | C.W.P. NOS. 14794 AND 14811 OF 2016 (O & M) | Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF Punjab & Haryana |
| 25-09-2024 | 27-08-2024 | Court Upholds Assessees Right to Address Objections in Tax Assessment | Facts:
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return for AY 2012-13 and received notices in 2019 regarding foreign receipts from Spanish entities and Japans Master Trust Bank, asking if these amounts were offered for tax.
The assessee clarified that some amounts were received in later years, and others were already included in the return.
Despite these clarifications, the revenue issued a Section 148 notice alleging income had escaped assessment and dismissed the assessees objections without fully addressing the concerns.
Decision: The Gujarat HC quashed the revenues order for failing to properly address the objections. The court remanded the matter to the AO with instructions to give the assessee a fair hearing and consider the objections thoroughly. The AO was directed to provide the relevant information relied upon for issuing the Section 148 notice, allowing the assessee to file further responses based on this information. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22048 OF 2019 | Deloitte Haskins and Sells v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 25-09-2024 | 30-07-2024 | HC Directs Expeditious GST Registration Cancellation Despite Pending Assessments | Facts:
B.R. Enterprises ceased its business of trading polymers and propylene and applied for GST registration cancellation on 02.03.2023.
The tax authorities initially rejected the cancellation application and suspended the petitioners GST registration for non-filing returns.
The petitioner filed Nil returns and reapplied for cancellation on 18.07.2024, but the tax authorities sought additional documents, including address proof and tax reconciliations.
Decision: The court ruled that the GST registration cancellation should not be delayed due to pending tax assessments or liabilities. The petitioner was directed to submit the required address proof and KYC documents for future correspondence. The court ordered the tax authorities to process the cancellation of GST registration. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 10260 OF 2024 CM NO. 42070 OF 2024 | B.R. Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 23-09-2024 | 04-09-2024 | HC Ruling on GST Registration Cancellation and Due Process for Show Cause Notices | Facts:
Baba Industries was accused of fraudulent operations to generate fake ITCs while dealing primarily in FMCG products, leading to an SCN for GST registration cancellation.
The SCN lacked specific details regarding the alleged fraud and did not provide the documents referenced, which the assessee requested to prepare an effective response.
Decision: The court ordered the revenue to provide all documents referred to in the SCN within ten days to ensure the petitioners rights were protected. After receiving the documents, the petitioner was required to submit an additional reply within ten days, which the competent authority had to consider. The court emphasized that the SCN must comply with statutory requirements and provide sufficient detail, disposing of the writ petition with these directions. | GST | WRIT TAX No. 85 of 2024 | Baba Industries v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 23-09-2024 | 08-08-2024 | HC Sets Aside GST Demand Due to Lack of Physical Notice | Facts:
Candour Auto Components challenged a demand of Rs. 33,97,729 raised by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under the TNGST Act, 2017, alleging excess ITC for the FY 2017-18.
The petitioner argued that the SCN and order were only uploaded on the GST portal without physical service, preventing them from responding or defending their case.
Decision: The court found that the lack of physical service of the notice violated the principles of natural justice, leaving the petitioner unaware of the proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand within four weeks and file a reply within two weeks, with the authorities required to provide a physical notice for a personal hearing. | GST | WP.No.21772 of 2024 W.M.P. Nos. 23750 to 23752 of 2024 | Candour Auto Components v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 18-09-2024 | 07-08-2024 | HC of Orissa Orders Reconsideration of GST Rectification Application Due to Lack of Hearing | Facts:
Orissa Stevedores Ltd. applied to rectify an order dated 30th December 2023, u/s 161 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017.
The rectification application was rejected on 8th April 2024, without providing reasons or allowing the assessee to be heard.
The assessee argued it was entitled to a hearing, as it was affected by the original order, while the Revenue claimed no hearing was necessary because no error was apparent in the original order.
Decision: The court found that the rejection order did not disclose any reason for rejecting the rectification application. The court held that, u/s 161, if the rectification adversely affects a person, the person must be given a hearing. The court set aside the impugned order, restored the rectification application, and directed the authority to reconsider it by the law. | GST | W.P.(C) No. 13696 of 2024 | Orissa Stevedores Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 18-09-2024 | 02-09-2024 | CSR Expenses Incurred Before 2014 Amendment Are Deductible: SC Ruling | Facts:
The assessee incurred CSR expenditure and claimed it as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The AO disallowed this deduction, asserting that the CSR expenses were capital in nature, without detailing which portion related to capital assets.
The Finance Act, 2014 introduced Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), effective from April 1, 2015, which disallowed CSR expenditure as a deduction; however, the expenditure in this case was incurred before March 31, 2014.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, citing an inadequate explanation for the delay in filing. The HCs decision was upheld, affirming that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) applies prospectively from the AY 2015-16. The SC thus confirmed that CSR expenditure incurred by the assessee before April 1, 2015, was allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1). | Income Tax | SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 32548 OF 2024 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 18-09-2024 | 16-07-2024 | HC Quashes Lookout Circular Against Petitioner Not Directly Involved in SFIO Investigation | Facts:
The SFIO was investigating the financial activities of Pancard Clubs, managed by the petitioners father, but the petitioner himself was neither a shareholder nor a director.
Despite the petitioner not being named in SEBI complaints or directly involved in Pancard Clubs, SFIO issued a Lookout Circular (LOC) against him.
The petitioner complied with all SFIO summons, traveled overseas with court permission, and maintained roots in society with family dependence and business interests abroad.
Decision: The court found no evidence that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and noted that he was not a flight risk. The court highlighted that issuing a LOC indefinitely violates the petitioners right to personal liberty and free movement under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court quashed the LOC issued by the SFIO. | Company Law | WRIT PETITION NO. 523 OF 2023 | Siddhartha Sudhir Moravekar v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 16-09-2024 | 13-08-2024 | Court Upholds Travel Restrictions for Director Under SFIO Investigation | Facts:
Vijay Singh Dogra, a director in nine companies with connections to the Sahara Group, was subject to a Look Out Circular (LOC) by the SFIO due to his failure to provide crucial documents for an ongoing investigation.
Dogra sought permission to travel abroad from 16.08.2024 to 05.09.2024 to assist with his sons admission to the New York Film Academy and to visit his daughter in Dubai.
The SFIO argued that granting permission would hinder the investigation.
Decision: he court found that the petitioners children could travel to India to meet him, making the trip to Dubai unnecessary. The petitioner did not provide sufficient reasons or justification for his claimed necessity to be present for his sons admission to New York. The court concluded that the LOC was justified due to the petitioners role in the investigation and dismissed his application, upholding the restrictions on his travel. | Company Law | CRL.M.C. 4181/2024 | Vijay Singh Dogra v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 16-09-2024 | 13-08-2024 | HC Confirms NCLTs Authority to Examine Forgery Allegations in Shareholding and Directorship Dispute | Facts:
The appellant was removed from the directorship, allegedly through forged documents.
She also accused respondent No. 2 of attempting to sell company properties without her consent.
The appellant filed a petition u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the CLB, which dismissed the case, stating it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of forgery, directing her to seek redressal in civil court.
Decision: The court held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to examine allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents under Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which allows for forensic examination. The case was remanded to the NCLT for further adjudication, with instructions to investigate the allegations, including a forensic examination of the disputed documents. The court allowed the appellants appeal, overturning the CLBs dismissal and affirming that the NCLT is empowered to handle the case. | Company Law | CO.A(SB) 4/2016 | Smt. Kavita Arora v. Leptons Designtek (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 14-09-2024 | 01-08-2024 | Minor delay in filing GST appeal condoned due to health reasons, ensuring justice on merits. | Facts:
The petitioner filed its GST annual return late, leading to a departmental order on 18.08.2023, which the petitioner appealed against.
The appeal was lodged on 26.12.2023, nine days beyond the condonable period under Section 107 of the GST statutes, resulting in its rejection by the appellate authority.
The petitioner cited illness and reliance on an accountant as reasons for the delay, filing a writ petition challenging the rejection.
Decision: The court acknowledged that the delay was only nine days and accepted the petitioners explanation for the delay due to health reasons. It directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioners appeal on its merits, without addressing the question of limitation. The petitioner was ordered to re-present the appeal within ten days from receiving a copy of the courts order. | GST | W.P. NO. 18545 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 20328 & 20331 OF 2024 | G.R. Megaa Engineering v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 10-09-2024 | 19-07-2024 | HC grants interim relief against coercive action, citing proposed amendment in Finance Bill 2024 for late ITC claims | Facts:
The assessee, Cart Infralog Ltd., filed GSTR-3B returns late for the period December 2018 to March 2019, missing the deadline of 20th October 2019 and filing on 31st October 2019.
An adjudication order u/s 73(9) of the CGST Act declared the ITC claimed by the assessee as reversible due to the late filing.
The Finance Bill 2024 introduced an amendment to Section 16(4), allowing ITC for returns filed by 30th November 2021 for FYs 2017-18 to 2020-21, and the assessee sought protection based on this proposed change. Decision: The court granted interim protection to the assessee, restraining the tax authorities from taking coercive action regarding the adjudication order. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs with the Registrar General within three weeks as a security measure. The court extended the interim protection until the end of September 2024 or further orders, contingent on compliance with the deposit order. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 15304 OF 2024 | Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 05-09-2024 | 06-06-2024 | HC Quashes Tax Demand Order, Grants Petitioner Opportunity to Rectify ITC Claim Error | Facts:
Tvl. Tirupathi Packaging claimed ITC under RCM in their GSTR-3B return, rather than under Table 4A(5), due to an error in the initial GST months.
An order was issued demanding Rs. 3,56,158/- in taxes and Rs. 1,94,022/- in interest for the erroneous claim.
The petitioner argued that they had not received prior notices or hearings due to being a small enterprise and requested an opportunity to rectify the mistake.
Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order that demanded tax and interest from the petitioner. The petitioner was granted a fresh opportunity to respond to the SCN and provide supporting documents. The petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount and the respondent was directed to pass a new order within 3 months after considering the petitioners explanations. | GST | W.P. (MD) NO. 11734 OF 2024 W.M.P. (MD) NOS. 10476 & 10477 OF 2024 | Tvl. Tirupathi Packaging v. Deputy State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 05-09-2024 | 26-07-2024 | Refund Rejection Overturned: BRCs Not Essential for Export ITC Claims | Facts:
Rajiv Sharma HUF applied for a refund of accumulated ITC on exports.
The application was rejected due to missing BRCs and incomplete supplier ledger and bank statements.
The petitioner contested that BRCs were not required and faced rejection over incomplete ledger accounts.
Decision: The court ruled that BRCs are not mandatory for export refund claims. The court found the rejection based on BRCs and Rule 96B was incorrect. The matter was remanded to re-evaluate whether the payments for inward supplies were made properly. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 9381 OF 2023 | Rajiv Sharma HUF v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 02-09-2024 | 11-07-2024 | Court Orders Reassessment After Erroneous ITC Reporting and Irregular Rectification | Facts:
GRK Plastic reported an incorrect ITC amount of Rs. 6,55,561 instead of Rs. 65,561 in the GSTR-3B return for October 2017.
The petitioner corrected the error by including the excess amount in the outward supplies in the GSTR-3B return for November 2017, following guidance from GST authorities.
The revenue authorities issued an assessment order confirming a tax demand, and approximately Rs. 4,47,300 was recovered from the petitioners bank account.
Decision: The court found that the revenue authorities did not properly consider the petitioners explanations and documentation, breaching natural justice principles. The HC set aside the assessment order, noting that the petitioners rectification efforts were not properly evaluated. The case was remanded for reconsideration, with instructions to provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity. | GST | W.P. NOS. 16856 & 16858 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 18538, 18540 & 18543 OF 2024 | GRK Plastic v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 02-09-2024 | 22-08-2024 | HC: Assessing Officer Must Refund Full TDS and Interest as per Form 26AS | Facts:
The assessee had filed a return for AY 14-15 claiming a refund of INR 3,65,970. The case was selected for scrutiny, and after several proceedings, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify and grant TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS, which amounted to INR 2,03,36,66,125.
Despite the Tribunals direction, the AO restricted the TDS credit to INR 24,46,62,305/- based on the amount claimed in the original return, denying the rest. The AO issued a refund of INR 4,92,208/- along with interest u/s 244A, not considering the full TDS reflected in Form 26AS.
Decision: The HC held that u/s 240 of the IT Act, the AO is required to refund the amount due based on Form 26AS without the need for a separate claim from the assessee. This means the AO should have considered the entire TDS as reflected in Form 26AS. The Court ruled that interest on the refund should be calculated from the start of the relevant AY, as per Section 244A, not just from the date of the Tribunals order. | Income Tax | W.P. (C) NO. 6589 OF 2024 | ESS Singapore Branch v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 02-09-2024 | 14-08-2024 | SC Affirms HC Decision: Currency and Silver Bars Seized During GST Search Must Be Returned | Facts:
Cash and silver bars were seized from Deepak Khandelwals premises during a search under the GST law, allegedly for being unaccounted wealth.
The HC determined that only goods directly related to the supply and evasion of tax could be seized u/s 67 of the CGST Act, excluding currency and valuable assets.
The HC ordered the return of the seized currency and silver bars as they were not pertinent to the tax evasion notice subsequently issued.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the Commissioner of CGST, upholding the HCs decision. The SC agreed that Section 67 of the GST Act is intended for uncovering tax evasion and not for seizing assets unrelated to tax supply. The Court confirmed the HCs directive to return the seized currency and silver bars, affirming that they were not relevant to the GST proceedings. | GST | S.L.P. (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 31886 OF 2024 | Commissioner of CGST v. Deepak Khandelwal | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 29-08-2024 | 24-07-2024 | HC Orders Release of Seized Gold on Bond Execution in GST Discrepancy Case | Facts:
The assessee had a discrepancy between the gold quantity listed in the delivery challan and the actual gold carried during a visit to a jewelry shop, leading to the seizure of 1647.970 grams of gold by the authorities.
Initially, the entire quantity of gold was deemed liable for confiscation, with penalties imposed. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority ruled that only 315.400 grams of gold (not listed in the delivery challan due to a clerical error) should be subject to further proceedings.
The assessee sought the release of the gold as per the Appellate Authoritys order, while the State challenged the decision, leading to the filing of connected writ petitions in the HC.
Decision: The court ordered the release of the entire 1647.970 grams of seized gold upon the execution of bonds by the designated partners of the assessee, securing the release against their property. Considering that the seized gold was stock-in-trade, the court supported the release of the goods upon payment of a fine instead of confiscation, without delving into the merits of the case. | GST | WP (C) NOS. 4244 AND 6114 OF 2024 | Velayudhan Gold LLP v. Intelligence Officer, Intelligence Unit, Kottarakara | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 29-08-2024 | 14-08-2024 | Reassessment Invalidated for Bypassing Faceless Assessment Mandate, Upholds Strict Adherence to Tax Law Procedures | Facts:
The Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) issued a reopening notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, to the assessee, initiating re-assessment proceedings.
The re-assessment was initiated without conducting the mandatory faceless assessment as required u/s 144B of the IT Act.
The assessee challenged the notice and proceedings, arguing that the absence of faceless assessment violated the legal requirements, rendering the proceedings unlawful.
Decision: The court quashed the notice issued u/s 148 and the subsequent re-assessment proceedings for not complying with the faceless assessment procedure u/s 144B. The court held that the failure to follow the faceless assessment process made the re-assessment contrary to the law and emphasized that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered to. The court allowed the revenue authorities to reinitiate the re-assessment process if they strictly followed the procedural requirements set out in the IT Act, 1961. | Income Tax | CWP-19853-2024 (O & M) | Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA |
| 25-08-2024 | 15-07-2024 | Supreme Court Upholds HC Decision Invalidating Reassessment Due to Delay and Improper Authorization | Facts:
The assessee-company filed its ITR for the AY 2014-15, claiming a deduction u/s 80-IC of the IT Act. During scrutiny, the ITO allowed the deduction after verifying the assessees records.
On January 1, 2019, the ITO issued a notice u/s 148 to reassess the income for 2014-15, citing that the deduction should only have been allowed up to the AY 2013-14 due to the commencement of activities in March 2004.
The HC held that since the original assessment involved a thorough review u/s 143(2) and 143(3).
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP due to a gross delay of 294 days in filing, with an unsatisfactory explanation for the delay. By dismissing the SLP, the SC upheld the HCs ruling that the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion. The SC also upheld the HCs decision that the satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner, who was not authorized u/s 151(1), rendered the reassessment proceedings unlawful. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 25912 of 2024 | Union of India v. Dhansri Roller Flour Mills | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 25-08-2024 | 26-07-2024 | Stay Granted on GST Order Due to Allegations of Fake Invoices and Bank Account Attachment | Facts:
The Competent Authority passed an order u/s 74 of the GST Act against the petitioner, alleging that their suppliers had issued fake invoices.
The petitioner argued that they had legally purchased goods, made payments through banking channels, and received the goods, with the suppliers GST registrations being canceled only afterward.
Following the impugned order, the petitioners bank account was attached, and a garnishee order was issued for recovery of dues.
Decision: The court granted a stay on the implementation of the impugned order u/s 74 during the pendency of the petition. The stay was conditioned on the petitioner depositing Rs. 20 Lakh with the GST authority within two weeks. The court recognized that the petitioner had made a strong prima facie case, justifying the need for interim relief. | GST | CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NOS. 1 & 2 of 2024 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3749 OF 2024 | Bhavani Metals v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 23-08-2024 | 09-08-2024 | E-way Bill Produced Before Seizure Nullifies Penalty, Orders Quashed by Allahabad HC | Facts:
The assessees goods were detained because the vehicle lacked an E-way bill for one invoice (Invoice No. 22) during transit.
Before the seizure order was issued, the assessee produced the missing E-way bill, which had not been initially generated due to a technical error.
Despite the production of the E-way bill, a tax and penalty were imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the appeal against this order was dismissed.
Decision: The court held that the discrepancy was cured once the E-way bill was produced before the seizure order was passed. The court ruled that there was no contravention of the CGST Act, as the E-way bill was eventually provided. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 577 OF 2022 | Bans Steel v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 21-08-2024 | 27-06-2024 | Court Ensures Fair Review for GST Exemption Claim with Conditional Remand | Facts:
Tvl. Hosur Builders was awarded contracts by Coimbatore Municipal Corporation for services like cleaning drains, sanitary work, and solid waste management.
The petitioner claimed GST exemption on these services under Notification No. 12/2017, but the exemption claim was rejected by the revenue authorities.
The assessment order rejected the claim primarily due to the absence of a contract agreement, despite the petitioner submitting other relevant documents.
Decision: The Court found that the petitioner was not given a fair chance to submit additional documents to support their exemption claim. The Court set aside the assessment order dated 30.03.2024 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner was required to remit Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the disputed tax demand and was allowed to submit additional documents for reconsideration within three weeks. | GST | W.P. NO. 15920 OF 2024 W.M.P. Nos. 17384 & 17385 of 2024 | Tvl. Hosur Builders v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 21-08-2024 | 26-07-2024 | SC Dismisses SLP in GST Dispute as SC decided not to interfere | Facts:
SN Jyoti Associates (P.) Ltd. was issued an SCN by the DGGI for non-payment of GST on Works Contract Services.
The petitioner sought certified copies of the order sheet, note sheet, and search warrant and challenged the validity of the SCN in the HC.
The HC dismissed the petition, ruling that the SCN and related actions were by the law.
Decision: The SC decided not to interfere with the HCs judgment, finding no reason to overturn it. The SLP filed by SN Jyoti Associates (P.) Ltd. was dismissed. Any other pending applications related to this case were also disposed of by the SC. | GST | SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 16129 OF 2024 | SN Jyoti Associates (P.) Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer, DG GST Intelligence | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 18-08-2024 | 03-07-2024 | Calcutta HC Rules Income Tax Order Void Ab Initio Due to Lack of Jurisdiction | Facts:
The assessees assessment for the year 2014-15 was completed on March 21, 2013, by ITO Ward No.12(2), Kolkata, u/s 143(3).
On October 22, 2014, the CBDT transferred jurisdiction over the assessee from CIT - IV, Kolkata to CIT - 11, Kolkata through Notification No. SO 2752(E).
Despite this transfer, CIT - IV, Kolkata issued an order u/s 263 on January 19, 2016, leading the assessee to challenge the order based on lack of jurisdiction.
Decision: The court held that the CIT - IV, Kolkata, lacked jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 263 on January 19, 2016, as the jurisdiction had already been transferred to CIT - 11, Kolkata. The court ruled that any order issued by an authority without proper jurisdiction is void ab initio, meaning it has no legal effect from the outset. The court dismissed the revenues appeal, upholding the decision of the ITAT, and confirmed that the order passed by CIT-IV, Kolkata was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. | Income Tax | IT Appeal NO. 79 OF 2022 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Divine Light Finance Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 14-08-2024 | 23-07-2024 | Orissa HC Quashes GST Demand Notice Due to Violation of Natural Justice Principles | Facts:
The petitioner challenged a demand notice issued u/s 73 of the OGST Act, 2017, for the FY 2018-19.
The demand notice directed the petitioner to file a reply but did not specify a date for a personal hearing, which the petitioner argued violated the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner was unable to submit a reply due to the pandemic and claimed that the omission of a hearing date in the notice was a procedural defect.
Decision: The court found that the omission of a specific date for a personal hearing in the SCN violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the impugned demand notice due to this procedural defect. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a reply, with the option to request a personal hearing, which must be provided if requested. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 16864 OF 2024 | Alfa Cityinfra (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, Goods and Services Tax | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 14-08-2024 | 23-07-2024 | Court Emphasizes Alternative Appeal Remedy for Quashing Penalty and Detained Goods | Facts:
Flowserve India Controls (P.) Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 49,43,614 u/s 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, related to the detention of goods and conveyance.
The petitioner also sought the release of the detained goods and conveyance, along with an interim order to prevent confiscation proceedings during the writ petitions pendency.
The respondents argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an alternative remedy through the appellate process.
Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through an appeal. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file an appeal before the appellate forum, raising all relevant points. The court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal, the concerned authority should decide it in accordance with the law. | GST | W.P.(T) NO. 2011 OF 2024 | Flowserve India Controls (P.) Ltd. v. Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 09-08-2024 | 22-07-2024 | Bombay HC Quashes Reassessment Order Due to Invalid Notice Issued by Jurisdictional AO | Facts:
A notice u/s 148 for reopening assessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the required Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated by section 151A.
The assessee challenged the notice and the subsequent reassessment order through a writ petition.
The case relied on the precedent set by Hexaware Technologies Limited, which established that compliance with the Scheme dated 29-3-2022 under section 151A is mandatory for issuing notices u/s 148.
Decision: The court held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid due to non-compliance with the requirement for issuance by an FAO u/s 151A. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notice and the reassessment order initiated by the JAO. The court also quashed any consequential demand notices or penalty notices that arose from the defective reassessment order. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 2780 OF 2024 | Pravina Jagdish Patel v. Income-tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 09-08-2024 | 26-07-2024 | Supreme Court Rules Bail Appropriate After Extended Custody in GST Fraud Case | Facts:
Ashutosh Garg was accused of offences u/s 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, involving the creation of fake firms and fraud related to input tax payments.
Garg was arrested on November 2, 2023, and had been in custody for approximately nine months at the time of the SCs review.
The lower courts had previously denied bail to the petitioner, prompting an appeal to the SC.
Decision: The SC granted bail to Ashutosh Garg, stating it was not appropriate to keep him in custody further given 9 months already served and the maximum sentence for the offence. The Court took into account that the maximum punishment for the offence was five years, influencing their decision to grant bail. Garg was to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court, and the SLP was disposed of, including any pending applications. | GST | SLP to Appeal (CRL.) NO(S). 8740 OF 2024 | Ashutosh Garg v. Union of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 06-08-2024 | 27-03-2024 | Penalty Imposed on Hermes I Tickets by Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai for Statutory Non-Compliance | Facts:
Hermes I Tickets was penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. The specific non-compliance included failing to maintain accurate statutory registers and records, and failing to file the necessary returns with the ROC.
Penalty Amount: Rs. 3 Lakhs Decision: The ROC imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs on Hermes I Tickets for its failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining accurate records and timely compliance with statutory requirements to avoid such penalties. | MCA | Hermes I Tickets | Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai, Tamil Nadu | |
| 04-08-2024 | 27-06-2024 | Revenues Failure to Provide Notice on Change from Section 68 to Section 69A Invalidates Order | Facts:
The assessee received a notice in February 2024 for the AY 2016-17, proposing to add Rs. 1,50,45,00,000 to the total income as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961.
The assessee responded to the notice, but in March 2024, the Faceless Assessment Unit issued an assessment order adding the amount as unexplained money u/s 69A instead of section 68.
The assessee contended that this switch from section 68 to section 69A without prior notice violated the principles of natural justice and invalidated the order.
Decision: The court held that the switch violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the order unenforceable in law. The court declared the assessment order dated 20th March 2024 unenforceable but treated it as an SCN, allowing the assessee to respond before a final decision is made. | Income Tax | WPA NO. 9982 OF 2024 | Vishal Jhajharia v. Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department Faceless Assessment Centre | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 04-08-2024 | 24-07-2024 | HC Dismisses Writ Petition for Company Restoration, Directs Petitioner to Approach NCLT | Facts:
The petitioner companys name was initially struck off by the RoC due to failure to file statutory returns since 1996. The Delhi HC restored the companys name in 2012, conditional on filing pending returns and balance sheets.
Despite restoration, the company failed to file the required returns due to ongoing disputes among its directors.
In 2017, the RoC again struck off the companys name u/s 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking directions for the RoC to accept delayed statutory returns and revive the company.
Decision: The court held that the appropriate forum for addressing the petitioners grievances is the NCLT as per Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 2013. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the HC. The court directed the petitioner to approach the NCLT to redress its grievances, indicating that the provisions under the old and new Companies Acts are consistent and that the new Act provides a detailed procedure for such cases. | Company Law | CO.PET. 96 of 2012 | Karmyogi Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 01-08-2024 | 30-04-2024 | No Separate Notice Required for Joint Account Holder in Tax Recovery from Primary Account Holder | Facts:
The petitioners, farmers engaged in agricultural activities, held a joint account with their uncle, Kirit Bachubhai Gamit (KBG), where they deposited Rs. 6,18,330 from the sale of agricultural goods.
The IT Department attached the joint account to recover outstanding dues owed by KBG, preventing the petitioners from withdrawing the funds.
The petitioners challenged the attachment notice issued u/s 226(3) of the IT Act, arguing that they were not separately notified despite being joint account holders.
Decision: The court held that u/s 226(3)(iii) of the IT Act, a separate notice is not required for joint account holders when the primary account holder has outstanding dues. The court confirmed that the petitioners, being secondary account holders, were not entitled to a separate notice apart from the one issued to KBG, the primary account holder. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the attachment notice issued for the recovery of KBGs dues, and advised the petitioners to seek any further legal recourse through appropriate channels. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7094 OF 2024 | Pratik Chimanbhai Gami v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 01-08-2024 | 16-07-2024 | HC Quashes Detention of Goods: No Requirement to Disclose Transport Route under GST Act | Facts:
The assessees goods were being transported from Muzaffarnagar to Ghaziabad with all required documents but were intercepted and detained at Hapur on the grounds of not being on the normal route.
Authorities suspected that the goods might be unloaded at Hapur without proper documentation because the truck driver had the mobile number of a dealer in Hapur.
No discrepancies in the quality or quantity of the goods were noted during the inspection, and no intent to evade tax (mens rea) was recorded.
Decision: The court noted that under the GST Act, there is no requirement for the specific route of transport to be disclosed, making the interception based on the route taken unjustified. Since there were no discrepancies in the documentation or goods and no evidence of intent to evade tax, the detention and seizure of the goods were deemed invalid. The court quashed the impugned orders. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 741 OF 2020 | Vishal Steel Supplier v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 29-07-2024 | 30-04-2024 | HC Remands Case for Reconsideration of RCM Liability Mismatch Due to Inadvertent GST Filing Error | Facts:
The petitioner claimed that a mismatch in their GST returns was due to an inadvertent error where amounts were entered in the wrong row of the GSTR-3B form.
This error resulted in a tax demand based on a supposed RCM liability mismatch, with amounts recovered from the petitioners electronic credit ledger and bank account.
The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings that led to the assessment order and sought an opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits after their rectification petition was rejected.
Decision: The Madras HC set aside the assessment order dated November 17, 2023, regarding the RCM liability mismatch. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the SCN within fifteen days and ensuring the respondent provided an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court instructed the first respondent to issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the petitioners reply, with any amounts recovered about the RCM liability mismatch depending on the outcome of this remand. | GST | W.P. NO. 11342 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 12436 & 12437 OF 2024 | Arupadai Infrastructure v. Deputy State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 29-07-2024 | 30-04-2024 | HC Sets Aside GST Order Due to Simultaneous Issuance of SCN and Impugned Order | Facts:
The petitioner, Pithamber Distributors, received both an SCN and an impugned order on the same date, 31/12/2023.
The petitioner argued that this simultaneous issuance violated the principles of natural justice and sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the GST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The case was brought before the HC of Madras, challenging the procedural fairness of the actions taken by the tax authorities.
Decision: The court agreed with the petitioner that issuing both SCN and impugned order on the same day did not provide a reasonable opportunity for petitioner to respond, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found the impugned order to be unsustainable and set it aside due to procedural irregularity. The court allowed tax authorities to reinitiate proceedings by the law, ensuring that proper procedures are followed. | GST | W.P. NO. 11337 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 12431 & 12432 OF 2024 | Pithamber Distributors v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 23-07-2024 | 14-03-2024 | HC Directs Appellate Authority to Admit Appeal Due to Delay from Rectification Petition Rejection | Facts:
The petitioner, Tvl. SKL Exports received assessment orders on 30.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 and subsequently filed rectification petitions within the prescribed limitation period.
These rectification petitions were rejected on 29.01.2024, after which the petitioner filed appeals, which were rejected by the appellate authority as time-barred.
A sum of Rs. 1,26,02,699/- was appropriated from the petitioners bank account towards the tax demand.
Decision: The HC quashed the appellate orders that rejected the appeals as time-barred, considering the rectification petitions were timely filed and appeals were filed shortly after their rejection. The appellate authority was directed to receive and dispose of the appeals on their merits without considering the limitation period. The court ordered the lifting of the bank attachment that led to the appropriation of Rs. 1,26,02,699/- and allowed the petitioner to file for a refund of the appropriated amount. | GST | W.P. NOS. 6825, 6828, 6829, 7612, 7613, 7620, 7623, 7619 & 7621 OF 2024 | Tvl. SKL Exports v. Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeal) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 23-07-2024 | 11-06-2024 | HC dismisses writ petition citing failure to exhaust statutory appeals in tax reassessment dispute | Facts:
Telco Co-operative Society Ltd. received reassessment notices for the tax years 2013-14 and 2014-15, questioning deductions previously allowed u/s 80P.
The Revenue argued that the petitioner did not fully disclose all facts, resulting in income escaping assessment.
The petitioner challenged the reassessment notices and orders after the reassessment was completed and beyond the statutory appeal period.
Decision: The court ruled the writ petition was not maintainable since the petitioner failed to use the alternative statutory appeal on time. The court found the issues raised required a factual examination that could not be addressed in writ proceedings. The court highlighted the necessity of exhausting statutory appeal remedies before seeking writ jurisdiction. | Income Tax | W.P. (T) NOS. 393, 438, 2020 & 2022 OF 2022 | Telco Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 22-07-2024 | 23-02-2024 | HC Quashes Penalty for Expired E-way Bill and Weight Discrepancy, Cites No Intention to Evade Tax | Facts:
The petitioners e-way bill had expired nine hours before the authorities intercepted the goods.
There was a discrepancy in the weight of the goods, with the actual weight being 5,805 kilograms instead of the expected 6,240 kilograms, which the petitioner explained was due to partial delivery at two locations.
The petitioner provided evidence that the total quantity in the e-way bills and invoices matched and explained the weight discrepancy, but the authorities did not consider this explanation and imposed a penalty.
Decision: The court found that the authorities failed to consider the petitioners explanation about the partial delivery and matching quantities in the e-way bills and invoices. The court held that the expiration of the e-way bill alone, without evidence of an intention to evade tax, does not justify the imposition of a penalty. The court quashed the penalty and appellate orders and directed the respondents to refund the tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within four weeks. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 46 OF 2021 | Vishal Pipes Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 22-07-2024 | 20-05-2024 | Invalidation of Search Authorization and Fabricated Documents Leads to Quashing of Proceedings. | Facts:
Assessee challenged the search and seizure order dated January 4, 2018, and subsequent proceedings under the UPGST Tax Act, 2017.
Two INS-01 forms were issued on different dates: one on February 11, 2019 (after the search), and another on January 4, 2018 (the date of the search), with the latter appearing to be fabricated as no reason to believe was noted in it.
The main contention was that the respondent authorities did not comply with the mandatory requirement of recording reasons to believe for the search authorization u/s 67 of the Act.
Decision: The court found the INS-01 issued on February 11, 2019, to be invalid and the INS-01 issued on January 4, 2018, to be fabricated and lacking the necessary recorded reasons to believe. The court held that the entire search authorization and subsequent proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 67 and fabrication of documents, leading to quashing and setting aside all related proceedings. The court directed the State authorities to release all goods and documents detained or confiscated within three weeks and to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner within eight weeks. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 554 OF 2023 | Excellentvision Technical Academy (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 22-07-2024 | 05-07-2024 | HC Quashes Notice for Reopening based on same facts and different opinion of AO | Facts:
Assessee, engaged in diamond manufacturing, trading, and windmill power generation, claimed deduction u/s 80-IA for windmill operations in the AY 2014-15.
The AO issued a reopening notice after four years, alleging that the windmill enterprise claimed u/s 80-IA(4)(iv) was originally owned by another company prior to amalgamation with Facets Gems Polishing Works Pvt. Ltd.
During the original assessment, Facets Gems Polishing Works Pvt. Ltd. disclosed all relevant details regarding the windmill operations and responded to queries from the AO.
Decision: The HC ruled that the reopening notice issued beyond the four-year period was unjustified, as all material facts regarding the windmill operations were disclosed during the original assessment. It held that the reasons for reopening were based on records already considered in the original assessment, indicating a mere change of opinion by the AO. Consequently, the HC quashed the reopening notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5651 OF 2021 | Facets Gems Polishing Works (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 18-07-2024 | 21-06-2024 | HC Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Against Educational Institute for Delayed TDS Deposit | Facts:
During the assessment periods of 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, the institute deducted taxes at source as required but failed to deposit these amounts into the Central Government account within the specified deadlines.
The delay in remitting TDS was attributed to delays in receiving fee reimbursements from the Andhra Pradesh government, which affected the institutes cash flow.
Decision: The HC applied Section 278AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides an exemption from liability if a reasonable cause for the failure to deposit TDS on time is demonstrated. The court concluded that the delayed TDS deposits were justified due to the institutes reliance on delayed fee reimbursements, a circumstance outside their immediate control. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the institute, noting that they promptly paid the TDS amounts and interest upon receiving the fee reimbursements, thus meeting the criteria set out in Section 278AA. | Income Tax | CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 1207, 1208 & 1212 OF 2020 | Aditya Institute of Technology and Management v. State of Andhra Pradesh | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 18-07-2024 | 18-06-2024 | HC Sets Aside Tax Liability Order Due to Mismatch Between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A, Grants Opportunity for Reassessment | Facts:
The impugned order imposed tax liability due to a mismatch between the GSTR 3B return and the auto-populated GSTR 2A for the FY 2017-2018.
The assessee argued that GSTR-2A, notified by Circular No. 123/42/2019-GST dated 11-11-2019, was not applicable for the FY 2017-2018 and claimed that they could establish only eligible ITC was claimed if given an opportunity.
In the reply dated 11-12-2023, the assessee referred to the circular but did not provide additional supporting documents to substantiate their claim.
Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, recognizing the need to provide the petitioner with another opportunity to prove that only eligible ITC was claimed. The court mandated that the petitioner remit 15% of the disputed tax demand within three weeks and permitted the submission of additional documents within this period. The respondent was instructed to offer a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and then issue a fresh assessment order within three months after receiving the additional documents. | GST | W.P. NO. 15024 OF 2024 WMP NOS. 16324 & 16325 OF 2024 | Contemporary Leather (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 17-07-2024 | 11-06-2024 | Credit Information Disputes: Madras HCs on Borrower Rights and Responsibilities | Facts:
V. Ramalingam had loans amounting to around Rs. 12 crores from Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. (HLFL), with an outstanding amount of Rs. 7.72 crores.
HLFL took symbolic possession of his property under the SARFAESI Act conducted an auction, realizing Rs. 216.50 lakhs, and declared Ramalingam a wilful defaulter.
Ramalingam claimed HLFL failed to update his credit information accurately, causing financial loss, and sought arbitration under the Credit Information Companies Act.
Decision: The court noted that effective remedies were available and would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case did not meet the criteria for interference under Article 226, such as enforcement of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice. The court dismissed the petition, stating it was devoid of merits, and found no need to appoint an arbitrator as the grievance was resolved through other legal avenues. | Company Law | W.P. NO. 13954 OF 2020 WMP.NO. 4249 OF 2021 | V. Ramalingam v. ReserveBank of India | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 17-07-2024 | 20-06-2024 | Challenging Jurisdiction: HDFC Banks Victory Against Registrars Proceedings | Facts:
The ROC initiated proceedings u/s 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 against HDFC Bank Ltd. based on an email and a newspaper report.
The email referenced an entity called HDFC AMC IPO, not HDFC Bank Ltd., and the newspaper report concerned an offense committed by a former employee, which had already been reported and addressed by HDFC Bank.
The order called for various details without specifying any allegations of fraudulent or unlawful activities, and the affidavit in reply stated that the notice was for gathering information, not establishing fraud.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable. | Company Law | WRIT PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2018 | HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies. Mum. | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 10-07-2024 | 22-05-2024 | High Court Orders Restoration of GST Registration After Verification Confirms Business Operations | Facts:
Lohum Cleantech (P.) Ltd GST registration was cancelled because it was not conducting business from its declared place of business.
The companys appeal against the cancellation was unsuccessful, leading it to file a writ petition due to the absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal.
A court ordered joint inspection confirmed that the company was indeed conducting business from the declared location.
Decision: The court set aside the order cancelling the companys GST registration based on the joint inspection report. The companys registration would be restored if it files all pending returns and pays the required tax, interest, fine, and penalty within eight weeks. The jurisdictional officer was instructed to open the GST portal within four weeks to allow the company to comply with the courts conditions. | GST | WPA NO. 8122 OF 2024 CAN 1 OF 2024 | Lohum Cleantech (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 10-07-2024 | 30-04-2024 | Petitioner Challenges Tax Demand Over Non-Availment of ITC on Cancelled Invoices, Correct ITC Reported in GSTR-3B | Facts:
Sidhivinayak Marketing, engaged in buying and selling domestic appliances, received invoices from Proficient Technologies in November 2018, which were later canceled by issuing credit notes.
The petitioner claimed that ITC was not availed on the canceled invoices, and the correct ITC was reported in their GSTR-3B returns.
The petitioner was unaware of the show cause notice as it was only uploaded on the GST portal, leading to a tax demand based on the scrutiny of GSTR-2A by the Revenue.
Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 01.11.2023, acknowledging that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposal. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks. The petitioner was allowed to submit a reply to the SCN, and the respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within three months after verifying the payment. | GST | W.P.NO.11643 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS.12733 & 12734 OF 2024 | Sidhivinayak Marketing v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 04-07-2024 | 31-05-2024 | Delhi HC dismisses writ petition seeking an investigation into company affairs due to jurisdictional constraints. | Facts:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Sections 213 and 221 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking an investigation into the affairs of Vikram Structures Pvt. Ltd. (VSPL), which was under liquidation as ordered by the NCLT.
The petitioner alleged that the directors and owners of VSPL had defrauded investors, necessitating an investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.
The respondent argued that the cause of action arose entirely in Karnataka, where VSPLs regional office was located, thus challenging the Delhi HCs territorial jurisdiction.
Decision: The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the entire cause of action occurred in Karnataka and VSPLs primary operations were based there. The court found that the presence of VSPLs head office in Delhi was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the main issues and impacts were localized to Karnataka. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the Karnataka HC for appropriate relief. | Company Law | W.P.(C) NO. 6726 OF 2024 | Meghana T.V. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 04-07-2024 | 10-06-2024 | HC Sets Aside GST Tax Demands, Orders Reconsideration for Assessees Right to Contest | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was cancelled retrospectively due to the non-filing of returns for six months, starting from August 31, 2017.
Critical notices (Form GST ASMT-14 and SCN) were uploaded using a temporary ID, allegedly without proper service to the petitioner, affecting their ability to appeal.
Tax liability was assessed using best judgment based on auto-populated GSTR-2A data, without granting the petitioner a personal hearing or considering objections.
Decision: The court found the assessment process violated natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to contest the tax proposal on merits before determining tax liability. The court set aside the assessment orders and notices, remanding the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the petitioners right to a fair opportunity to be heard. The court directed the petitioner to remit 10% of disputed tax demands promptly and allowed for the possibility of a refund, with strict timelines for processing applications, ensuring procedural fairness moving forward. | GST | .P. NOS. 12371, 12390, 12392 & 12396 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 13501, 13505, 13507, 13508, 13511, 13513, 13518 & 13519 OF 2024 | Annalakshmi Stores v. Deputy State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 03-07-2024 | 19-06-2024 | Legal Challenge Against GST Registration Cancellation Due to Alleged ITC Fraud | Facts:
Suleman Scrap Merchants, registered under GST, engaged in buying and selling iron scrap.
The tax authority issued an SCN proposing cancellation of petitioners GST registration due to alleged involvement in transactions with suppliers who fraudulently claimed ITC without supplying goods.
The petitioner filed a writ petition claiming the cancellation was illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice as detailed reports supporting allegations were not provided.
Decision: The court ruled that while alternative statutory remedies existed (such as filing under Section 30 or appealing u/s 107 of the GST Act), a writ petition could still be considered in cases involving violations of natural justice. Despite the petitioners claims, the court found that the SCN did contain adequate particulars regarding alleged violations by suppliers, thus rejecting the argument of insufficient information. The writ petition was dismissed for not exhausting available statutory remedies first. However, the court allowed the petitioner 15 days to either apply for revocation of cancellation u/s 30 or appeal the cancellation order. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 23446 OF 2023 | Suleman Scrap Merchants v. Assistant Commissioner ST | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 03-07-2024 | 11-06-2024 | HC Remands GST Refund Rejection Due to Lack of Reasoning | Facts:
The petitioner claimed ITC under CGST and SGST instead of IGST, identified during an audit.
The petitioner voluntarily paid Rs.4,91,390/- and Rs.4,59,000/- under Form GST DRC 03 after the error was flagged.
A refund claim for overpayments, including a double payment issue for July 2020, was rejected by the revenue without detailed reasons.
Decision: The HC found the revenues rejection lacked adequate reasoning, especially regarding whether the claims fell u/s 77(1) and Section 54(8) of the GST Act. It emphasized the taxpayers entitlement to a refund u/s 77(1) if taxes were wrongly paid due to misclassification, subject to prescribed conditions. The court set aside the rejection order, remanding the matter for reconsideration, directing the revenue to provide a reasoned decision, and affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and a personal hearing. | GST | W.P. NO. 13518 OF 2024 W.M.P. NO. 14669 OF 2024 | Manohar v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 26-06-2024 | 27-05-2024 | HC Sets Aside GST Order, Remands for Re-Adjudication After Assessees Detailed Replies Ignored | Facts:
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. received an SCN dated 24.12.2023 from the GST Officer, proposing a demand of Rs. 7,02,71,577/- for the FY 2018-19.
Future Generali submitted detailed replies on 17.01.2024 and 27.02.2024, along with supporting documents addressing the grounds mentioned in the SCN.
The GST Officer passed an Order-in-Original on 29.04.2024, which dismissed the submissions of Future Generali as not properly filed and upheld the demand.
Decision: The HC set aside the Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2024 passed by the GST Officer. The case was remanded back to the GST Officer for fresh adjudication of the SCN. Future Generali was granted 30 days to submit a further reply, and the GST Officer was instructed to provide a personal hearing and issue a well-reasoned order based on a proper consideration of Future Generalis submissions. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 7747 OF 2024 CM APPL. NOS. 32139-40 OF 2024 | Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Goods and Service Tax Officer (GSTO) | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 26-06-2024 | 21-05-2024 | Court Concludes Liquidation, Orders Dissolution of Asset-Less Company | Facts:
The respondent company was ordered to be wound up by the Delhi HC on January 15, 2002, with an OL appointed to manage the process. The Ex-Directors filed the Statement of Affairs and cooperated with the OL.
The company had one secured creditor, one preferential creditor, and five unsecured creditors. An Ex-Director repaid Rs. 24 lacs to the secured creditor from his assets. As of May 8, 2024, the companys funds were negative (- Rs. 22,681), and no assets were left for liquidation.
Despite efforts, no recovery could be made from the companys two debtors due to a lack of documents and an adverse arbitration award. No claims were received by the OL despite advertising for claims.
Decision: The court determined that the liquidation process had been fully carried out, with no remaining assets or funds, and no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings open. Citing the SCs decision in Meghal Homes (P) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors and Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, the court found it appropriate to dissolve the company since the OL could not proceed further due to lack of assets or funds. The court ordered the dissolution of Ravindra Dyechem (P.) Ltd. discharged the OL from his duties. | Company Law | CO.PET. 199 OF 1996 | Mitmilan Enterprises v. Ravindra Dyechem (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 24-06-2024 | 10-06-2024 | HC Condones Delay in Tax Filing Due to Accountants Illness and Resignation, Emphasizes Justice Over Technicalities | Facts:
Anmol Feeds (P.) Ltd., a regular income tax filer for 23 years, could not file its return for the AY 2022-23 under Section 139(1) due to unforeseen circumstances.
The companys senior accountant fell ill and subsequently resigned, delaying the finalization of accounts necessary for tax audit and return filing.
The CBDT refused to condone the delay, citing alleged willful negligence on the part of the management in replacing the accountant.
Decision: The court examined whether the delay in filing the return constituted genuine hardship u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. The court found that the delay was caused by unforeseen events (illness and resignation of the accountant) and not due to negligence or malafide intent on the part of the assessee. The court set aside the CBDTs decision and granted condonation of the delay, allowing the assessee to file its return within 15 days. It emphasized the importance of a justice-oriented approach in such cases, focusing on substantive justice over technicalities. | Income Tax | W.P.A. NO. 12501 OF 2024 | Anmol Feeds (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 24-06-2024 | 26-02-2024 | Delhi HC Orders Refund and Re-credit of Involuntarily Deposited GST Amounts During Search Operation | Facts:
During a GST search operation, the petitioner was made to deposit Rs. 15,06,342/- for alleged stock variation and Rs. 25,00,000/- for alleged wrongful ITC at around 3 AM, before the search ended.
The petitioner claimed the deposits were made under duress and without any statutory demand, asserting that they were involuntary and coerced by the officials searching.
Decision: The court held that the deposits made during the search operation at 3 AM were involuntary and coerced, as they occurred before the completion of the search and without a statutory demand. The court ordered a refund of Rs. 15,06,342/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of deposit until repayment, recognizing the deposit as lacking legal authority and voluntariness. The court directed that Rs. 25,00,000/- deposited towards the alleged wrongful ITC be re-credited to the petitioners Electronic Credit Ledger without interest, as it was part of the ledger and did not earn interest. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 15519 OF 2023 | Sushil Kumar v. Delhi State GST Govt. NCT of Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 17-06-2024 | 29-02-2024 | Delhi HC Upholds Refund of Unutilized ITC, Exempts CA Certificate Requirement | Facts:
Svera Agro Ltd. filed for a refund of unutilized ITC for certain periods, but the refund claims were denied by the respondent through deficiency memos requiring a CA certificate for amounts exceeding Rs. 2 lakh.
The petitioner contended that the requirement for a CA certificate did not apply to their case.
The case was brought before the HC of Delhi, where the petitioner sought the quashing of the deficiency memos and the sanction of their refund claim with interest.
Decision: The HC quashed the deficiency memos issued by the respondent, holding that the requirement for a CA certificate did not apply as per the proviso to Rule 89(2)(m) for refunds claimed under Section 54(8)(b). The court directed that any further refund applications filed by Svera Agro Ltd. should not be rejected on the grounds of limitation due to the procedural delays encountered. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 11926 OF 2023 | Svera Agro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST, GST Delhi North Commissionerate | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 17-06-2024 | 31-05-2024 | Allahabad HC Sets Aside Order Due to Incomplete Notice and Violation of Procedural Fairness | Facts:
The revenue received information about unaccounted cash deposits in the petitioners bank accounts allegedly made by entities such as M/s Olivia Tradelinks India Pvt. Ltd.(OTIPL). Based on this, a reopening notice u/s 148A(b) was issued to the petitioner, focusing specifically on cash deposits from OTIPL.
The petitioner had previously undergone a scrutiny assessment for the AY 2017-18, during which he claimed to have disclosed all relevant bank accounts and transactions.
The petitioner was not provided with all crucial information regarding cash deposits from entities other than OTIPL, such as those made through AB, which was a vital aspect of the reassessment notice.
Decision: Due to the incomplete notice, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to effectively respond and rebut the allegations related to cash deposits from AB, violating principles of natural justice. In response to these procedural irregularities, the court set aside the order passed u/s 148A(d) and directed the revenue authorities to reconsider the matter. | Income Tax | WRIT TAX NO. 934 OF 2024 | Mahesh Kumar Verma v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 14-06-2024 | 20-05-2024 | HC Directs Release of Non-Relied Documents and Grants Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses | Facts:
Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd. challenged SCNs alleging clandestine cigarette supply without proper invoicing and tax payments from 2017 to 2020.
The petitioner requested the release of original non-relied documents seized during searches to prepare a defense but had not received them despite multiple requests.
The petitioner also sought to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence was relied upon in the SCNs, emphasizing fair hearing and natural justice.
Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Revenue to release original non-relied documents within 30 days and granting the petitioner 30 days to respond to the notices. It affirmed the petitioners right to cross-examine witnesses at an appropriate stage, emphasizing fair hearing and adherence to principles of natural justice. The court made no ruling on the cases merits and did not impose any costs. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 12326 OF 2024 | Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH |
| 14-06-2024 | 02-04-2024 | HC Nullifies Assessment Order Due to Utilization of IGST Credit for CGST & SGST, Transferred later to West Bengal | Facts:
Cosyn Ltd. availed of IGST credit and used it to pay CGST and SGST, specifically utilizing the IGST credit to pay WBGST.
An assessment order was passed against Cosyn Ltd. under the WBGST Act, which the company challenged because the order did not consider the transfer and appropriation of the utilized IGST credit to the State of West Bengal.
The court initially stayed the assessment order on the condition that Cosyn Ltd. deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue charge later confirmed that the IGST credit used for SGST payments was transferred to the Government of West Bengal.
Decision: The court set aside the impugned assessment order dated August 21, 2023, against Cosyn Ltd. because the tax amount had been appropriately transferred to the Government of West Bengal. The court allowed the writ petition filed by Cosyn Ltd., overturning the earlier dismissal based on the verification of the transfer of funds. The court directed the respondent/department to refund the 10% pre-deposit. | GST | M.A.T. NO. 2411 OF 2023 I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2023 | Cosyn Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 08-06-2024 | 04-06-2024 | Kerala HC: ITC Claim Deadline Extended to 30th November Annually from 01 Jul 2017 | Facts:
The petitioners highlighted that during the initial years of the GST regime (2017-18 and 2018-19), the GSTR-2A form was not available, complicating the process of claiming ITC. They pointed to various legislative amendments and circulars issued to address these issues, which they argued created confusion and hindered their claims.
The petitioners specifically challenged sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST Act, which impose conditions for claiming ITC, such as the requirement that the supplier must have paid the tax to the government, and set time limits for filing returns to avail of ITC.
Decision: The court upheld the legislative competence of the Central and State governments to enact GST laws. It recognized ITC as a statutory benefit, not an absolute right, subject to conditions and restrictions as outlined in the GST Act. The court affirmed the constitutional validity of sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST Act. The restrictions imposed are within the bounds of the law. The court acknowledged the procedural amendment extending the deadline for furnishing returns for September to 30th November as having retrospective effect. | GST | WP(C) NOS. 31559 OF 2019 AND OTHS. | M. Trade Links v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 07-06-2024 | 06-05-2024 | HC Rules Share Application Money Not Classified as Loan or Deposit; Sections 269SS and 269T Inapplicable | Facts:
The assessee-company received share application money for preference shares amounting to Rs. 20,000 or more from individuals, not via account payee cheque or bank draft.
Penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO under sections 271D/271E for violating the provisions of section 269SS.
The Tribunal ruled that share application money does not qualify as a loan or deposit, hence sections 269SS or 269T did not apply, and no penalty was justified.
Decision: Share application money does not meet the criteria of a loan or deposit as defined in the law. Provisions of sections 269SS and 269T, intended for regulating loans and deposits, do not apply to share application money. As share application money is not categorized as a loan or deposit, penalties under sections 271D or 271E could not be imposed, leading the HC to uphold the Tribunals decision in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2012 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vamshi Chemicals Ltd | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 07-06-2024 | 20-05-2024 | Delhi HC Alters Retrospective GST Registration Cancellation, Mandates Reasoning | Facts:
The petitioner applied for GST registration cancellation on April 25, 2022, citing business closure.
Despite filing returns until March 2022, the petitioners cancellation application was rejected without specific reasons provided.
The impugned order retrospectively cancelled the petitioners GST registration from July 1, 2017, without adequate justification, following a SCN issued on May 30, 2022, with vague allegations.
Decision: The HC modified the cancellation order, considering the petitioners application date, April 25, 2022, as the cancellation date instead of July 1, 2017. Emphasizing the need for valid reasons, the court stated that retrospective cancellation under Section 29(2) of the GST Act cannot be mechanical and must be based on objective criteria. While allowing for lawful recovery and retrospective cancellation by revenue authorities, the court directed the petitioner to fulfill necessary compliances under Section 29 of the GST Act, ensuring due process for any future actions. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 5264 OF 2024 CM APPL. NO. 21559 OF 2024 | Ravi Parkash Goel v. Sales Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 07-06-2024 | 13-05-2024 | Invoking Extended Period under CGST Act: Scope, Notice, and Jurisdiction | Facts:
CGST authorities issued an SCN on 2nd Aug 23 for violations from 2017-18 to 2021-22, invoking the extended period under Section 74, alleging suppression of facts and fraudulent ITC claims.
The company contested the notice on 17th Nov 23, disputing the proper officers authority to invoke the extended period and issued the notice beyond the standard limitation period.
Despite the challenge, the proper officer confirmed a tax liability of Rs. 3,09,64,252/- on 31st Jan 2024, leading the company to file a writ petition against both the notice and the order.
Decision: The court found that the SCN and order clearly justified the invocation of the extended period based on allegations of fraud and misstatement. The court ruled it could not question the proper officers consideration of the response or the correctness of the findings under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 10162 OF 2024 | Haldia Nirman Project (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of CGST & CX | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 03-06-2024 | 07-05-2024 | HC Rejects Winding-Up Plea, Advises Petitioner to Take Overcharging Dispute to Commercial Court | Facts:
Newage Scaffoldings (P.) Ltd. filed a winding-up petition against Paramount Infraventure (P.) Ltd. for non-payment of Rs. 16,86,548/-, which arose from supplied construction equipment and steel scaffoldings.
The respondent alleged that the petitioner had been routinely overcharging and claimed that they were owed a refund of 25% of the billed amount, disputing the existence and amount of the debt.
Despite reminders and a statutory legal notice from the petitioner, the respondent did not pay, responding instead with allegations of overcharging and stopping further payments.
Decision: The court dismissed the winding-up petition as withdrawn, noting that the dispute over the payable debt constituted a triable issue. The court stated that the Company Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts regarding debt liability and directed the petitioner to seek resolution through a commercial suit in the appropriate Commercial Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to file proceedings before the appropriate Commercial Court and to seek condonation of delay for the period spent during the pendency of the winding-up proceedings. | Company Law | CO.PET. 303 OF 2014 CO.APPL. 1084 OF 2017 | Newage Scaffoldings (P.) Ltd. v. Paramount Infraventure (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 03-06-2024 | 16-04-2024 | Bank Cannot Restrain Account Operation After 1 year of date of GST Attachment Order | Facts:
The Commissioner issued a communication u/s 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 on 14-08-2019 to HDFC Bank, instructing them to seize outward funds from Krish Overseas bank account.
Krish Overseas argued that Section 83 orders are valid for one year only, and despite this period having elapsed, HDFC Bank continued to restrict their account operations.
Krish Overseas filed a petition challenging the continued effect of the 14-08-2019 order, leading to the matter being heard and disposed of by the Delhi HC.
Decision: The court upheld that as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment order dated 14-08-2019 ceased to have effect after one year after its issuance. HDFC Bank was instructed by the court not to restrain the operation of Krish Overseas bank account solely on the basis of the expired order dated 14-08-2019. The court clarified that its decision did not prejudice any subsequent provisional attachment orders that might be issued and communicated to HDFC Bank, which would need to be duly considered by the bank. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 5407 OF 2024 CM APPL. NO. 22339 OF 2024 | Krish Overseas v. Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi West | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 29-05-2024 | 18-04-2024 | HC Directs GST Refund Due to Non-Supply of Goods | Facts:
Nam Estates (P.) Ltd. paid an advance of Rs. 14,08,79,262/- and Rs. 2,53,58,268/- as GST to its vendor, M/s. Mavin Switchgears and Control Pvt. Ltd., for the purchase of goods.
The vendor failed to supply the goods, leading to the cancellation of the contract, and Nam Estates recovered the advance payment by encashing a bank guarantee from the vendor.
The vendor had paid the GST amount to the tax authorities, but Nam Estates application for a GST refund was rejected by the authorities, prompting Nam Estates to file a writ petition in the Karnataka HC.
Decision: The court set aside the respondent authorities orders that rejected Nam Estates refund application, citing them as unreasoned and cryptic. The court directed the authorities to refund the GST amount, recognizing there was no GST liability due to the non-supply of goods. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 9075 OF 2024 | Nam Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-I) | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |
| 29-05-2024 | 23-04-2024 | High Court: Property Attachment Invalid in statutory period allowed if Pre-deposit Made | Facts:
The assessee, Tvl. Maxtile AAC Block filed an appeal against a tax proposal order issued due to discrepancies between their GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A. He had made the required pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax.
The State Tax Officer attached the assessees immovable property on August 22, 2023, before the expiry of the statutory three-month period allowed for filing an appeal.
The assessee contended that recovery actions should not be undertaken within the statutory three-month period post the order, as recovery proceedings are deemed to be stayed upon making the pre-deposit.
Decision: The court ruled that the attachment of the assessees property was premature and not in accordance with the statutory provisions, as it was done before the expiry of the three-month period for filing an appeal. The court directed the respondent to release the attachment on the immovable properties mentioned in the writ petition. The court also ordered the deletion of the attachment entry from the encumbrance certificate relating to the property within one week of receipt of order. | GST | W.P. NO. 10670 OF 2024 W.M.P. NO. 11757 OF 2024 | Tvl. Maxtile AAC Block v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 27-05-2024 | 23-04-2024 | Delhi High Court Mandates Timely Refund Disposal with Interest Eligibility | Facts:
R.D. Auto Lights (P.) Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking a direction to GST Authorities for a refund along with interest for a delayed refund amounting to Rs. 2,74,37,701/- covering the period June 2020 to November 2021.
The petitioner emphasized financial hardship due to the delay in receiving the refund, which remained pending without disposal.
The petitioner approached the court seeking relief and intervention to expedite the refund process.
Decision: The court disposed of the petition by instructing the proper officer to consider the refund application within four weeks, ensuring compliance with legal procedures. If the refund is deemed admissible, it should be disbursed along with interest for the delay to the petitioner. In cases where the refund is considered not payable, the proper officer must issue a speaking order within four weeks, communicating the decision to the petitioner and providing reasons for the decision, while also adhering to relevant statutory provisions regarding interest on delayed refunds. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 15057 OF 2022 CM APPL. NO. 14907 OF 2024 | R.D. Auto Lights (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 27-05-2024 | 13-05-2024 | Expenditure on Obsolete Advertising Software Allowed as Revenue Expenditure | Facts:
Adadyn Technologies (P.) Ltd. was engaged in providing customized internet advertising services and incurred significant expenditure on developing a software application for these services.
Due to rapid technological changes, the software application developed by the company became obsolete, leading the company to abandon further development.
The AO categorized the incurred expenditure as capital in nature, while the company argued it should be considered revenue expenditure due to the abandonment of the project.
Decision: The HC ruled that the expenditure incurred by Adadyn Technologies should be treated as revenue expenditure, given the obsolescence and abandonment of the software development. The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue against the HCs decision, thereby upholding the HCs ruling. | Income Tax | SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 16157 OF 2024 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Adadyn Technologies (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 23-05-2024 | 04-04-2024 | ITC Calculation Error: High Court Remits Tax Dispute for Reconsideration | Facts:
The appellant, a dealer in cardamom and pepper, received a notice from the revenue to pay a wrongly carried forward credit amount of Rs. 1,36,563/- along with interest.
The appellants net tax payable for the previous year was shown in minus, indicating excess tax paid, which had been carried forward by way of ITC in the next year starting from July 1, 2017.
Despite providing an explanation and requesting the proposal to be stopped, the revenue passed a cryptic non-speaking order without providing a personal opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Decision: The HC held that the revenues order making a demand without considering the aspect of excess tax payment and without providing the appellant a proper opportunity to be heard was erroneous. The Court remitted the matter back to the revenue for reconsideration. The Court directed the revenue to provide the appellant with an opportunity to be heard. | GST | W.A. (MD) NO. 587 OF 2024 C.M.P. (MD) NO. 4233 OF 2024 | Tvl. Devesh Spices v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 23-05-2024 | 15-04-2024 | Income from Shares Not Taxable Under GST: HC Quashes Demand Order | Facts:
The petitioner, Samarth Commodities Merchants (P.) Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging a tax demand arising from an Order-in-Original dated December 18, 2023, issued by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise.
The petitioner argued that income from shares is not subject to GST, referencing Circular No. 196/08/2023-GST dated July 17, 2023, which clarified that such income is outside the scope of GST.
Despite the circular, the tax authority issued a fresh demand without considering the non-taxability of income from shares, leading to the petitioners challenge.
Decision: The court recognized Circular No. 196/08/2023-GST and the judgment by the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Yonex India Private Limited, affirms that income from shares is not taxable under GST. The court quashed the tax demand. The court remitted the case back to the tax authority for a fresh hearing, directing that the petitioner be given an opportunity for a fair hearing before any new decision is made. | GST | W.P.(C) NO.8586 OF 2024 | Samarth Commodities Merchants (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, GST & Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 21-05-2024 | 02-05-2024 | Tribunals Disbelief in Assessees Gift Claims Upheld by HC Due to Lack of Pre-existing Relationship | Facts:
The assessee, Mohit Agarwal, claimed to have received Rs. 14,50,000 as gifts from six individuals.
The AO added this amount to the assessees income under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, questioning the genuineness of the gifts due to the lack of pre-existing relationships or circumstances justifying the gifts.
The ITAT upheld the AOs decision, and Mohit Agarwal appealed to the Allahabad HC, arguing that the gifts were genuine as they were received through banking channels and not disputed by the donors.
Decision: The court agreed with the Tribunals application of the preponderance of probability standard, which is appropriate for civil proceedings like income tax assessments. The court held that merely receiving gifts through banking channels and the donors not disputing the gifts were insufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunals factual findings and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunals decision. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2007 | Mohit Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 21-05-2024 | 23-04-2024 | Refund Ordered for Amount Debited from Electronic Cash and Credit Ledgers Before Statutory Appeal Period Expiry | Facts:
Assessment orders for the years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 were issued to Tvl. Cargotec India (P.) Ltd. on 28.12.2022, with a statutory three-month period allowed for filing an appeal.
Despite this period, the respondent authority initiated recovery proceedings and debited amounts from the petitioners Electronic Cash and Credit Ledgers in February 2023, before the expiry of the appeal period.
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the recredit or refund of the prematurely recovered amounts, arguing that the recovery was unlawful as appeals were lodged within the allowed period on 06.04.2023.
Decision: The court noted that the proviso to Section 78, which permits early recovery, requires a written justification from the proper officer explaining why it is in the interest of revenue. This justification was not provided. Due to the lack of proper justification for early recovery, the court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to a refund or recredit of the recovered amounts. | GST | W.P. NO. 13104 OF 2023 W.M.P. NO. 12870 OF 2023 | Tvl. Cargotec India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 15-05-2024 | 07-03-2024 | HC of Telangana rules Rectification Order Void Due to Violation of Hearing Rights | Facts:
Apollo Bangalore Cradle Ltd., after filing its return for AY 2016-17, faced a disallowance and re-computation of its total loss in the assessment order, which became final.
Following an approved scheme of amalgamation, Apollo Bangalore Cradle Ltd. dissolved, with its assets and liabilities transferred to Apollo Specialty Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.
The Deputy Commissioner, without providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, passed a rectification order disallowing the carrying forward of loss reflected in the AY.
Decision: The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before passing a rectification order, especially if it adversely affects the assessee. As the rectification order impacted the petitioners interests without due process, the court set aside the impugned order, ruling it unsustainable under the law. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 2897 OF 2024 | Apollo Speciality Hospitals (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA |
| 15-05-2024 | 24-04-2024 | Winding-up Petition transfer to NCLT from HC due to proceedings at nascent stage. | Facts:
Ester Industries Ltd. supplied polyester products to Indus Polyfilms Specialists (P.) Ltd., who failed to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 31,78,615/- along with interest.
Despite legal notices and dishonored cheques issued by the respondent, the payments remained unpaid, leading to Ester Industries Ltd. filing a winding-up petition under the Companies Act, 1956.
The winding-up petition saw minimal progress in court, with no substantial orders passed, while the IBC, 2016, and the Companies Act, 2013, came into effect during the proceedings.
Decision: Considering the enactment of Companies Act, 2013, ourt decided to transfer winding-up petition from the HC to the NCLT by Section 434. Emphasizing the lack of substantial progress in the winding-up proceedings and citing relevant interpretations, the court concluded that transferring the case to the NCLT was appropriate. Parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on a specified date, while interim orders issued by the HC were to remain in effect until then, allowing the NCLT to consider the matter and make appropriate decisions by law. | Company Law | CO.PET. 320 OF 2008 C.O. APPL. 1162 OF 2008 AND 373 OF 2019 | Ester Industries Ltd. v. Indus Polyfilms Specialists (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 12-05-2024 | 06-03-2024 | HC overturns ITC denial citing GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch due to lack of hearing. | Facts:
GMA Pinnacle Automotives (P.) Ltd. filed a writ petition against the State Tax Officer for the rejection of their ITC claim of Rs. 5,10,809 for the period from July 2017 to March 2018.
The rejection was based on a mismatch between the ITC claimed in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B of the supplier.
Despite the mismatch, the petitioner was not allowed to produce a certificate from the supplier as required by a circular dated 27.12.2022, but they voluntarily offered to do so via email, which was not considered.
Decision: The HC of Kerala set aside the assessment order to the extent that it denied the ITC claim, citing failure to follow the procedure outlined in the circular requiring the production of a certificate from the supplier. The Court emphasized that the petitioners offer to produce documents should have been considered before rejecting the ITC claim. The writ petition was disposed of with instructions for the petitioner to apply for rectification of the assessment order regarding the denial of ITC, and the respondent authority was directed to consider the application and pass orders after affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing, by law. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 8727 OF 2024 | GMA Pinnacle Automotives (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer, State Goods and Services Tax Department | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 12-05-2024 | 05-04-2024 | Refund Granted for Excess Stamp Duty Payment on Share Capital | Facts:
National Organic Chemical India Ltd. increased its share capital from Rs. 36 crores to Rs. 600 crores in 1992, paying a stamp duty of Rs. 1.12 crores.
The State of Maharashtra amended stamp duty regulations in 1994, capping stamp duty at Rs. 25 lakhs.
The company increased its share capital to Rs. 1200 crores and paid Rs. 25 lakhs as stamp duty. Later company sought a refund on the basis that it had already paid stamp duty of Rs. 25 lakhs in 1992
Decision: The Court determined that the notice to the Registrar for increasing share capital is not an instrument under the Stamp Act. Alterations to AoA under the Companies Act were deemed valid and treated as if originally contained therein. The Court held that the Companies Act, as a special law, overrides the Stamp Act concerning AoA, leading to the directive to refund the stamp duty paid by the company. | Company Law | CIVIL APPEAL NO.8821 OF 2011 | State of Maharashtra v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 12-05-2024 | 02-05-2024 | Erroneous Demand Confirmation due to Unilateral Rejection of CA Certificates: HC Decision | Facts:
Revenue issued a notice to the appellant, alleging failure to provide evidence of supplier tax payments and wrongful ITC utilization, despite the appellant presenting certificates from CAs confirming tax discharge by suppliers.
Revenue rejected the certificates without inquiry, confirming the demand from the SCN, and the adjudicating authority made findings beyond the notices scope.
The appellant challenged the notice and adjudication order, arguing against the unilateral rejection of certificates and lack of action against suppliers, claiming it to be arbitrary and lacking jurisdiction.
Decision: The court criticized revenues unilateral action, stating it deprived the appellant of an opportunity to clarify, contravening principles of natural justice. Revenues dismissal of certificates without investigating suppliers was deemed erroneous and beyond jurisdiction, and the court stressed the necessity for supplier inquiry before penalizing the appellant.It directed authorities to first proceed against suppliers. | GST | WPA NO. 5222 OF 2024 | Lokenath Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Tax/Revenue, Government of West Bengal | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 07-05-2024 | 18-04-2024 | Assessment Reopened Without Opportunity: Court Allows Appeal Filing | Facts:
S.V.K. Estates filed a writ petition challenging a reassessment notice and subsequent assessment order under the IT Act for the AY 2015-16.
The petitioner claimed they were not provided with a copy of their vendors statement and were not allowed to cross-examine the vendor.
The respondent argued that the total consideration amount was admitted in both the sale deed and a suit filed by the petitioner and the vendor.
Decision: After considering submissions and examining documents, the court concluded that exercising discretionary jurisdiction was not appropriate in this case. The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within three weeks. It directed the appellate authority to receive and decide on the appeal without considering the question of limitation, emphasizing the admission of total consideration in the sale deed and suit. | Income Tax | W.P. NO. 10435 OF 2024 WMP NOS.11422 & 11423 OF 2024 | S.V.K. Estates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 07-05-2024 | 17-04-2024 | High Court Affirms Compensatory Afforestation Fund Contribution as Revenue Expenditure | Facts:
Tata Steel Ltd., engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, filed its ITR for AY 2006-2007, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,422.83 crores.
The Commissioner of Income Tax issued a notice u/s 263 of the IT Act, focusing on the allowability of Tata Steels contribution to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) amounting to Rs. 212.52 crores.
Tata Steels contribution to CAF was disallowed by the AO, leading to appeals and subsequent proceedings before the ITAT and then the High Court.
Decision: The HC affirmed the decision of the ITAT, stating that no substantial question of law arose regarding Tata Steels contribution to the CAF. Referring to a previous decision by the Bombay HC (Goa Bench), the Court held that contributions to CAF should be considered as revenue expenditure, not capital in nature. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL (IT) NO. 1143 OF 2018 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Steel Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 07-05-2024 | 01-04-2024 | Penalty under sec 271(1)(c) be imposed only on occurrence of concealment or also on under-disclosure | Facts:
The assessee purchased agricultural land and empowered a third party via power of attorney to execute the sale deed without informing the assessee.
During regular assessment proceedings, the assessee disclosed the income from the sale to the Settlement Commission, while the Stamp Valuation Authority initially valued the sale consideration at a higher price, later reduced by the Board of Revenue.
The Settlement Commission imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment, contending that the assessees actions were inaccurate.
Decision: The court acknowledged the Settlement Commissions authority to impose penalties for concealment but emphasized the necessity of evidence proving concealment or inaccurate particulars. It noted that the assessee had disclosed knowledge of the sale deed and the initial valuation for stamp duty purposes, relieving him of any duty to disclose subsequent revisions beyond his control. Ultimately, the court set aside the penalty, finding that the element of concealment was not established. | Income Tax | WRIT TAX NO. 1660 OF 2010 | Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. Income-tax Settlement Commission | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 03-05-2024 | 08-04-2024 | Interest Received on Land Acquisition Compensation is Taxable under Income from Other Sources | Facts:
The respondent-assessee claimed exemption on income derived from compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, interest received on the acquisition, and dividend income.
The AO disagreed, adding the interest received to the taxable income under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The respondent-assessee appealed, arguing that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be considered part of the compensation, and therefore exempt from taxation.
Decision: After analyzing relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and prior judicial decisions, the court affirmed that interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation falls under income from other sources as specified in Section 56(2)(viii). Emphasizing the 2010 amendment to the Income Tax Act and departing from previous interpretations, the court concluded that interest, whether on compensation or enhanced compensation, constitutes taxable income. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2023 CM APPL 65057 OF 2023 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 10 v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 01-05-2024 | 12-04-2024 | High Court Rejected Anticipatory Bail in CGST Violations & Fraudulent ITC | Facts:
Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers.
Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection. | GST | CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3689 OF 2023 | Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 29-04-2024 | 05-02-2024 | Technical E-way Bill Violation: Penalty Overturned as No Intent to Evade Tax | Facts:
The petitioners vehicle was detained during transit by tax authorities due to one of the two accompanying e-way bills having expired, although the goods matched the description in the e-invoices and e-way bills.
The petitioner provided evidence that the vehicle had broken down, supported by a letter from the mechanic, and the movement of goods was tracked using a fast tag chart.
While the authorities emphasized the technical violation of not generating a fresh e-way bill after expiry, they could not establish any intention on the part of the petitioner to evade tax, and there were no disputes regarding the consignor, consignee, or description of goods.
Decision: The court held that the mere technical violation of not generating a fresh e-way bill, without evidence of intent to evade tax, cannot warrant the imposition of a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. Relying on precedents and emphasizing the necessity of mens rea to impose penalties, the court quashed the penalty orders. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 141 OF 2023 | Globe Panel Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 25-04-2024 | 03-04-2024 | HC rules against disallowance of expenditure under sec 14A: Lack of AOs Satisfaction recording | Facts:
Tata Capital Ltd. filed its Return of Income for the AY 2008-09, declaring NIL income, while claiming dividend income and income from LTCGs as exempt under sections 10(34) and 10(38) of the IT Act, respectively.
The AO disallowed the companys expenditure on interest expenses under section 14A without explicitly stating reasons for rejecting the companys explanation regarding the expenditure related to exempt income.
The Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT concurred that the AO failed to provide valid reasons for dissatisfaction with the companys claim, leading to the deletion of the disallowance.
Decision: The HC affirmed the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the AOs failure to record valid reasons for dissatisfaction with the companys claim regarding expenditure related to exempt income. It reiterated the requirement for the AO to explicitly state dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim and provide cogent reasons for such dissatisfaction, as mandated by Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2018 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Capital Ltd | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 25-04-2024 | 27-03-2024 | Reconsideration of Tax Liability Due to Duplicate Invoices in GSTR 1 | Facts:
The petitioner filed a GSTR 1 return for the assessment period 2017-18, inadvertently duplicating invoice details.
Despite providing explanations and obtaining certificates from purchasers affirming non-availment of excess ITC due to duplicate invoices, the tax liability was imposed on the petitioner.
The tax authority rejected the petitioners explanation solely based on failure to rectify the GSTR 1 statement within prescribed time limits, without considering the evidence provided.
Decision: The court set aside the tax authoritys order, emphasizing the need to reconsider the matter based on evidence submitted by the petitioner, including purchaser certificates. Despite the failure to rectify the GSTR 1 statement within the prescribed time, the court found the tax authoritys rejection of the petitioners explanation unjustified, terming it an after-thought without proper consideration. Remanding the case for reconsideration, the court directed the tax authority to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity. | GST | W.P. NO. 8264 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 9217 & 9218 OF 2024 | A. Ansari Abu Agencies v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 25-04-2024 | 27-03-2024 | ITC Refund Appeal: Court Overturns Delay Rejection | Facts:
Otsuka Pharmaceutical India, a GST-registered pharmaceutical manufacturer and exporter, applied for a refund of unutilized ITC within the stipulated time.
The adjudicating authority sanctioned a partial refund and rejected part of the claim, citing discrepancies between invoice and shipping bill values.
Otsuka appealed online, submitting certified copies of the Order-in-Original during the appeal, but the appellate authority rejected the appeals due to perceived delays in submission.
Decision: The court acknowledged Rule 108(3) requiring certified copies of appealed decisions but considered clarifications from the GST Council, indicating insignificance of submission if the appealed order is on the common portal. An amendment to Rule 108, effective from December 26, 2022, emphasized that if the appealed order is on the common portal, the date of filing should be from the provisional acknowledgment issuance. Consequently, the court quashed the rejection of appeals due to delays, remanding the matter for reconsideration on merits by the appellate authority, emphasizing no scrutiny of the cases merits. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 13209, 13210, 13212, 13213 & 13215 OF 2023 | Otsuka Pharmaceutical India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 24-04-2024 | 29-02-2024 | Court Sets Aside Detention Orders Due to Delay in Inspection | Facts:
Pawan Carrying Corporation transported tobacco from Kanpur to Dalkola via Bihar.
The petitioners vehicle was intercepted on 22.12.2023, but inspection of goods was delayed until 28.12.2023.
The detention order was issued on 28.12.2023, and the subsequent notice under section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued on 05.01.2024.
Decision: The court ruled that there was no justification for the delay in inspecting the goods after the vehicle interception. It concluded that the detention order and the subsequent notice were issued beyond the seven days prescribed by law. Consequently, the court set aside the detention orders and ordered the immediate release of the vehicle with the goods, favoring the petitioner. | GST | CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 3499 OF 2024 | Pawan Carrying Corporation v. State of Bihar | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 18-04-2024 | 21-03-2024 | Dismissal of Writ Petition due to limited jurisdiction regarding Missed GST Refund Deadline | Facts:
M Trans Corporation, a registered dealer under the CGST Act and Kerala SGST Act, 2017, filed returns for the FY 2017-18.
SCNs were issued to the petitioner regarding excess ITC availed, wherein IGST was claimed instead of CGST/SGST.
The petitioner failed to move any application within the prescribed time, or even within the extended time, for claiming the refund or correcting the mistake.
Decision: The Court held that the petitioners failure to adhere to the prescribed time limit for moving applications for refund or correction of mistakes, as per Sections 54 and 49 of the CGST Act, barred them from seeking relief through a writ petition. Within the scope of its limited jurisdiction, the Court could not amend statutory provisions to prescribe a different time limit for such applications. The Court dismissed the petitioners writ petition, emphasizing that statutory provisions regarding the time limit for claiming refunds or correcting mistakes must be adhered to, and judicial intervention cannot override these provisions. | GST | WP(C) NO. 7731 OF 2024 | M Trans Corporation v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 18-04-2024 | 22-02-2024 | Supreme Court Orders Payment with Interest in Securities Dispute | Facts:
Sharda Kapur filed a Claim Petition alleging that securities held by her were illegally sold by Angel Broking Ltd.
The Appellate Arbitral Tribunal of the NSE found negligence on the part of Angel Broking Ltd and awarded Kapur a credit of Rs. 21 lakh.
Despite legal proceedings since 2012 and various appeals, Angel Broking Ltd failed to pay the awarded amount, prompting Kapur to seek relief from the SC under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Decision: Considering the prolonged litigation and Kapurs advanced age (87 years), the SC invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to end the dispute swiftly. The Court directed Angel Broking Ltd to pay Kapur Rs. 21 lakh along with simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Appellate Arbitral Tribunals award (27th September 2013). The Court emphasized the need for timely compliance, giving the respondent two months to fulfill its liability recognized by the Tribunal, and clarified the procedure for lifting any lien placed by the NSE once payment was made. | Company Law | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2989-2990 OF 2024 | Sharda Kapur v. Angel Broking Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 17-04-2024 | 03-04-2024 | High Court Sets Aside Assessment Order on GST Discrepancy | Facts:
The petitioner, a works contractor for government departments, faced an SCN regarding a discrepancy between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns.
Before the assessment order was issued, the petitioner remitted Rs.3,00,000 towards tax liability, attributing the delay in reconciliation to delayed payments from government departments.
The petitioner challenged the assessment order, contesting the imposition of a 100% penalty on tax dues.
Decision: The Court set aside the assessment order due to the petitioner not being heard before its issuance, emphasizing the importance of natural justice. The petitioner was directed to remit an additional Rs.3,00,000 within three weeks, totaling 20% of the tax dues, as a condition for setting aside the order. Petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit reply to SCN within the specified period, and upon compliance, the respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing before issuing a fresh order. | GST | W.P. NO. 8849 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 9845 AND 9846 OF 2024 | K.C. Mathaiyan v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 17-04-2024 | 07-02-2024 | Claiming Incorrect Capital Gain Not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars | Facts:
The assessee initially declared the gain from the sale of a property as LTCG in his return for AY 2010-11.
Upon realizing that the gain should have been treated as STCG due to depreciation claimed in earlier years, the assessee filed a revised computation of income declaring the gain as STCG and paid the entire capital gains tax.
The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) alleging that by initially declaring the gain as LTCG, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
Decision: The HC ruled that merely making an incorrect claim in law, such as declaring LTCG instead of STCG, does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Since the assessment order was passed after the assessee filed the revised computation of income, the court held that the claim made in the return could not be considered as furnishing inaccurate particulars. The court concluded that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 1370 OF 2017 | Vijay Bhagwandas Raheja v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 17-04-2024 | 12-04-2024 | High Court Quashes Confiscation Orders reling solely on estimation to assess penalties | Facts:
Eco Plus Steels (P.) Ltd. challenged orders related to confiscation and penalty under the UPGST Act, 2017, through two writ petitions.
The petitioner argued that the stock was not weighed or counted, despite the possibility of doing so on their premises, leading to unjustified confiscation and penalty.
The Appellate Authority, despite acknowledging deficiencies in quantification during the survey, relied on estimation to assess penalties, which the petitioner contested as lacking legal basis.
Decision: The Court ruled that the Appellate Authoritys reliance on estimation for calculating stock lacked a legal foundation and violated the law, especially when physical verification was feasible. It criticized the authorities for their negligent conduct during the survey and delayed issuance of SCNs, highlighting their incompetence and inefficiency. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court emphasized the revenues burden of proof and the necessity of physical verification. | GST | WRIT TAX NOS. 916 & 1600 OF 2022 | Eco Plus Steels (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 13-04-2024 | 12-03-2024 | GST Assessment Order Quashed Due to Contradictory Notice | Facts:
Ambika Stores, a registered entity under GST laws, received a SCN alleging discrepancies between its GSTR-3B, GSTR-1, and GSTR-2A auto-populated returns.
Ambika Stores responded to the notice, pointing out contradictions in the amounts specified in the notice, and sought time to submit supporting documentation.
Despite Ambika Stores response, an assessment order was passed without considering their reply, prompting them to challenge it through a writ petition.
Decision: The court found that the SCN contained contradictory information regarding the amounts in GSTR-3B, indicating a lack of clarity and inconsistency. It noted that the assessment order failed to address Ambika Stores response, and reasons for not considering it was not provided, rendering the assessment order flawed. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment order and allowed for fresh proceedings, instructing the authorities to issue a new SCN, while disposing of Ambika Stores writ petition without imposing any costs. | GST | W.P. NO. 6320 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 7027 & 7028 OF 2024 | Ambika Stores v. Deputy State Tax Officer-I | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 13-04-2024 | 01-03-2024 | Quashing of Assessment Orders Due to Unilateral Evidence | Facts:
The petitioner operated a provision store.
Intelligence officials conducted a surprise inspection at the petitioners business premises, during which a statement was recorded from the petitioner, alleging coercion.
Despite the petitioners timely filing of GST returns for each relevant AY without default, the assessment orders were issued solely on a best judgment basis, disregarding the petitioners returns, replies, and accompanying documents.
Decision: The court found that the tax demand and penalty were confirmed based solely on the statement recorded during the surprise inspection, without considering the petitioners filed returns or accompanying documents. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned assessment orders and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the AO to issue fresh reasoned assessment orders, considering all relevant materials, and a personal hearing. | GST | W.P. NOS.5055, 5059, 5062, 5065, 5068 & 5073 OF 2024 & OTH. | Tvl. Murugesan Kesavan v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 08-04-2024 | 23-02-2024 | HC Remits Case Due to Commissioners Error | Facts:
White Mountain Trading (P.) Ltd. filed an appeal against an order in original dated 4th May 2023.
The appeal was initially submitted online on 2nd September 2023, within one month from the last date of filing the appeal, but the physical copy was filed on 25th September 2023, exceeding the permissible one-month delay.
The Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals-II dismissed the appeal, stating it was filed beyond the one month for condonation of delay.
Decision: The HC held that the appeal, being initially filed online within the permissible period for condonation of delay, should be considered as timely filed. The Court emphasized that the date of initial online filing should prevail as the filing date, provided all required steps are completed. As the Commissioner failed to consider the application for condonation of delay due to an erroneous interpretation of the law, the Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by the law. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 2752 OF 2024 CM APPL. NOS. 11183 AND 84 OF 2024 | White Mountain Trading (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 08-04-2024 | 20-03-2024 | High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders Due to Procedural Violations | Facts:
Sri Ranganathar Constructions P Ltd, a works contractor and registered dealer under GST laws, received an intimation from the tax department in July 2023 following an inspection of its business premises.
The company requested two months to reply to the intimation due to ongoing verification by the DGGI and disclosed a deposit of Rs. 1.5 crore for three AYs.
Despite the request for time and the deposit disclosure, the AO issued assessment orders.
Decision: The HC found that the AO had disregarded the companys reply and violated the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the assessment orders and directed the AO to appropriate 10% of the disputed tax from the companys bank account as a condition for remand. The company was granted three weeks to submit a detailed reply to the SCN, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within two months. | GST | W.P. NOS. 7461, 7523 & 7526 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 8343, 8349, 8432 & 8441, 8443 & 8444 OF 2024 | Sri Ranganathar Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 02-04-2024 | 20-03-2024 | High Court Directs Stay on Tax Demand Without Pre-Deposit | Facts:
Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)-2, challenging the imposition of liability by the authority.
The petitioner contended that the imposition of liability was without jurisdiction and was challenged by them in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The petitioner requested exemption from the pre-deposit requirement, which was rejected by the authority, and the matter was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) at the time of filing the writ petition.
Decision: The HC directed Commissioner (Appeals) to decide appeal expeditiously within a period of 3 months without insisting on the recovery of the demand. The court ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the demand against the petitioner shall be stayed without requiring them to deposit the pre-deposit of 20%. The court considered relevant instructions and memoranda under the Income Tax Act in making its decision, and the writ petition was disposed of in favor of petitioner. | Income Tax | CWP-3679-2024 (O&M) | Anheuser Busch InBev India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)-2 | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA |
| 02-04-2024 | 14-03-2024 | Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation | Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024 | Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7 | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 01-04-2024 | 14-03-2024 | Validity of CGST Act Summons Despite State Proceedings | Facts:
Rais Khan challenged the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act by the DGGI, arguing that State Authorities had already initiated proceedings against him.
Khan contended that under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, initiation of proceedings by State Authorities precludes further proceedings by the CGST Acts proper officers on the same subject matter.
The Union of India and State Authorities opposed Khans petition.
Decision: The HC held that the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act was not considered as initiation of proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the same Act. The court clarified the distinction between Section 6(2)(b) and Section 70, noting that the former deals with any proceedings on a subject matter while the latter deals with the power to issue summons in an inquiry. Emphasizing that the power to issue summons under Section 70 was not barred by Section 6(2)(b), the court dismissed Khans writ petition. | GST | D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3087 OF 2024 | Rais Khan v. Add. Commissioner, Enforcement Wing-II, Rajasthan | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 26-03-2024 | 07-03-2024 | Income Tax Reassessment: Lack of Response Justifies Dismissal | Facts:
Swapna Manuel, a businesswoman running a ladies hostel, received a notice for the reassessment of her income tax following a survey conducted by tax authorities.
The initial assessment was challenged in court due to a lack of opportunity for Swapna Manuel to respond effectively, resulting in a remand for reassessment.
Despite receiving the notice, Swapna Manuel did not file a revised return or request reasons for reassessment but instead submitted the original return in response to a separate notice under Section 142(1).
Decision: The court ruled that since Swapna Manuel did not exercise either option provided upon receiving the notice, she could not challenge the reassessment on the grounds of reasons not being provided. Other procedural objections raised by Swapna Manuel, including lack of cross-examination opportunity and non-compliance with notice requirements, were dismissed by the court. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that while Swapna Manuel could appeal the assessment order. | Income Tax | W.P. NOS. 349,25984 OF 2022 WMP NOS.388,389,25079,25080 OF 2022 | Swapna Manuel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 26-03-2024 | 22-03-2023 | High Court Rules in Favor of Importer: CIF Contract Taxation on composite supply basis | Facts:
LCL Logistix India (P.) Ltd. contested an order by the Commissioner of Service Tax (ii), Kolkata, imposing a tax on a transaction involving a CIF contract of import.
The appellant argued that under a CIF contract, the Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on the composite supply, including goods and services like transportation and insurance.
Relying on the SCs decision in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd., the appellant contended that levying a separate tax on the supply of services by the shipping line would violate section 8 of the CGST Act.
Decision: The HC of Calcutta allowed the appeal filed by LCL Logistix India (P.) Ltd. against the Commissioners order, thereby overturning the tax imposition on the CIF contract transaction. Quashing the Commissioners order, the court emphasized the principles of composite supply outlined in the CGST Act and upheld the appellants argument against separate levies on specific services within a CIF contract. | GST | APOT NO. 99 OF 2017 IA NO. GA/2/2017 (OLD NO. GA/1057/2017) | LCL Logistix India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 20-03-2024 | 12-02-2024 | Justice denied due to insufficient hearing time. | Facts:
Federal Bank Ltd. challenged an order confirming an SCN proposing a demand against them under the CGST Act, 2017.
The SCN was issued on 24-12-2023, with a hearing scheduled for 26-12-2023 in Delhi, which was a short notice period, considering that 25-12-2023 was a gazetted holiday.
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the SCN on 21-10-2023, providing full disclosures, but the impugned order claimed the reply was incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and SCN, as the Proper Officer had not provided the petitioner with an opportunity to clarify their reply or furnish further documents/details. It was ruled that the short notice period for the hearing, issued after office hours on 24-12-2023 with the next day being a holiday, did not grant the petitioners adequate opportunity to defend themselves. The matter was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 1960 OF 2024 CM APPL. NO. 8229 OF 2024 | Federal Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner DGST | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 20-03-2024 | 05-02-2024 | Supreme Court Upholds SAT Decision on SEBI Penalty | Facts:
Alps Motor Finance Ltd. conducted six preferential allotments and disclosed them on the stock exchange platform.
SEBI initiated an investigation following a report from the stock exchange suggesting possible mis-utilization of proceeds in 2016.
SEBI concluded that the company deviated from the object of the issue by not utilizing proceeds as per the stated objectives and imposed penalties. SAT by impugned order quashed order by SEBI.
Decision: The SC upheld the SATs decision, finding no good ground or reason to interfere with it. The Court dismissed SEBIs appeal against the SATs judgment. The Courts decision affirmed the importance of shareholder ratification and highlighted the issue of inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings as significant factor in dismissing SEBIs penalty order. | Company Law | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6737-6738 OF 2023 | Securities and Exchange Board of India v. ALPS Motor Finance Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 13-03-2024 | 13-02-2024 | Madras HC Quashes Order on reversal of Inverted Tax Structure Refund | Facts:
Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India (P.) Ltd. a manufacturer of passenger cars, filed a refund application due to an accumulation of ITC resulting from concessional rates under Notification No. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
The refund claim was partially sanctioned, but revision proceedings were initiated following an amendment to the CGST Rules.
The impugned order in the revision proceedings raised issues regarding the refund claim, interest, and penalty levied against the petitioner.
Decision: The court found that the impugned order exceeded the scope of revision proceedings under Section 108 of the TNGST Act, 2017 as it failed to address objections raised and lacked reasoning on interest and penalty. Quashing the impugned order, the court remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the respondent to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue a speaking order. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 11709 OF 2022 AND W.M.P.NO. 11172 OF 2022 | Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Chennai | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 13-03-2024 | 15-02-2024 | HC quashes reversed ITC denial over suppliers Registration cancellation. | Facts:
Engineering Tools Corporation availed ITC for purchases made from M/s. Shikhar Technologies during 2017-18.
The GST registration of M/s. Shikhar Technologies was retrospectively cancelled.
Despite providing supporting documents, the petitioners ITC was reversed solely based on the cancellation of the suppliers GST registration.
Decision: The court quashed the assessment order as unsustainable due to the disregarded documents submitted by the petitioner. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the AO. The AO was directed to examine all relevant documents to determine the genuineness of the transaction and issue a fresh assessment order within 2 months, ensuring a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.3505 OF 2024 AND W.M.P.NOS.3758 & 3759 OF 2024 | Engineering Tools Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 13-03-2024 | 09-01-2024 | High Court Rules Appeal Filing Time from Date of Service | Facts:
Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority.
The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim.
It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 13058 OF 2023 C.M. APPLS. 51580 OF 2023 | Vibgyor Services v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 09-03-2024 | 05-02-2024 | Fair Opportunity for Taxpayer in Section 148A Notice | Facts:
The petitioner, regularly files ITR, disclosing all sources of income. The ITO issued a notice under Section 148A, alleging that expenses incurred for the daughters marriage escaped assessment, based on information obtained during a search and seizure operation.
The petitioner responded to the notice, providing details of his income sources and expenses related to the marriage, seeking a personal hearing, which was not granted, leading to the challenge of the notice and subsequent order under Section 148A in court.
Decision: The court held that the AO must ensure the petitioner is given an adequate and reasonable opportunity to contest the notice under Section 148, allowing the assessee to raise all issues during the hearing, as per previous SC pronouncements. The court emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with a fair chance to present their case and follow due procedure before issuing notices under Section 148. The court directed the revenue authority to adhere to proper procedures. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 169 OF 2024 | Popatlal Umedalji Jain v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5) | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 09-03-2024 | 05-02-2024 | GST Registration Restored After Dues Paid | Facts:
The petitioners GST registration was canceled due to the non-filing of returns.
After the cancellation, the petitioner paid all outstanding revenue dues and expressed readiness to pay any additional dues necessary for registration restoration.
The petitioner sought relief from the HC to have their registration restored and the portal reopened for a limited period to settle any outstanding dues.
Decision: The HC set aside the orders of both the adjudicating and appellate authorities. The court directed the concerned GST authority to restore the petitioners registration. The GST portal was opened for 30 days, allowing the petitioner to settle any indicated revenue dues within seven working days. Failure to pay would result in potential re-blocking of the portal and registration cancellation. | GST | WPA NO. 2158 OF 2024 | Sumanta Ghosh v. State of West Bengal | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 03-03-2024 | 16-02-2024 | Supreme Court Dismisses SLP Due to Unreasonable Delay in penalty SCN | Facts:
The assessee filed its initial return for the AY 2007-08 on March 31, 2007, and later submitted a revised return on March 31, 2009, adding certain expenses.
The scrutiny assessment for the AY 2007-08 was conducted on October 28, 2011, nearly 4 years after the initial return filing.
The AO proposed imposing a penalty on the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source for the AY 2007-08, but a SCN under section 274 was issued only on November 9, 2017, almost 10 years later.
Decision: The SC dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue against the HCs order. The court affirmed the HCs ruling that the substantial delay in issuing the SCN was inexcusable and warranted the quashing of the notice. Emphasizing the principle of adhering to reasonable timeframes for penalty proceedings, the court upheld the decision that penalty proceedings must not be subject to arbitrary delays, thereby endorsing the importance of timely initiation of such proceedings. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 3100 OF 2024 | Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-74 v. Clix Capital Services (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 03-03-2024 | 20-02-2024 | Madras HC: ITC Rejection solely based on non-declaration in GSTR-3B returns is wrong | Facts:
Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals, engaged in the trade of electrical products and hardware, claimed ITC for AYs 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, as reflected in GSTR 2A returns.
The petitioner asserted that their GSTR-9 (annual) returns were filed duly reflecting the ITC claims, but the claims were rejected solely based on non-declaration in GSTR-3B returns.
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their ITC claims in the HC.
Decision: The HC ruled that AO must examine the validity of ITC claims by considering all relevant documents, including GSTR-2A and GSTR-9 returns, when a registered person asserts eligibility for ITC. It found the rejection of ITC claims solely based on non-declaration in GSTR-3B unjustified and quashed the orders rejecting the claims. The court remanded the matter back for reconsideration directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh assessment orders within two months. | GST | WRIT PETITION NOS.3804, 3808 & 3813 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 4105, 4107 OF 2024 AND OTHS. | Sri Shanmuga Hardwares Electricals v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 28-02-2024 | 13-02-2024 | Supreme Court Upholds Capitalization of Telecom License Fees in review petition | Facts:
Bharti Hexacom Ltd., engaged in telecommunication services, obtained licenses under the New Telecom Policy, 1999, which required payment of entry and annual license fees based on revenue.
The assessee treated these fees as revenue expenditure, but the AO considered them capital expenditure, subject to amortization.
The SC held that the license fees, being non-transferable and integral to the business, were capital in nature and should be amortized under Section 35ABB of the IT Act, 1961.
Decision: The SC rejected the review petition, finding no errors in its earlier judgment regarding the treatment of license fees. The court affirmed that the license fees, being intrinsic to the existence of the license and the business itself, were rightly considered capital expenditure. The court upheld its previous ruling in Commissioner of IT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., which supported the capitalization and amortization of the license fees paid under the New Telecom Policy, 1999. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11128 OF 2016 REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 244 OF 2024 | Bharti Hexacom Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 28-02-2024 | 30-01-2024 | HC Directs Assessment Officer to Acknowledge Manual Modified ITR after amalgamation | Facts:
Pallava Textiles Pvt Ltd. and Cheran Synthetics India Pvt Ltd. applied for a scheme of amalgamation, which was sanctioned by the NCLT Chennai on 18.04.2022, effective from 01.04.2020.
Pallava Textiles filed a standalone return for the AY 2021-22 on 14.03.2022, due to constraints before the NCLT order.
Pallava Textiles later submitted a modified return post-amalgamation, manually, within the timeframe specified by Section 170A of the IT Act.
Decision: The Court held that the assessment order, which inconsistently considered both standalone and consolidated returns, was not sustainable. It emphasized that the assessment should have been solely based on the petitioners consolidated return post-amalgamation. Consequently, the Court quashed the assessment order, remanding the matter for reassessment based on the petitioners consolidated return and directing the authorities to issue fresh notices. | Income Tax | W.P. NO.1801 OF 2023 W.M.P.NO.1918 OF 2023 | Pallava Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 28-02-2024 | 16-01-2024 | High Court Orders Redetermination Post-Amendments in GST Case | Facts:
Swift Motors received notices demanding payment under Section 50 of the CGST Act in 2018 and 2019, outlining grounds and calculations for the raised demand.
Retrospective amendments to Section 50 were introduced through the Finance Act, 2019, and Finance Act, 2021, during the pendency of the petition.
The petitioner argued for the re-evaluation of the demand in light of the retrospective amendments, seeking remand to the revenue authorities.
Decision: The court acknowledged the retrospective amendments, applying them from 01.07.2017. Directed the disposal of the writ petition, instructing the petitioner to approach revenue for redetermination based on the amended provisions of Section 50. Emphasized that payment, lifting the bank account attachment, remains subject to final determination by revenue authorities, allowing enforcement of the balance demand in accordance with the law. | GST | D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2415 OF 2020 | Swift Motors v. Superintendent Central Goods & Service tax | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 27-02-2024 | 19-01-2024 | HC: ITC Reversal Invalid if Supplier Existence Proven | Facts:
TVL.Cleon Optobiz (P.) Ltd., a GST-registered entity, faced credit blocking. The department reversed ITC due to the alleged non-existence of supplier M/s. Prince Sales Agency.
The assessee argued against penalties, citing the retrospective cancellation of the suppliers GST registration. Relevant documents proving genuine transactions were submitted.
The court found errors in the order, including insufficient consideration of evidence, a flawed claim of non-compliance, and addressing new issues without prior notice.
Decision: Due to procedural lapses and insufficient consideration of evidence, the court quashed the impugned order. The matter was remanded for reassessment, allowing the assessee to submit additional documents within a specified timeframe. The assessee was granted the chance to present additional evidence, and the assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh assessment order within four weeks of receiving the additional documents. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.495 OF 2024 W.M.P.NOS.510 & 512 OF 2024 | TVL.Cleon Optobiz (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 27-02-2024 | 23-01-2024 | Chartered Accountant Granted Bail in Alleged GST Violation | Facts:
The petitioner, a CA, faced arrest for alleged GST violations amounting to Rs. 122 crores under sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act.
The defense argued that there was an error in the calculation, asserting that the actual GST violation amounted to only Rs. 25 lakhs, not the initially stated Rs. 122 crores.
The petitioner had been in judicial custody for over seven months since the arrest on June 28, 2023.
Decision: Considering the circumstances, the court granted bail to petitioner based on his readiness to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs to GST authorities within two weeks and other factors. The court imposed specific conditions, including executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, surrendering the passport, daily appearance before GST authorities, and refraining from tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court warned that any breach of the imposed conditions could result in appropriate action by the Magistrate/Trial Court, and in case of the accused absconding, fresh FIR could be registered under sec 229-A IPC. | GST | CRL OP(MD). NO.838 OF 2024 | Isithore v. Senior Intelligence Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 25-02-2024 | 23-01-2024 | High Court Quashes CBDT Guidelines on Compounding Application | Facts:
Photon Kathaas Production Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of a Singapore-based company, faced a delay in filing its income tax return due to a disagreement between auditors in India and Singapore.
Subsequently, prosecution was initiated against the petitioner based on a complaint dated 03.01.2019, which led to a summons being issued on 09.11.2021.
On 19.05.2022, after receiving the summons, the petitioner filed a compounding application, which was rejected on the grounds of exceeding the time limit specified in CBDT guidelines dt. 14.06.2019.
Decision: The court held that there was no prescribed period of limitation for compounding offences under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court quashed the guidelines issued by the CBDT on 14.06.2019, allowing compounding applications to be filed at any time during the proceedings before the Magistrate. The court directed the first respondent to consider and dispose of the compounding application of the petitioner on merits within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of the courts order. | Income Tax | W.P.NO. 4865 OF 2023 W.M.P.NOS. 4897 AND 4899 OF 2023 | Photon Kathaas Production (P.) Ltd. v. Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 25-02-2024 | 17-01-2024 | Delays in FBT Refund: Court assets substantial justice should prevail | Facts:
Hindalco Industries Limited filed its FBT return for the AY 2009-10, including certain amounts as chargeable to tax.
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Hindalcos claim related to FBT, and the company sought a refund for the amount paid.
The Revenue rejected Hindalcos refund application, citing a substantial delay in filing, attributed to the prolonged time taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide Hindalcos appeal.
Decision: The court emphasized a liberal approach in interpreting sufficient cause under Section 264, stressing the duty of the Commissioner to exercise revisional power in the interests of justice. Considering the extended delay in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, the court held that the Commissioner should have condoned the delay and proceeded to decide the matter on its merits. The court ruled partially in favor of Hindalco, asserting that a pedantic approach in such matters should be avoided, and substantial justice should prevail, leading to the condonation of delay and a reevaluation of Hindalcos refund claim. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NOS. 569 & 597 OF 2023 | Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 25-02-2024 | 03-01-2024 | HC Directs Dept for ITC Rectification: Wrongful Claim of CGST SGST Instead of IGST | Facts:
Jayakrishnan K.S., the petitioner, claimed IGST credit of Rs. 1,19,328/- under CGST and SGST instead of IGST for the period July 2017 to March 2018 in the GSTR 3B return.
The error resulted in the issuance of an assessment order (Ext.P1) with an incorrect tax liability for the petitioner.
The petitioner filed a rectification application (Ext.P4) under Rule 89(1)(A) of GST Rules, seeking to set off the IGST credit correctly against the output tax liability.
Decision: The HC directed the revenue authority to consider the rectification application (Ext.P4) expeditiously. The petitioner was granted a hearing opportunity before the final order on the rectification application. The Court instructed that no coercive measures should be taken by the revenue authority for the tax amount assessed in the original order (Ext.P1) until a final decision was made on the rectification application. | GST | WP(C) NO. 44117 OF 2023 | Jayakrishnan K.S v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 19-02-2024 | 11-12-2023 | High Court Quashes GST Demand Due to Procedural Violations | Facts:
Alok Steel Industries faced discrepancies in GST returns for the FY 2018-19, leading to the issuance of a Summary of SCN (Form GST DRC-01).
Despite the petitioner filing a reply, no proper opportunity for a hearing was granted, and a Summary of Demand (Form GST DRC-07) was issued abruptly without specifying a hearing date.
The petitioner challenged the lack of opportunity and the violation of natural justice principles in the issuance of demand without a fair hearing.
Decision: The HC quashed the Summary of SCN, adjudication order, and Summary of Demand, emphasizing the absence of a proper hearing opportunity. The court ruled that issuing a summary without affording a proper opportunity for a hearing violated the principles of natural justice. While invalidating the notices, the court allowed authorities the option to initiate fresh proceedings following legal procedures, granting them the liberty to do so if deemed necessary. | GST | W.P. (T) NO. 5408 OF 2023 | Alok Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 19-02-2024 | 18-01-2024 | Textile Firm Overcomes Rejected ITC Refund Amid Inverted Duty Structure | Facts:
VSM Weavess India, a textile manufacturer, applied for a refund of unutilized ITC due to an inverted duty structure.
VSM had engaged in export sales, qualifying for a refund of IGST due to zero-rated exports. The company had previously applied for and received such a refund.
The tax authority rejected the ITC refund application citing reasons including a prior zero-rated refund, absence of debit entries, and alleged non-submission of supporting documents.
Decision: The court held that a previous zero-rated refund does not disqualify VSM from claiming a refund for unutilized ITC. The court rejected the rejection based on the absence of debit entries, stating that fulfilling conditions for a refund should not be hindered by procedural issues. While acknowledging the need for supporting documents, the court disagreed with the outright rejection. The court quashed the deficiency memos and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing VSM to submit additional documents. | GST | W .P. NOS. 960, 964 AND 968 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 1013, 1008, 1005 OF 2024 | VSM Weavess India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 19-02-2024 | 18-01-2024 | Court Upholds GST on Mining Royalty Payments | Facts:
Dalpat Singh filed a writ petition challenging GST Departments demand for GST on royalty paid to the Mining Department for a mining lease.
The petitioner contested the imposition of GST on royalty payments, seeking relief from the court.
The petitioners counsel acknowledged a prior court decision on a similar issue and referenced a precedent from the Jaipur Bench, Sudershan Lal Gupta v. Union of India, where GST on royalty was upheld.
Decision: The court recognized the issue had been previously decided, including in Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyogs case. The Jaipur Benchs decision was referred to as a relevant precedent. Relying on established precedent, the court concluded that the challenge to GST on royalty was not sustainable. The court dismissed Dalpat Singhs writ petition against the show cause notice and assessment orders, maintaining the validity of the GST demand on royalty. | GST | D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 715 OF 2024 | Dalpat Singh v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 12-02-2024 | 16-01-2024 | Court Quashes Penalty for Technical E-way Bill Error | Facts:
Roli Enterprises faced penalties under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, for not filling Part B of the e-Way Bill during the transportation of goods.
The goods were transported with an invoice containing comprehensive details about the truck. There was no discrepancy between the details in the invoice and the actual goods being transported.
The Department could not establish any intention by Roli Enterprises to evade taxes. The petitioner argued that the failure to fill Part B of the e-Way Bill was a technical error.
Decision: The court recognized that the central issue was the technical non-compliance with Part B of the e-Way Bill during the transportation of goods. The court cited legal precedents, such as Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.s case, emphasizing that technical breaches without an intent to evade taxes should not result in the imposition of penalties. The court considered circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance, supporting the petitioners explanation for the non-filling of Part B of the e-Way Bill. Based on these factors, the court quashed the penalties. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 937 OF 2022 | Roli Enterprises v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 12-02-2024 | 22-01-2024 | Exporters GST Refund Claim Challenged Over Timeframe Misinterpretation | Facts:
Tulip Nilgiris Exports claimed a GST refund for unutilized ITC for multiple months while exporting processed tea.
Although the June-18 claim was accepted, additional claims for May-18 and July-17 to Nov-17 were rejected due to an alleged limitation on refund claims for specific calendar months.
The rejection was based on the belief that refund claims should be limited to specific calendar months, a stance contrary to statutory rules and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST.
Decision: The court confirmed the refund claims timeliness, filed within the two-year statutory limit from the date of export. The court rejected the notion that refund claims are restricted to specific months, deeming it contrary to legal provisions and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST. The court annulled the rejection, instructing the assessing authority to reassess the refund application. The reassessment should consider court observations and completed wihtin 2 months from the courts order. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.9063 OF 2021 | Tulip Nilgiris Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Add Com of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 08-02-2024 | 08-01-2024 | Supreme Court Modifies Tax Demand and Security | Facts:
Cognizant Technology Solutions faced a tax demand for the AY 2017-18 under Section 115-O of the IT Act related to share buyback.
The company sought an interim stay on recovery proceedings, citing previous payments made to the department totaling Rs. 495 crores and Rs. 898.01 crores towards TDS remittance.
The HC directed the release of fixed deposit lien upon payment of Rs. 1500 crores and property security. The company appealed, contesting the security requirement for the penalty.
Decision: The SC modified the HCs order, removing the need for security concerning the penalty amount. The court permitted the encashment of Rs. 2,956 crores offered by the company, comprising Rs. 1,500 crores in cash and Rs. 1,456 crores in Fixed Deposit Receipts. Due to high stakes, the Supreme Court requested an expeditious disposal of the appeal within six weeks, emphasizing the urgency in the matter. | Income Tax | PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 206 OF 2024 | Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 08-02-2024 | 11-01-2024 | High Court Resolves ITC Block Due to Address Change | Facts:
The State Tax authority blocked Amarnath Trading Co.s ITC of Rs. 53,61,832/- citing the non-existence of supplier at the disclosed location in Hapur.
Supplier applied for a change of address from Hapur to Ghaziabad on October 6, 2023, 4 days prior to the ITC blocking order, which was processed by GSTN on October 31, 2023.
The court acknowledged the overlooked address change by the authority due to processing time, considering the ITC blocking order as ex-parte.
Decision: The HC decided not to keep the petition pending, recognizing the potential lack of knowledge about the address change by the tax authority. Acknowledging the one-sided nature of the ITC blocking order, the court disposed of the case and directed Amarnath Trading Co. to apply to authority to recall the order. The HC instructed the State Tax authority to verify facts from GSTN and issue an appropriate and reasoned order. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 1367 OF 2023 | Amarnath Trading Co. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 06-02-2024 | 15-01-2024 | High Court Allows Assessees GSTR-1 Amendment | Facts:
Railroad Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. mistakenly submitted the GST number of Mahindra & Mahindra (Rajasthan) instead of the correct GST number of Mahindra & Mahindra (Orissa) in GSTR-1.
Mahindra & Mahindra (Orissa) received notices from the GST authorities due to the mismatch in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B.
Despite informing the GST authorities about the inadvertent error and requesting to amend its GSTR-1, no action was taken by the authorities, leading the petitioner to approach the HC seeking relief.
Decision: The HC granted relief to the petitioner, allowing it to amend and rectify its GSTR-1 for the relevant period. The court emphasized that the error was inadvertent and occurred solely due to the petitioners mistake, with no intention to cause any loss of revenue to the government. The GST authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to rectify its GSTR-1 ensuring that the petitioner would subsequently be entitled to claim ITC. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2429 OF 2021 | Railroad Logistics (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 05-02-2024 | 18-01-2024 | Court Enforces Monetary Limits for Tax Appeals by Department | Facts:
The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax against Shyam Biri Works for the AY 1993-94.
The HC noted that the CBDT can set monetary limits for filing appeals, and the National Litigation Policy aims to reduce pending cases.
CBDTs Instruction No.3 of 2011 stated that no appeal could be filed if the tax effect was less than Rs.10 lakhs.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, considering the factual aspect that the tax effect was less than Rs.10 lakhs, as noted by the HC. While dismissing the petition, the Court kept the question of law open, emphasizing the need to align with the National Litigation Policy. The Court highlighted the importance of bringing harmony with the National Litigation Policy, indicating that Instruction No.3 of 2011 applies to pending appeals unless exceptions exist. | Income Tax | PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 1441 OF 2016 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shyam Biri Works | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 05-02-2024 | 11-08-2023 | Court Validates Capital Threshold Increase in Landmark Ruling. | Facts:
Petitioner challenged amendment raising paid-up share capital threshold for appointing a whole-time CS in private co from Rs. 5 cr to Rs. 10 cr.
The increase aimed to counter inflation effects, enhance ease of doing business, and reduce compliance costs. The petitioner also sought relief on corporate governance and forming a committee for company closures.
The petitioner raised concerns about non-compliance with E-FORM INC-22A but received no comment from the court.
Decision: The court upheld the validity of the amendment, deeming the increase in paid-up share capital reasonable and aligned with business facilitation. The court emphasized that companies involved in fraud cannot seek relief, as approaching the court with unclean hands is impermissible. Stringent penalties and the existence of the SFIO address such cases. | Company Law | WRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2020 | Suman Kumar v. Union of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 27-01-2024 | 09-01-2024 | High Court Grants Installment Plan Amid Financial Hardship | Facts:
The petitioner, Neel Kamal, filed a writ petition seeking an installment plan for the payment of tax and interest.
The petitioner claimed financial hardship and highlighted a delay by the GST authority in detecting revenue dues.
The petition emphasized a combination of financial difficulties and a delay by the GST authority as grounds for intervention by the court.
Decision: The court, after considering the petitioners case, granted the installment plan for tax dues and interest. The installment plan consisted of ten equal monthly payments, starting from Feb-2024. The court specified that failure to make any installment within the given time would nullify the installment plan, allowing GST authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law, as per Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 28930 OF 2023 | Neel Kamal v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 27-01-2024 | 23-01-2024 | Deposited GST within due date: No Interest Despite Belated GSTR-3B Filing | Facts:
Assessee had an accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs. 33,87,10,445 on the introduction of GST in July 2017. Due to technical glitches, the filing of Form GST TRAN-1 for transition was delayed.
Owing to the non-availability of transitional credit in the ECL, assessee couldnt file GSTR-3B for July 2017 within the due date. This non-filing affected subsequent months returns.
Despite the inability to file returns, Eicher Motors deposited tax amounts for July to December 2017 in both the Electronic Credit Ledger and Electronic Cash Ledger within the due dates, ensuring timely payment of GST liabilities.
Decision: The court held that if assessee routinely deposited GST amounts into Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) within the due date, they were not liable to pay interest, even if GSTR-3B were filed belatedly due to technical glitches. The court directed that the credit to the Government account should occur not later than the last date for filing monthly returns. Payment through GST PMT-06 immediately credited the amount to the government account, discharging the tax liability. | GST | W.P. NOS.16866 & 22013 OF 2023 W.M.P. NO. 32200 OF 2023 | Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Range-II | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 22-01-2024 | 30-11-2023 | High Court Orders Unfreezing Bank Account in GST Dispute | Facts:
Jey Tech Moulds Dies, the petitioner, filed GST returns, but their supplier failed to pay the GST, leading to actions by the tax authorities against the petitioner.
The tax authorities not only issued an order against the petitioner but also froze the petitioners bank account.
The petitioner made a representation to unfreeze the account, committing to deposit the pending ITC to the authorities.
Decision: The HC acknowledged Section 107 of the GST Act, which stipulates that if the petitioner pays 10% of the outstanding tax dues along with penalties, the tax authoritys proceedings should automatically be stayed. Despite the petitioners payment of Rs. 83,000 (representing a portion of the dues), the tax authorities had not unfrozen the bank account. The Court directed the tax authorities to consider the petitioners representation and ordered them to unfreeze the petitioners bank account within a week from the date of the courts order. | GST | W.P. NO. 33523 OF 2023 | Jey Tech Moulds Dies v. Deputy Commissioner (GST)-II | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 22-01-2024 | 04-12-2023 | Transfer Pricing: Debt-free status negates interest adjustments. | Facts:
Assessee, an IT services subsidiary, faced scrutiny over undisclosed expenses related to dividend income and transfer pricing adjustments for international transactions during AY 2012-13.
Disputes arose concerning disallowance under Section 14A and adjustments linked to delayed receivables from associated establishments.
AO made significant additions to the total income, resulting in higher tax liability for the assessee.
Decision: Tribunal found no evidence of borrowed funds utilized for mutual fund investments, rejecting disallowance under Section 14A. Due to the assessees debt-free status, the Court ruled against adjusting notional interest on outstanding receivables. The Court upheld the exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarities with the assessees operations, citing established legal precedents to dismiss the appeal. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2019 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-04 v. Inductis India (P.) Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 18-01-2024 | 21-12-2023 | Fair Assessment Chance Granted Amid Medical Constraints | Facts:
Pragati Construction challenged an assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax for the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018.
The assessment order was passed ex parte as the petitioner failed to respond to a SCN due to the petitioners medical condition.
The petitioner, citing medical reasons supported by a medical certificate, clarified their inability to participate or respond to the notice.
Decision: The Court nullified the assessment order considering the petitioners medical condition and lack of participation. Directed the petitioner to respond to the previously issued SCN within a specified deadline. Instructed the assessing authority to conduct a new assessment after hearing the petitioners response and issue a fresh order within two months. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 41802 OF 2023 | Pragati Construction v. Commissioner of C.T. & G.S.T. | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 18-01-2024 | 21-12-2023 | No Writ Petition Valid After Responding to Notice | Facts:
Assessee filed GSTR-9 declaring ITC reversal but didnt reflect it in subsequent GSTR 3B returns.
Revenue authority highlighted the disparity, sought an explanation via a notice.
Assessee challenged notices validity via a writ petition under Article 226.
Decision: The assessee raised jurisdiction and demand validity concerns during court proceedings. The court didnt address objections due to prior assessees response to the notice. Directed authority to resolve issues raised in assessees response while ensuring adherence to GST Act and judicial discipline. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 29545 OF 2023 | Taran Angad Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH |
| 14-01-2024 | 14-12-2023 | Supreme Court Dismisses Delayed SLP: PNB Housing Finance | Facts:
PNB Housing Finance is engaged in retail lending and long-term finance for home construction.
Claimed 62% interest on housing loans as long-term housing loan interest under section 36(1)(viii). AO altered ratio to 55% based on total business receipts.
Earned dividends on stock-in-trade shares; AO disallowed under section 14A; Tribunal disagreed.
Decision: SLP filed with a significant delay of 350 days; unsatisfactory reasons given. HC applied Maxopp Investment case, favoring PNB Housing. SC declined to condone the delay and didnt interfere on the merits; SLP by Commissioner dismissed; HCs decision remains unchanged. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 48358 OF 2023 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 14-01-2024 | 24-11-2023 | Court Allows ITC Beyond Sept of Next Year, Contrary to 16(4) Limit | Facts:
The petitioner, a business dealing in Petroleum Gases, faced scrutiny for belated ITC claims related to Petroleum product purchases.
The petitioner explained financial crisis and emphasized the non-availability of Form GSTR-2 for ITC claims due to GSTNs failure to notify it.
Despite explanations, authorities passed an order disallowing ITC, citing belated filing and not addressing the GSTR-2 non-notification issue.
Decision: The court acknowledged the non-availability of GSTR-2 for ITC claims, recognizing the petitioners inability to file it due to GSTNs failure to notify the form. Emphasizing the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to file returns in the absence of an enabling mechanism, the court quashed the impugned orders. The court directed authorities to allow manual returns, consider belated returns if in order, and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. | GST | W.P.(MD).NOS. 7173 AND 7174 OF 2023 W.M.P.(MD) NOS. 6764 AND 6765 OF 2023 | Tvl.Kavin HPGasGraminVitrak v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 10-01-2024 | 06-11-2023 | Protecting Purchaser Rights in GST Confiscation Proceedings. | Facts:
Deputy Assistant Commissioner-1 (ST) detained goods due to the absence of the consignor at a specified address during inspection.
Goods were identified as belonging to Arhaan Ferrous and Non Ferrous Solutions (P.) Ltd., the purchaser.
The HC affirmed that the detained goods were legitimately purchased by Arhaan Ferrous and Non Ferrous Solutions (P.) Ltd., supported by E-Way Bill and invoice documentation.
Decision: SC refused to intervene, dismissing the SLPs filed by the revenue authority. Upheld HCs ruling that goods owned by the purchaser couldnt be confiscated due to consignor absence without allowing the purchaser to prove bona fide purchase. Allowed the release of goods to the purchaser but permitted the revenue to initiate separate action against the purchaser under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, if required, without immediate confiscation. | GST | PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 24711-24714 OF 2023 | Deputy Assistant Commissioner-1 (ST) v. Arhaan Ferrous and Non Ferrous Solutions (P.) Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 10-01-2024 | 13-12-2023 | Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal of SLP; CBDT Representation Permitted | Facts:
Gee Cee Metals filed for rectification of assessment and TDS refund for the AY 2008-09, but did so after a lapse of approximately 12 years from the said AY.
The AO rejected the application, citing it was beyond the permissible time limit. Circular No. 9/2015 restricted such claims to within six years from the end of the AY.
The HC upheld the rejection, stating the application was time-barred as it was filed well beyond the six-year limit specified in Circular No. 9/2015.
Decision: The SC allowed Gee Cee Metals to withdraw their SLP and approach the CBDT under Section 119 for seeking adjustment due to rectification made by the Department regarding their PAN number. The Court directed the CBDT to consider any representation made by Gee Cee Metals expeditiously and solely on its merits, without being influenced by the previous rejection based on filing delay. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 40218 OF 2023 | Gee Cee Metals (P.) Ltd. (AOP) v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 05-01-2024 | 19-12-2023 | High Court Quashes Assessment Order Over Non uploading Objections due to Portal Issue | Facts:
Assessee filed objections under Section 144C(2) but didnt upload due to a portal issue.
Faceless AO, unaware of objections, passed assessment order without waiting for DRPs directions.
Assessment order issued, and demand notice sent based on it.
Decision: Assessment order was quashed. Directed AO to await DRPs directions before passing any further assessment order. Canceled demand notice (Form No. 7) of 13th November 2023. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 34670 OF 2023 | Renaissance Global Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 05-01-2024 | 08-12-2023 | Court Allows Rectification of SGST, CGST, IGST Credits in GSTR-3B | Facts:In the Chukkath Krishnan case, the petitioner, a registered dealer, mistakenly filed GSTR-3B returns, leading to an incorrect assessment. The error involved misreporting of input tax credits, specifically the interchange of credits between SGST/CGST and IGST. The petitioner sought to rectify this by adjusting IGST credit against his CGST and SGST liabilities. This necessitated a correction in the tax returns to accurately reflect the tax credits and liabilities.
Decision: The court's decision involved directing the 3rd respondent to treat the petitioner's representation as a rectification application. The respondent was ordered to consider this application and make necessary orders, following a hearing with the petitioner. This process was to be completed within two months, adhering to the legal framework. | GST | WP(C) NO. 41219 OF 2023 | Chukkath Krishnan Praveen vs. State of Kerala | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 02-01-2024 | 21-08-2023 | Supreme Court Upholds Fine for AGM Non-Compliance | Facts:
Appellant-director and others found guilty of breaching Section 96 for not conducting the AGM.
All involved parties filed a joint plea before NCLT under Section 441 to compound the offense related to AGM non-compliance.
Admitted as an alternate director, acknowledged 2905 days of default under Section 96 for not holding AGMs.
Decision: Supreme Court upheld NCLATs decision on ground that as per report of RoC, maximum fine to be imposed on appellant was to extent of Rs. 1.32 crores however, NCLT reduced it to 1/5th of maximum fine. Court didnt find substantial grounds to intervene. Appellants appeal against NCLATs decision was dismissed by the Court. Court upheld NCLTs ruling on imposing a reduced fine (1/5th) after compounding offenses related to AGM non-compliance. | MCA | CIVIL APPEAL NO 5015 OF 2023 | Salil Gulati v. Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 02-01-2024 | 18-11-2023 | Dismissal of Taxpayers Claims on unsigned GST Notice Validity | Facts:
Taxpayer received an intimation of tax liability and an unsigned show cause notice via the GST portal and email due to discrepancies in filed returns.
Taxpayer alleged improper notice validity, citing lack of proper service, absence of verification, and no opportunity for a personal hearing.
Despite accessibility through the GST portal and email, the taxpayer did not respond or contest the notices regarding the discrepancies.
Decision: Verification before notice issuance wasnt mandatory as per law; the petitioner had accessible means to notice and was expected to respond. Notices were properly uploaded and authenticated digitally on the GST portal, and legal provisions allowed for representations by the taxpayer. The petitioners silence throughout the process led to the dismissal of their petition as they didnt engage or contest the proceedings despite accessibility to notices. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 1864 OF 2023 | Piku Saha v. State of West Bengal | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 23-12-2023 | 24-11-2023 | Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on 153A Assessment Addition | Facts:
Assessment was conducted for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
The HC concluded that the assessment for the assessee had concluded before the search date.
No incriminating materials were found and seized during the search operation.
Decision: The SC considered the appeal filed by the PCIT (Central) 2. The Court referred to its earlier ruling in the case of PCIT, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Relying on the precedent set in the mentioned case, the SC dismissed the appeal, concurring with the HCs decision that no additions under Section 153A were permissible due to the absence of incriminating evidence found during the search for the relevant AYs. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 24524 OF 2023 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) 2 v. Jay Ambey Aromatics | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 23-12-2023 | 14-12-2023 | SC Dismisses Input Tax Credit Reversal Appeal | Facts:
Revenue reversed Suncraft Energys ITC for 2017-18 due to alleged non-reflection of supplier invoices in GSTR 2A.
Suncraft argued compliance with tax laws, asserting payments made through valid tax invoices under Section 16(2) of GST Acts.
HC highlighted flaws in Revenues actions, noted the optional nature of credit reversal, and criticized the lack of supplier inquiry despite the assessees clarifications about invoice possession and payments.
Decision: SC dismissed SLPs, choosing not to intervene in the case. Considering the relatively low demand, the Court declined interference. SC refrained from exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the case. | GST | SLP APPEAL (C) NO(S). 27827-27828 OF 2023 | Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Suncraft Energy P. Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 19-12-2023 | 10-11-2023 | Unsigned Order Renders Assessment Decision Invalid | Facts:
SRK Enterprises contested an order dated 28-3-2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under APGST/CGST Act, 2017.
Order lacked a signature, raising concerns about its legal validity. Show cause notice and the order were based on different grounds, denying a fair chance to respond.
Respondent defended the orders validity by asserting its upload to the common portal despite lacking a signature.
Decision: Court ruled the unsigned order as legally deficient and hence invalid. Sections 160 and 169 were deemed irrelevant to validate an order lacking a signature. Due to the absence of signatures, the court annulled the original order, directing a fresh order issuance in compliance with legal requisites. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.29397 OF 2023 | SRK Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 19-12-2023 | 30-10-2023 | Directors Liability During Liquidation: Court Invalidates Tax Orders | Facts:
SKMPL in liquidation; Official Liquidator appointed. Tax demands issued during liquidation.
Petitioner, an SKMPL director, refrained from responding post liquidation.
Tax demands imposed despite liquidation; challenged by the petitioner.
Decision: Court recognized liquidation status; declared tax demands during liquidation invalid. Court upheld directors stance post liquidation. Court nullified tax orders; directed tax authority to approach Official Liquidator. If funds insufficient, action against ex-directors per CGST Acts Section 88(3). | GST | W.P.NOS.19728 OF 2020 & 484 OF 2021 W.M.P.NOS. 24375 OF 2020 & 565 OF 2021 | Smt. K. Malathi v. State Tax Officer (Inspection-Group IV) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 11-12-2023 | 08-12-2023 | Court Allows Rectification of SGST, CGST, IGST Credits | Facts:In the Chukkath Krishnan case, the petitioner, a registered dealer, mistakenly filed GSTR-3B returns, leading to an incorrect assessment. The error involved misreporting of input tax credits, specifically the interchange of credits between SGST/CGST and IGST. The petitioner sought to rectify this by adjusting IGST credit against his CGST and SGST liabilities. This necessitated a correction in the tax returns to accurately reflect the tax credits and liabilities.
Decision: The court's decision involved directing the 3rd respondent to treat the petitioner's representation as a rectification application. The respondent was ordered to consider this application and make necessary orders, following a hearing with the petitioner. This process was to be completed within two months, adhering to the legal framework. This decision highlights the court's approach to rectifying errors in tax filings, particularly concerning the interplay of different tax credits like IGST, CGST, and SGST. | GST | WP(C) NO. 41219 OF 2023 | CHUKKATH KRISHNAN PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 11-12-2023 | 23-11-2023 | High Court Reduces GST Penalty Amid Pandemic Challenges from Rs 56,00,952 to 10,000 only | Facts:
Clear Secured Services (P.) Ltd. faced an allegation of delayed GST payment under Section 122(1)(iii) of the GST Act.
An ex-parte order imposed a significant penalty of Rs. 56,00,952 for delayed CGST and SGST payment during the COVID-19 period.
Despite citing pandemic-induced challenges, the petitioners appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the substantial penalty.
Decision: Court found no proof of intentional tax evasion; the delay was attributed to pandemic constraints, not deliberate evasion. Authorities overlooked penalty disciplines outlined in Section 126(2) of the Act, failing to consider specific circumstances. The court set aside the substantial penalties and directed a reduced penalty of Rs. 10,000 within two weeks, highlighting the disregard for penalty disciplines and pandemic-induced challenges. | GST | WRIT TAX NOS. 1 & 5 OF 2023 | Clear Secured Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner, State Tax GST | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 11-12-2023 | 09-11-2023 | Business Transfer ITC Dispute at SCN level: Court Defers Interference | Facts:
Tikona Infinet (P.) Ltd. acquired Tikona Digital Networks business along with its ITC via a Business Transfer Agreement. The ITC transfer was manual due to non-functioning of the GST portal.
The petitioner received a scrutiny notice alleging a wrongful ITC claim. The petitioner responded, explaining discrepancies in returns.
Citing court directions, the petitioner contended that the unavailability of the GST ITC -02 form on the online portal affected their case.
Decision: As the case was at the SCN stage, the court refrained from intervening in the ongoing proceedings. Directed the authority to consider all petitioners contentions, including the issue related to the unavailability of Form GST ITC -02. Both parties were allowed to maintain their rights and contentions for further legal actions or defenses in the future. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 14677 OF 2023 CM APPL. NO. 58424 AND 58425 OF 2023 | Tikona Infinet (P.) Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 11-12-2023 | 17-10-2023 | HC Mandate: Reasons Required for Ex-parte Reassessments. | Facts:
Case Concerns AY 2018-19 tax assessment under IT Act.
The Assessing officer reopened assessment due to assessees non-response to notice lacking clear justification.
There was absence of recorded reasons for reopening assessment, which is required even in ex-parte proceedings.
Decision: The court Emphasized need for clear reasons even in ex-parte situations. The court Identified deficiency in decision, reopening solely on non-response without proper rationale. The court Directed a redo, allowing assessee to respond, AO to reevaluate based on response within legal bounds. | Income Tax | MAT NO. 1308 OF 2023 CA NO. 10 OF 2023 | GSP Piling Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-4(3) | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 07-12-2023 | 07-08-2023 | Incorrect email id for notice nullify assessment; remanded for reevaluation. | Facts:
Indian Bank designated [email protected] as its official email ID for tax notices and e-filing.
The ITO erroneously sent notices and assessment orders to different, unauthorized email IDs not specified by the bank.
Indian Bank contested the assessment order due to notices sent incorrectly, alleging a breach of natural justice.
Decision: Notices lacked proper intimation, violating the principles of natural justice. Sending notices only to a branch office was inadequate, given the prior correct notice that was responded to. Assessment order set aside, case remanded to the ITO for a fresh order within 12 weeks, emphasizing adherence to legal requirements and procedural norms. | Income Tax | W.P. NO. 25593 OF 2021 WMP NOS. 27009 AND 27010 OF 2021 | Indian Bank v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 07-12-2023 | 28-11-2023 | High Court Upholds Tax Penalty on Fictitious Transactions | Facts:
Shiv Trading claimed ITC for purchases from M/s Krishna Trading Company during 2018-19.
Inspection revealed M/s Krishna Trading Company didnt exist, leading to allegations of fabricated transactions.
Tax, penalty, and interest totaling Rs. 45,21,097 were imposed on Shiv Trading for the period of May to Dec-18.
Decision: Shiv Trading failed to substantiate the authenticity of transactions or the movement of goods with the non-existent supplier. The burden was on the dealer to prove genuine transactions and goods movement for claiming ITC. Despite citing legal precedents, Shiv Trading couldnt differentiate their case, resulting in the dismissal of their writ petition and upholding the imposed tax, penalty, and interest. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 1421 OF 2022 | Shiv Trading v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 07-12-2023 | 20-10-2023 | Assessment upheld, rectification sought for fair resolution. | Facts:
Nelson Travels challenged assessment proceedings for 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 by the Assistant Commissioner (ST).
Petitioner claimed no personal hearing opportunity was provided; filed rectification application for errors.
Despite reminders for a hearing and time extension requests, petitioner didnt respond; order passed on 22-6-2023.
Decision: No interference with the order due to petitioners non-response within the given time. Directed the authority to review petitioners rectification application and issue an appropriate order within 15 days. Petitioner allowed to file an appeal while rectification application was under consideration; writ petitions disposed of. | GST | W.P. NOS. 30649, 30656 & 30659 OF 2023 W.M.P. NOS. 30300, 30310 & 30314 OF 2023 | Nelson Travels v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 02-12-2023 | 08-11-2023 | Delhi High Court Invalidates Repeated GST Registration Cancellation on same grounds | Facts:
Petitioners GST registration was canceled initially on 30-9-2021 for alleged fraud, misstatement, or suppression of facts.
Despite restoration on 16-9-2023 following an appeal, a new SCN on 18-9-2023 proposed cancellation again for the same alleged reasons.
SCN lacked specific details on the alleged fraud or misstatement, making it impossible for the petitioner to respond adequately.
Decision: Court ruled that after restoration, canceling the registration on the same grounds was impermissible unless new grounds arose after the initial cancellation in 2021. Criticized the lack of specific details in the SCN, deeming them insufficient for a proper response. Set aside the void order canceling the GST registration dated 26-10-2023 due to inadequate reasoning and directed immediate restoration of the registration. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 14596 OF 2023 CM APPL. NO. 58035 OF 2023 | Samayshristi Enterprises v. Superintendent, Range - 31, GST Division | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 02-12-2023 | 18-10-2023 | Impact of IGST Exemption on Imported Wet Dates | Facts:
Ajwa Dry Fruit Impex imported Wet Dates and claimed an IGST exemption under a specific notification.
Customs audit revealed the claimed IGST exemption was for fresh dates, not applicable to the imported wet dates.
Despite a show cause notice, the petitioner didnt respond, and the assessing authority demanded Rs. 12,57,795 as IGST for the wet dates.
Decision: The Customs Act empowers the assessing authority to determine various duties applicable to imported goods, not limited to customs duty alone. Section 28 of the Customs Act allows assessment of different duties, including IGST, and as the petitioner claimed an exemption, the authority was empowered to assess it. The Court dismissed the writ petition, considering it without merit and wholly misconceived, suggesting the option of an appeal and allowing consideration of time spent on the writ petition for appeal filing delays. | GST | WP(C) NO. 16393 OF 2023 | Ajwa Dry Fruit Impex v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 02-12-2023 | 22-09-2023 | HC allowed ITC of TDS under TNVAT to GST | Facts:
Harshandh Construction filed a delayed writ petition against an Assessment Order from 2020, seeking Transitional Credit for TDS under TNVAT Act into the GST regime.
The Assistant Commissioner denied the petitioners claim for TDS Transitional Credit under TNGST Act, stating only unutilized ITC could be carried forward, not excess tax paid.
The Assessment Order demanded repayment of wrongly availed credit with interest and penalty, totaling Rs. 6,13,043.
Decision: Despite the delayed petition filing, the HC considered the cases merits, rejecting the contention for dismissal based on delay. The Court found potential merit in the petitioners claim based on past court decisions favoring similar claims, setting aside the Assessment Order. The HC directed a fresh assessment within 60 days, allowing the petitioner to respond within 30 days, disposing of the Writ Petition. | GST | W.P. NO. 27716 OF 2023 W.M.P. NOS. 27198 AND 27199 OF 2023 | Harshandh Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 30-11-2023 | 06-11-2023 | Failure to Verify Sellers Tax Deposits Invalidates Demand | Facts:
Petitioner operated under a composition scheme from Oct-17 to Mar-19, unable to claim ITC during this period.
Purchases were made from RC between May-18 and June-18, backed by valid documents, when RC was a registered GST dealer.
RCs registration was canceled in Oct-19, but during the transaction period, RC was a legitimate, registered entity.
Decision: Court acknowledged petitioners composition scheme participation, restricting their entitlement to claim ITC during the specified period. Validated petitioners evidence supporting legitimate purchases from RC during the transaction period. Criticized authorities for neglecting RCs filed returns and failing to consider crucial tax filing details, emphasizing the availability of transactional information on the GST portal. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 909 OF 2022 | Rama Brick Field v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 30-11-2023 | 06-11-2023 | Case Involving Jurisdictional Challenge Maintains Status Quo | Facts:
Surya Business (P.) Ltd. challenged a SCN issued under section 73 for alleged incorrect tax declaration in their GSTR-09 returns.
They argued that an order under section 65(6) had been issued prior, making the SCN under section 73 invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner didnt submit a response to the SCN by the deadline as they contested the SCNs validity under section 73(1).
Decision: The Court didnt conclusively decide on the SCNs validity or the jurisdictional issue raised. It granted the Revenues counsel a week to gather information and determine if subsequent orders had been issued against the noticee. The Court scheduled the next hearing for 15/11/23, maintaining the status quo regarding the proceedings outlined in the SCN until further clarity was obtained. | GST | WP(C) NO. 6322 OF 2023 | Surya Businees (P.) Ltd. v. State of Assam | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 27-11-2023 | 17-11-2023 | Inadequate Evidence Leads to Reassessment Notice Quashing | Facts:
ITO initiated reassessment against Saraswati Petrochem (P.) Ltd. for AY 2011-12 based on cash deposits received by an individual and subsequently remitted to the assessee.
Investigation Wing provided details indicating the assessees frequent disclosure of undisclosed income through financial instruments like share capital, security premium, etc.
The reassessment was initiated due to an alleged increase in disclosed funds between AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 without concrete evidence supporting the nature of received deposits.
Decision: The court criticized the ITO for not providing essential material forming the basis for reassessment to the assessee, indicating a lack of crucial information. Noting that the received information did not specifically relate to concerned AY, the court highlighted a disconnect in the period of deposits compared. Emphasizing insufficient evidence and reliance on suspicions, court concluded that mere comparisons without substantial evidence couldnt justify belief that income had escaped assessment, resulting in the quashing of reassessment notice. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) NO. 10802 OF 2018 | Saraswati Petrochem (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3) | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 22-11-2023 | 16-10-2023 | Supreme Court Upholds SEBI Penalties in Stock Manipulation | Facts:
Sangeeta Kailash Purohit received shares from a director of Wisec without payment, falsely portraying it as a loan to avoid legal obligations.
Purohit engaged in manipulative trading, selling shares in small amounts, artificially inflating Wisec share prices, violating PFUTP Regulations 3 and 4.
Trading patterns suggested a pre-planned strategy, indicating collusion between Purohit and others to artificially raise share prices.
Decision: The SC found no errors in SATs decisions on Purohits appeal and review applications. Purohits appeals against SATs rulings were dismissed, upholding SEBIs penalties for manipulative trading in Wisec shares. SEBIs findings of share acquisition misrepresentation, manipulative trading, and violation of PFUTP Regulations were upheld without identifying factual or legal errors, affirming penalties against Purohit. | MCA | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6807 OF 2023 | Sangeeta Kailash Purohit v. Securities and Exchange Board of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 22-11-2023 | 03-11-2023 | Supreme Court Dismisses Reassessment Over Land Development Rights | Facts:
Assessee granted development rights on their land to a developer but did not transfer possession as required by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
AO issued a reopening notice for AY 13-14, claiming income had escaped assessment due to alleged capital gains from this transaction.
HC determined that the development agreement did not transfer possession to the developer as specified by law, thus no grounds for income escaping assessment.
Decision: SC considered the terms of the agreement and found that it didnt facilitate possession transfer as required by law. The Court concluded that the AO lacked valid grounds to believe income had escaped assessment due to the absence of transfer of possession. SLP filed by the Deputy Commissioner against the HCs decision was dismissed, as the Court found the notice for reopening assessment unjustified based on the agreements terms. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 36498 OF 2023 | Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle v. Bharat Jayantilal Patel | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 22-11-2023 | 05-10-2023 | Cross-examination denied in registration cancellation proceedings | Facts:
Steel India, a partnership firm dealing in iron and steel, faced cancellation of its GST registration due to alleged non-conduct of business at its registered address.
The revenue authority relied on the landlords statement, indicating no business activity at the registered premises after May 2017, despite Steel Indias claim of a temporary halt due to unforeseen reasons.
Steel India failed to provide substantial evidence supporting business operations at the declared address.
Decision: The Court held that the inquiry by the revenue authority wasnt a trial but a summary proceeding to ascertain business activities at the declared place. Steel India was not entitled to cross-examine the landlord or witnesses relied upon by the revenue authority since it didnt present convincing proof of conducting business at the registered location. Finding no violation of natural justice principles, the Court dismissed the writ petition, advising Steel India to pursue its remedy of filing an appeal against the cancellation of registration under GST laws. | GST | W.P.C. NO. 29033 OF 2023 | Steel India v. State Tax officer | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 20-11-2023 | 05-10-2023 | High Court Directs Immediate Disbursement of Tax Refund | Facts:
Kunal International sought an ITC refund for exported goods. The Adjudicating Authority granted a partial refund due to alleged wrongful ITC availing.
Kunal International appealed and the Appellate Authority directed a higher refund of Rs. 61,79,004.
The Union of India didnt release the sanctioned refund to Kunal International as Respondents was unable to file appeal as Tribunal had not yet been constituted.
Decision: The HC ordered the Union of India to immediately disburse the sanctioned refund amount. The Court emphasized that the Union of India couldnt disregard the Appellate Authoritys order without a competent authority or court stay. It clarified that its order wouldnt hinder the Union of India from seeking statutory remedies or pursuing recovery if successful. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 12154 OF 2023 CM APPL. NO. 47793 OF 2023 | Kunal International v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 20-11-2023 | 30-10-2023 | High Court Excludes Service Tax Reimbursement from Tax | Facts:
The case involved the taxation of a non-resident company, Vantage International Management Co., engaged in mineral oil exploration or production in India under Section 44BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The dispute centered on whether reimbursement of service tax should be included in the taxable income under Section 44BB(2). The HC held that it should not be included.
The Commissioner of Income-tax challenged the HCs decision with a SLP in the Supreme Court.
Decision: The Supreme Court, after considering the case and hearing arguments, dismissed the SLP, upholding the HCs decision. The Court agreed with the HCs ruling that reimbursement of service tax should not be part of the taxable income under Section 44BB. This dismissal meant that the HCs judgment in favor of the assessee remained in effect, and the case was concluded with the disposal of pending applications. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 36391 OF 2023 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vantage International Management Co. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 15-11-2023 | 20-10-2023 | Supreme Court Modifies Detained Goods Release Conditions | Facts:
The case involved the provisional release of goods detained by GST authorities in Punjab.
The HC had initially required the appellant to pay Rs. 4 lakhs in cash and furnish a Bank Guarantee for the remaining due amount of Rs. 19,42,692.
The appellant argued that a similar case in the HC allowed the release of goods with a 25% cash payment and a personal surety bond, seeking the same conditions in their case.
Decision: The Supreme Court found merit in the appellants argument and modified the conditions for the provisional release of goods. They ordered the release upon a cash payment of Rs. 4 lakhs and the provision of a personal surety bond for the outstanding amount. The appellant was given one week to fulfill the modified conditions, and after compliance, they were granted the liberty to seek further remedies in the HC. This decision effectively changed the release conditions for detained goods from an initial requirement of a bank guarantee to a cash payment and personal surety bond, aligning with conditions in a similar case before HC. | GST | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6930 OF 2023 | Garg Oil Traders v. State of Punjab | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 15-11-2023 | 23-10-2023 | Jurisdictional Conflict: CGST vs MGST Investigation Proceedings | Facts:
The petitioner, was being investigated for fraudulent ITC under the CGST Act for the period from 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2021.
MGST Act authorities initiated a separate investigation for illegal refunds for the period from 1 April 2021 to 4 October 2023 against the same petitioner.
The petitioner argued that Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act, which restricts proceedings under the MGST Act when the CGST Act is already investigating the same subject matter, should apply.
Decision: The Court found that the investigation under CGST and MGST Acts was for different time periods and subject matters, making Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act inapplicable. The Court suggested the petitioner could use remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure if there were concerns about potential arrest under the MGST Act since the proceedings were not of a criminal nature. The Court advised the petitioner that if they had concerns about property attachment, they could invoke Rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules at a later stage. | GST | WRIT PETITION (LODG) NOS. 28880 AND 29186 OF 2023 | Yash Alloys India vs Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 09-11-2023 | 10-10-2023 | Deduction Claim Allowed Despite Missing Form 3CL | Facts:
Schaeffler India Ltd. claimed a deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the IT Act for its R & D facility, but it failed to submit Form 3CL, a mandatory document issued by the prescribed authority, by the due date for filing the ITR.
The PCIT used his revisionary powers under Section 263 to disallow the deduction.
Decision: Schaeffler India Ltd. had submitted documents during the assessment proceedings, including a copy of recognition for its in-house R&D facility, approval of the R&D facility in Form 3CM, and a certificate from an auditor verifying the R&D expenditure. Form 3CL, issued by the prescribed authority, was received after the assessment order was passed. However, it was filed during the assessment proceedings in a letter dated 9-10-2019. The ITAT emphasized that the failure of the prescribed authority to send intimation to the Department should not be a reason to deny the deduction under Section 35(2AB). Consequently, the HC upheld the ITATs decision. | Income Tax | R/TAX APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2023 | Principal commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Schaeffler India Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 09-11-2023 | 10-10-2023 | Income Tax Appeal: Identity & Creditworthiness Proof - Remand | Facts:
DV Re-Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. underwent an IT assessment under Section 143(3).
The AO issued notices to the assessee, who cooperated by providing details and explanations.
Subsequently, the Director of the assessee was summoned but failed to appear, and the Assessing Officer added back share capital investment under Section 68 due to insufficient evidence of shareholder creditworthiness.
Decision: The High Court found that the Commissioner(Appeals) considered written submissions filed electronically by the assessee, as well as various documents, when dismissing the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee did make an effort to establish identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness by providing PAN, Income Tax Return, and bank statements of share allottees. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunals order, and remanded the case for fresh consideration. | Income Tax | ITAT NO. 234 OF 2023 IA NO. GA/1 OF 2023 | DV Re-Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 05-11-2023 | 09-10-2023 | Court Quashes Orders for Lack of Specified Hearing Date | Facts:
Sumit Enterprises challenged two orders: one dated 15.03.2022 demanding payment under GST and another dated 29.03.2023 dismissing their appeal.
The petitioner, a genuine firm, mistakenly claimed ITC but rectified it in July 2019. A notice issued on 25.06.2021 proposed a liability of Rs.1,48,160.
The petitioner requested a hearing and adjournment but received reminder notices with no mention of a hearing date. An order was issued on 15.03.2022 without a proper opportunity for a hearing.
Decision: The court noted that the notice didnt specify a date, time, or venue for a personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity for a hearing. The court relied on a prior case, Party Time Hospitality v. State of U.P., which also emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of the GST Act. As the original order failed to comply with Section 75(4) and breached principles of natural justice by not granting a personal hearing, the court quashed the 15.03.2022 order. The subsequent 29.03.2023 order was also quashed. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 167 OF 2023 | Sumit Enterprises v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 05-11-2023 | 17-10-2023 | Supreme Court Validates Vardhan Builders Section 80-IB(10) Claim for Flats within Size Limit | Facts:
Vardhan Builders claimed a deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for a residential project developed during AY 09-10.
The AO rejected the claim, citing that some flats exceeded the 1000 square feet limit.
The assessee provided evidence including approved plans, occupancy certificates, and individual possession letters, all indicating compliance with the 1000 square feet limit.
Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of Vardhan Builders, emphasizing the validity of the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) based on the evidence provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision and refused to interfere, recognizing the validity of the deduction claimed by Vardhan Builders. The Court highlighted the significance of the approved plans, occupancy certificates, and the absence of evidence indicating a violation of the 1000 square feet limit, leading to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue. | Income Tax | SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 38626 OF 2023 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-17 v. Vardhan Builders | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 01-11-2023 | 20-09-2023 | High Court Grants Relief: No Tax Evasion Intention Despite Short E-way Bill Gap | Facts:
Goods and vehicle were detained due to an expired E-way bill, with a 9-hour gap between expiry and interception.
The tax authorities imposed a penalty on the petitioner for transporting the vehicle after the E-way bills expiry.
The petitioner argued that there was no deliberate intention to evade tax.
Decision: The High Court of Calcutta considered the short time gap and lack of evidence of intentional tax evasion. Rulings from earlier court orders were cited in support of the petitioners case. The Court set aside the penalties and allowed the petitioner to receive a refund, provided they comply with legal requirements. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 22612 OF 2023 | Ishaan Plastics (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 01-11-2023 | 18-10-2023 | Injustice Reversed: High Court Nullifies ITAT Decision | Facts:
Petitioner Naresh Manakchand Jain filed two appeals against a Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order.
Due to his CA illness, the petitioner was unrepresented during the scheduled hearing on 29th August 2023.
The ITAT, in the petitioners absence, issued a strongly worded order on 31st August 2023, including directions against the petitioner.
Decision: High Court quashed the ITATs order, emphasizing it should not have issued prejudicial directions since the appeal was filed by the petitioner. The Court stressed that the ITAT should refrain from making prejudicial statements and should stick to the relevant issues during the appeal. The High Court ordered a fresh consideration of the case by the ITAT, unaffected by the earlier order, keeping all parties rights and contentions open. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27193 OF 2023 | Naresh Manakchand Jain v. Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 28-10-2023 | 05-10-2023 | Intent to Evade Tax Missing: Penalty Quashed | Facts:
Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. transported steel goods with valid documents from West Bengal to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The purchaser canceled the e-way bill without informing the petitioner.
GST authorities seized the goods in Kanpur, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
Decision: Intent to evade tax is essential for invoking Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. No evidence of intent to evade tax was found during the proceedings. The penalty should have been imposed under Section 122, not Section 129; the impugned orders were quashed in favor of the petitioner. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 603 OF 2023 | Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 28-10-2023 | 18-10-2023 | Proving Legitimacy in GST Input Tax Credits | Facts:
M/S Malik Traders was a registered dealer, engaged in trading waste materials.
Between April 2018 and September 2019, they r claimed input tax credit of Rs. 6,16,074.
The Commercial Tax Officer alleged wrongful input tax credit and imposed a tax liability of Rs. 12,32,148, including a penalty.
Decision: The court entertained the case due to the non-functional GST Tribunal following a Central Government Gazette notification on September 14, 2023. The petitioners challenge was based on their assertion of correctly paying their tax liability. The court emphasized that the burden of proof for claiming ITC lies with the dealer, and without providing the required details and documents, the benefit cannot be granted. As the petitioner failed to prove the actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of transactions, the court upheld the tax authorities decision to initiate proceedings. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 1237 OF 2021 | Malik Traders v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 27-10-2023 | 07-08-2023 | High Court Quashes Tax Demand Over Email Error | Facts:
The petitioner, R. Soundararajan & Co., contested an order dated April 27, 2022, demanding taxes under GST laws.
The order indicated the petitioners alleged GST liabilities, but they claimed to have overpaid their taxes.
The petitioner had not been granted a personal hearing, and the revenue department had sent a notice to the wrong email address not belonging to the petitioner.
Decision: The court determined that sending the notice to the wrong email address constituted a clear violation of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the order dated April 27, 2022. The court instructed the petitioner to submit objections within three weeks, and the revenue department was directed to provide a personal hearing, issue a speaking order, and complete the process within eight weeks. | GST | W.P.(MD)NO. 19092 OF 2023 W.M.P(MD) NOS. 15838 & 15841 OF 2023 | R. Soundararajan & Co. v. Deputy Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 22-10-2023 | 09-10-2023 | Tax Court Clarifies Expenditure: A Win for Appellant | Facts:
The case involves Asian Hotels Ltd. challenging an order from the ITAT regarding the AY 95-96.
The dispute centers on whether expenses related to renovation and professional fees paid to an interior architect should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure for tax purposes.
The AO initially disallowed these expenses, which amounted to Rs. 12,86,23,144, and the CIT(Appeals) upheld this disallowance.
Decision: The court ruled in favor of Asian Hotels Ltd., allowing deductions for the renovation expenses (Rs. 2,41,99,144) and the fees paid to the interior architect (Rs. 2,85,170), considering them as revenue expenditures. A portion of the expenses (Rs. 10,44,24,000) initially capitalized and later claimed as revenue expenditure was sent back to the AO for further examination. The courts decision clarified the tax treatment of the mentioned expenses, resolving the dispute in favor of the appellant. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2007 | Asian Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 22-10-2023 | 06-10-2023 | Incorrect HSN classification: Court upholds taxpayers refund. | Facts:
Simran Chandwani is in the business of selling footwear, subject to GST rates of 5% for footwear under Rs. 1,000 and 12% for products over Rs. 1,000. PVC straps, used in footwear manufacturing, are taxed at 18%.
Chandwani claimed a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the inverted tax structure.
Disputes arose due to discrepancies in ITC claims, one suppliers misclassification of goods, and the rejection of Chandwanis refund claims based on Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules.
Decision: The court ruled that a refund couldnt be denied due to a suppliers misclassification of goods when that supplier had charged the correct GST rate. All suppliers had correctly charged GST. The court criticized the authorities for accepting one suppliers classification but not others. The suspicion that Chandwani obtained a declaration to gain a cash refund was rejected. The court ordered a fresh review by the Adjudicating Authority, instructing them to consider the ITC claims. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 8164 OF 2022 | Simran Chandwani v. Principal Commissioner of CGST, Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 22-10-2023 | 14-09-2023 | Relief for Delayed GST Payment: Court Orders Refund | Facts:
The petitioner had delayed the payment of GST for September and October 2019, but eventually paid the dues along with returns in March 2020 under GSTR-3B.
An additional amount of Rs. 4,13,222 was recovered from the petitioner following an order issued on 6-12-2022, after notices and ASMT orders had been issued.
The petitioner had initially been at fault for the delay but later paid the tax and filed returns for March 2020, showing compliance with their tax obligations.
Decision: The Madras High Court found that the petitioner had suffered an injustice and set aside the impugned order dated 6-12-2022. The case was sent back to the authorities with instructions to pass a fresh order within 30 days. The amount recovered directly from the petitioners bank account on 5-5-2023 was to be refunded or adjusted based on the final outcome of the proceedings. The petitioner was also given the opportunity to file a fresh representation within one week. | GST | W.P. NO. 27054 OF 2023 W.M.P NO. 26495 OF 2023 | P. Athimoolam Contractor v. Appellant Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 18-10-2023 | 12-09-2023 | Time-Barred Appeal Revived in GST Registration Cancellation Case | Facts:
The petitioner, Sakthi Fashions, received a show cause notice to explain why their GST registration should not be canceled. The petitioner failed to respond to the notice, and their registration was canceled on 6-2-2023.
The petitioner filed an application for revocation of the registration cancellation, but it was also rejected when they failed to respond to a subsequent show cause notice. Petitioner filed appeal with a delay of 39 days, which was rejected on ground of limitation.
Decision: The court recognized that the petitioner actively pursued the application for revocation, taking steps within the statutory framework. The court concluded that the time taken in filing the application for revocation should be excluded from the appeals limitation period. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, without rejecting it solely due to the delay in filing. | GST | W.P. NO. 24731 OF 2023 W.M.P. NO. 24167 OF 2023 | Sakthi Fashions v. Appellate Authority/Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeals-II) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 18-10-2023 | 10-02-2023 | Assessment Cannot Be Reopened for Change of Opinion | Facts:
The petitioner, Suminter Organic and Fair Trade Cotton Ginning Mill (P.) Ltd., issued shares at a premium during the AY 2015-16. The case was selected for scrutiny due to the substantial share premium received. During the scrutiny, the petitioner provided a valuation report using the DCF method to justify the fair value of the shares, which was accepted by the AO. Later case was reopened for change of opinion.
Decision: The court ruled that there was no failure to disclose material facts by the petitioner during the original assessment, as the valuation of shares and premium issue had been addressed and accepted by the AO. The court emphasized that reopening an assessment should not be used for a mere change of opinion. The court noted that Rule 11UA allowed the petitioner to use the DCF method, making the reopening of the assessment unwarranted, and subsequently set aside the reopening notice in favor of the petitioner. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 2179 OF 2022 | Suminter Organic and Fair Trade Cottton Ginning Mill (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 18-10-2023 | 15-09-2023 | Electronic Ledger Deposit Valid for Appeal Pre-Deposit | Facts:
Batra Brothers (P.) Ltd. filed an appeal against a tax assessment order.
The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner hadnt paid the required 25% pre-deposit of the penalty amount, as mandated by tax laws. The petitioner deposited the 25% penalty amount in their electronic cash ledger, which the tax authorities contested as not meeting the pre-deposit requirement.
Decision: The Court considered the tax laws clear requirement for a 25% pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal. The Court referenced Section 49(3) of the CGST Act, stating electronic cash ledger funds could be used for tax-related payments. As the petitioner had deposited the required amount in the electronic cash ledger, the Court allowed its use for the pre-deposit and directed the petitioner to facilitate this. The appeal was to be reviewed on its merits. | GST | WP(C) NO. 1071 OF 2023 | Batra Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Union Territory of Ladakh | HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH |
| 15-10-2023 | 17-07-2023 | Extension Granted: Show-Cause Notice Under Benami Property Act | Facts:
The petitioners invested in mutual funds in the financial year 2018-19.
The revenue issued a show-cause notice under the Benami Property Transactions Act on May 30, 2023, with a 15-day response deadline and a hearing date of June 13, 2023.
The petitioners filed a writ petition on June 30, 2023, challenging jurisdiction and citing a 2014-15 transaction. They didnt respond to the notice or attend the hearing.
Decision: The Court didnt quash the notice but extended the response time by two weeks. The revenue authority must consider objections and the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment. A final order by the revenue authority should be issued within four weeks, not enforced for two weeks, allowing the petitioners to challenge it if needed. | Income Tax | WPA NO. 15393 OF 2023 | Aachman Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 15-10-2023 | 14-09-2023 | Justice Prevails: Quashing Unlawful GST Notice | Facts:
The petitioners goods and conveyance were intercepted on 30th August 2023.
A notice in Form GST Mov-07 was received by the petitioner on 8th September 2023, which exceeded the seven-day statutory limitation.
The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued within seven days from the date of the goods detention/seizure as per Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017.
Decision: Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017 mandates that the notice specifying the penalty must be issued within seven days of the detention or seizure of goods. The court clarified that the seven-day period should be calculated from the date of seizure, not the following day. The impugned notice was sent via email on 7th September 2023, which was after the seven-day period from the date of seizure had expired (6th September 2023). Therefore, the court quashed the notice and directed the release of the petitioners goods and conveyances, with the liberty to impose penalties as per other provisions of the Act. | GST | W.P. NO. 27140 OF 2023 | Tvl. V. V. Iron and Steels v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 14-10-2023 | 03-10-2023 | Justice Prevails: Transport Route Disclosure Not Mandatory in GST | Facts:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, received orders for bidi and matchbox supplies from two businesses. He prepared genuine tax invoices and E-way bills, loaded the goods onto a truck, and set off to deliver them. During transit, authorities intercepted the goods, alleging that the truck was not on its expected route, leading to suspicions of tax evasion.
Decision: The court ruled that the interception and seizure of goods were unwarranted because genuine documents accompanied the goods. Unlike the previous VAT Act, the GST Act did not mandate the declaration of the transportation route, making the detention on these grounds invalid. The power to detain and seize goods could only be exercised when genuine documents were absent; since the documents were authentic, the detention was unjustified. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 277 OF 2022 | Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 14-10-2023 | 04-10-2023 | CSR Expenses Upheld in Tax Dispute Victory | Facts:
The case involved an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against an order from the ITAT regarding the AY 14-15. The appellant was a mining company that had filed its income tax return. During the assessment, the AO questioned certain periphery development expenses based on a letter from the Periphery Development Society, which required mining companies to contribute 5% of their net profit for development. The appellants explanation did not satisfy the AO, resulting in the disallowance. The appellant appealed, contending that the expenses were both essential for business.
Decision: The High Court, despite concerns about the appeals delay, decided to condone it and consider whether any substantial legal questions existed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT had both recognized the legitimacy of the expenses as they were linked to CSR activities and wholly and exclusively for business purposes. As no substantial legal questions arose in the case, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the ITAT. | Income Tax | ITAT NO. 199 OF 2023 IA NOS. GA/1 & 2/2023 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh Prasad Sao | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 10-10-2023 | 21-09-2023 | IGST Refund Amendment Process Accelerated by High Court | Facts:
Forward Crop Protection (P.) Ltd. exported pesticides as Zero Rated Supplies via different shipping bills. The petitioner sought a refund of IGST paid on the exported goods and requested amendments to include IGST payment details in the shipping bills. The petitioner also claimed interest at 18% on the withheld refund, alleging arbitrary actions by the respondent authorities.
Decision: The court confirmed the submission of an amendment application by the petitioner for the shipping bills. It directed the respondent authorities to decide on the amendment application within six weeks. The court did not make a final decision on the refund or interest claim but focused on expediting the processing of the amendment application. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2022 | Forward Crop Protection (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 10-10-2023 | 22-09-2023 | Victory for Petitioner: Appeal Accepted After Dispute | Facts:
The petitioner appealed against an Assessment Order dated 2-1-2022. The appeal was rejected for two main reasons: Appeal was initially filed in manual form on 28-2-2022 and later as an e-appeal on 1-9-2022, causing a six-month delay. The petitioner did not deposit the required 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing. The petitioner explained that the delay in filing the electronic appeal was due to the non-immediate uploading of the Assessment Order on the official website. The petitioner had deposited the 10% tax during manual filing.
Decision: The Court accepted the petitioners explanation for the delay, considering the delayed uploading of the Assessment Order on the official website. The Court also noted that the petitioner had made the required 10% tax deposit at the time of manual filing, as evidenced by a challan. Referring to Rule 108(1) of APGST Rules 2017, the Court determined that manual filing of appeals was permissible. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection of the appeal, and directed the 1st respondent to register and process the appeal. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 22926 OF 2023 | Kotla Kanakeswara Rao v. Additional Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 07-10-2023 | 20-09-2023 | GST ITC Fraud: Bank Account Attachment Challenge | Facts:
The company was accused of engaging in manpower supply, bill trading, and passing on ineligible credit to customers for improper ITC benefits. The director of the petitioner company had been arrested and later released on bail. To safeguard revenue interests, the tax authorities provisionally attached the petitioners bank account under Sec 83 of the CGST Act.
Decision: The court noted that there was no need to revoke the attachment order as it would automatically expire after one year. Considering that the petitioners director had deposited Rs. 50,00,000/-, which was confirmed in a Show Cause Notice, the court ordered the lifting of the attachment order. The court directed HDFC Bank to allow the petitioner to operate their bank account. Additionally, it urged the tax authorities to quickly address Show Cause Notice. | GST | W.P. NO. 5682 OF 2023 | SPDS-HR Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Additional Director General | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 07-10-2023 | 26-07-2023 | Penalty Voided: Rural Context Shields NBFC | Facts:
Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd., a NBFC, was assessed for year 09-10. The AO imposed a penalty on the NBFC under Section 271D for accepting cash deposits in violation of Section 269SS, which restricts cash deposits over Rs. 20,000. The High Court, in its ruling, canceled the penalty, citing that the depositors were from rural areas where adequate banking services were scarce, leading to the penaltys deletion.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Courts decision. The Court acknowledged the rural context of the depositors and their limited access to banking services as a crucial factor in its decision. The Supreme Court found no valid reason to challenge the High Courts judgment, concluding that the penalty for accepting cash deposits from depositors in underserved rural areas was not justified. Therefore, penalty under Section 271D was not imposed. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1312 OF 2015 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 02-10-2023 | 26-09-2023 | High Court Upholds Taxpayers Right to Fair Assessment | Facts:
Assessee filed its ITR for the AY 14-15. AO disallowed certain expenses under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, relating to income exempt from taxation. This disallowance was made by invoking Rule 8D of the IT Rules.The AO did not examine the company's accounts before making this disallowance, nor did he provide any substantial reasons for rejecting the company's explanation that being a cash-rich company, it did not need to incur additional expenses to earn the exempt income.
Decision: High Court held that the disallowance of expenses made by the AO under Section 14A was unjustified because the AO did not examine the company's accounts. The court emphasized that the AO must satisfy himself of the correctness of the claim made by scrutinizing the accounts. Since the AO did not provide valid reasons or examine the accounts, the court ruled in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2023 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - 7 v. Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 28-09-2023 | 12-09-2023 | Court Rules GSTR-2A Data Insufficient for Denying Input Tax Credit | Facts:
Diya Agencies, a business in Kayamkulam, Alappuzha, challenged assessment order (Exhibit P-1) dated 24.05.2022 for the AY 2017-18. The petitioner sought input tax credit of Rs. 44,51,943 for both CGST and SGST but was granted only Rs. 1,04,376 for both based on GSTR 2A. The petitioner argued that assessing authority denied ITC solely due to GSTR 2A discrepancies, which were beyond their control.
Decision: The court ruled that denying ITC solely based on GSTR 2A was unjustified. It emphasized that Section 16(2) of the GST Act conditions must be met for input tax credit claims, which the petitioner had fulfilled. The court ordered a remand to the AO, instructing the petitioner to provide evidence supporting transaction genuineness and tax remittance to the seller dealer for reevaluation of the ITC claim. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 29769 OF 2023 | Diya Agencies v. State Tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 25-09-2023 | 28-08-2023 | Tax Appeal Decision: Fair Hearing Restored | Facts:
The petitioner leased a party lawn in 2018 and claimed no involvement in its affairs before that. The tax authorities issued a show-cause notice in 2021, but it lacked details about how the law was being invoked and did not specify a hearing date. The petitioners appeal was dismissed for exceeding the time limit, but the court ruled that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing, as required by law.
Decision: The court set aside the orders due to the lack of a fair hearing and emphasized the importance of granting this opportunity under the law. The case was remanded to the authorities for a new decision after affording the petitioner a proper hearing. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 176 OF 2023 | Party Time Hospitality v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 23-09-2023 | 08-09-2023 | Patna High Court Upholds GST Input Tax Credit Restriction | Facts of the Case:
The case challenged Section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, which limits claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioners argued that ITC is a constitutional right and the provision restricts it. They also claimed that the rule was arbitrary and violated their right to trade and profession. Decision: The Patna High Court upheld Section 16(4)s validity. The court stated ITC is a government concession, not a constitutional right. It found no violation of constitutional rights or arbitrariness. In short, the court upheld the law, stating ITC isnt a constitutional right, and the restriction is valid. | GST | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9108 of 2021 | Gobinda Construction Vs Union of India | Patna High Court |
| 20-09-2023 | 05-09-2023 | Legal Victory: DTVSV Shield Upheld, Section 263 Notice Quashed | Facts:
The petitioner filed an income tax return for the AY 12-13, and the case was reopened, resulting in an assessment order with additional taxes.
To settle the dispute, the petitioner opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (DTVSV Act), which finalized the issue with a certificate.
The tax authorities later initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the IT Act, challenging the settled issue, leading to the petitioners legal challenge.
Decision: The court noted that the DTVSV Act prevents reopening of issues settled under the Scheme in any other proceeding, including Section 263. Citing a similar case, the Madras High Courts decision, the court quashed section 263 notice. The courts decision favored the petitioner, affirming the protection offered by the DTVSV Act against reopening settled issues in other tax proceedings. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3146 OF 2022 | Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 17-09-2023 | 19-06-2023 | Income Tax Authoritys Unjustified Action Against Deceased Director | Facts:
The deceased was a director in a company during the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
The companys tax assessment resulted in a tax demand, and the deceased filed a revision application.
Later, an order was passed under section 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, raising a tax demand from the deceased.
Decision: No notice was issued to the deceased before the order under section 179, and the order did not meet the necessary requirements. The company was undergoing insolvency proceedings, and the tax authorities had to establish non-recovery from the company before pursuing action against the director. Due to the lack of notice and opportunity, the court quashed both the section 179 order and the subsequent section 264 order. | Income Tax | PETITION NO.1672 OF 2021 | Manjula D. Rita v. Principal Commissioner of Income tax | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 15-09-2023 | 04-09-2023 | Personal Crisis Leads to GST Registration Reevaluation | Facts:
The petitioner, M/s. Shree Balaji Traders, sought to reverse the cancellation of their GST registration due to non-existence at their premises.
They were preoccupied with their son's illness and could not respond to a notice. They appealed the cancellation, which was pending.
The Court allowed them to withdraw the appeal and apply for reinstating the GST registration, with a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Decision: The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw their appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner could seek to restore their GST registration by filing an application, and the delay would not be a factor if they did so within a week. The Court issued an order for Dasti, allowing the parties to obtain a copy of the judgment. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 11664 OF 2023 | Shree Balaji Traders v. Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 13-09-2023 | 22-08-2023 | Case Remitted for Fair Opportunity of Personal Hearing | Facts:
The case challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner demanding over Rs. 42 lakhs in taxes for the 2018-19 period.
The petitioner argued they were denied a hearing as the notice marked "NA" for personal hearing, violating their rights.
Relying on Section 75(4) of U.P. GST Act and legal precedents, the petitioner contested the adverse assessment.
Decision: The court upheld Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act, which mandates a hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated. It endorsed a previous ruling that the Assessing Authority must provide a hearing without the assessee requesting one. The court set aside the order, instructing the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 998 OF 2023 | Bajrang Building Material v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 09-09-2023 | 19-08-2023 | Violation of Natural Justice due to Insufficient Time | Facts:
Petitioner challenges assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, alleging lack of reasonable opportunity to respond and violation of natural justice.
Petitioner argues that they were given insufficient time to respond and their request for documents and cross-examination was not fulfilled.
Court finds that petitioner's arguments are valid, as previous decisions emphasize the importance of granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such cases.
Decision: Court holds that assessment made under Section 143(3) or Section 144 would be non-est if there is a clear breach in following the procedure under Section 144B. Respondent's failure to provide a reasonable time period for the assessee to respond and disregard of the assessee's request for adjournment or hearing is deemed improper. Assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16 is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for further consideration. | Imcome Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16260 OF 2021 | Shree Ganesh Intermediary (P.) Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 09-09-2023 | 23-08-2023 | Swift Tax Recovery: Legal Limits Ignored | Facts:
Tax executive attempted rapid tax recovery after appeal dismissal.
Taxpayer provided various services, including to Government Polytechnic Institutes.
Dispute centered on whether services qualified for a specific tax exemption.
Recovery from bank accounts was abrupt, impacting the taxpayer's business.
Decision: Recovery was arbitrary, disregarding the non-constituted Appellate Tribunal. Recovery exceeded the legislative mandate, causing undue financial burden. Tax Authorities should facilitate business and follow rule of law. Court ordered the return of the recovered amount with interest and imposed a cost on the tax executive. | GST | CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 5407 OF 2023 | Sita Pandey v. State of Bihar | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 07-09-2023 | 19-08-2023 | Cheque Dishonour Case: Legal Presumption Upheld Despite Missing ITR and Records | In the case of Prakash Madhukarrao Desai vs. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai, the complainant extended a handloan of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to the accused, who issued a cheque for the same amount. However, the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. A notice was sent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Initially, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint because the loan wasn't shown in the complainant's Income Tax returns. The High Court ruled that, despite the absence of this transaction in the complainant's financial records, it could be enforced under section 138, given the presumption under section 139 that the cheque was issued to clear a debt. The court also emphasized that violations of specific Income Tax sections wouldn't make the transaction unenforceable under section 138. | Income Tax | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 795 OF 2018 | Prakash Madhukarrao Desai v. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 07-09-2023 | 29-08-2023 | Procedural Adherence in Framing Substantial Questions of Law: A Critical Examination | Facts:
The appellant challenges the High Court's judgment, citing a procedural flaw in Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court allegedly heard the case on merits before framing a substantial question of law. The case is remanded to the High Court to adhere to the proper procedure outlined in Section 260A of the Act.
Decision: The court identifies a procedural flaw in the High Court's handling of the case under Section 260A of the Act. The impugned judgment is set aside, and the case is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration. Parties are instructed to appear before the High Court on 25.09.2023, with all contentions on merits left open for argument. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5490 OF 2023 | Bikram Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 05-09-2023 | 11-08-2023 | Judicial Scrutiny on the Audit of Unregistered Entities under the CGST Act | Facts:
The petitioner, a recently closed registered taxpayer under the GST Act, 2017, failed to pay the collected tax. The respondent issued a show cause notice on 19.05.2023 to conduct an audit on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the notice, arguing their deregistration exempts them from the audit per Section 65 of the CGST Act.
Decision: The court scrutinized Section 65 of the CGST Act, which permits audits on Registered entities (and not Unregistered) for specified periods. It acknowledged the respondent's right to audit the petitioner for the periods when they were registered. The impugned order was quashed, allowing the initiation of assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act. | GST | W.P.(MD). NO.15291 OF 2023 | Tvl. RajaStores v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 02-09-2023 | 19-05-2023 | Court Nullifies Orders Due to Unfair Timeframe, Allows Restart | Facts:
Assessee received six notices under section 153C for filing income returns in 30 days. Another six notices under section 142(1) required documents within two days. Assessee requested 30 more days to respond. Assessing Officer ignored the request and passed orders. The assessee challenged these orders and subsequent demand notices under section 156, citing a breach of natural justice.
Decision: The court found the Assessing Officer's timeframe of two days impractical for gathering information for six assessment years. The court noted that the Assessing Officer had initially granted 30 days for filing income returns under section 153C. Set aside the assessment orders. Nullified subsequent demand notices, allowing for a fresh start. | Income Tax | W.P. (C) NOS. 6818, 6827, 6828, 6830, 6832, 6837 AND 6839 OF 2023 | Pratyaksh Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 02-09-2023 | 03-08-2023 | Court Upholds Input Tax Credit Blocking Due to Transactions with Non-Existent Party | Facts:
The petitioner, a wholesale dealer in stainless steel, purchased products from M/s.Kiran Distributors, non-existing party. Initially, the CGST authorities blocked the petitioner's Input Tax Credit of Rs. 18,49,230/- but later unblocked it. The State GST authorities then blocked a sum of Rs. 67,75,144/- under Rule 86A of the TNGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argues that this new blocking is incorrect and has cited a previous court decision to support their case.
Decision: The court decided not to interfere with the State GST authorities' blocking of Rs. 67,75,144/- in Input Tax Credit. The court stated that the previous Punjab and Haryana High Court decision cited by the petitioner is not relevant to this case. The petitioner is allowed to challenge this decision before an Appellate Authority. | GST | W.P. NO. 22196 OF 2023 | Sri Rameswar Metal House v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 31-08-2023 | 17-08-2023 | Tax Treatment of Interest Income Earned by Clubs from FDs in Banks under the Principle of Mutuality | The case pertains to the tax treatment of interest income earned by clubs in India from fixed deposits placed in banks. It questions the applicability of the mutuality principle, which exempts income involving a relationship where contributors and participators are the same. The contention arises when third parties or non-members are involved in handling club funds, potentially eroding the essential condition of mutuality. The court ruled that interest income from fixed deposits in banks is taxable, even if the banks aren't club members. This decision stems from the loss of control over funds when they're invested with banks, enabling them to engage in commercial activities. As a result, the mutuality principle does not hold, and the income is subject to taxation. | Income Tax | CIVL APPEAL NO(S). 5195-5201 OF 2012 | Secundrabad Club etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-V | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 29-08-2023 | 09-08-2023 | On-time refund claims cant be denied if extra documents are requested | Facts: The petitioner filed a refund application within the prescribed period, but subsequent applications were filed to address deficiencies. The tax authority rejected the claim as time-barred based on a circular requiring fresh applications within the limitation period.
Decision: The court held that the initial application filed within the limitation period should not be disregarded. The deficiencies in subsequent applications did not render the initial application invalid. The court allowed the petition, rejecting the rejection of the refund application, and restored the application for consideration on its merits. The challenge to the circular and rule was not pressed. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 871 OF 2022 | National Internet Exchange of India v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 28-08-2023 | 22-08-2023 | Significance of Fair Hearing in Tax Dispute Resolution: Case Analysis | Facts:
No factual disagreements; parties agreed to proceed promptly. Core Issue: The contested order dated 21.03.2023 demanded over Rs. 26 Lacs in taxes for the period between July 2017 and March 2018. The petitioner's central argument was that they were denied an opportunity for a personal hearing before the issuance of this adverse assessment order.
Decision: Ruling hinged on Section 75(4) of the U.P. GST Act and prior ruling precedent (Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals, 2022). Court underscored the Assessing Authority's obligation to provide a personal hearing even when not explicitly requested, particularly when contemplating an adverse decision. Court disregarded petitioner's choice to forgo personal hearing, asserting its legal insignificance. The court annulled the order and instructed the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice, ensuring an equitable hearing process. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 981 OF 2023 | B.L. Pahariya Medical Store v. State of U.P | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 26-08-2023 | 06-01-2023 | Invalid Reopening Notice: High Court Quashes Assessment | Facts: The assessee firm, engaged in yarn and fabric trade, claimed keyman insurance deduction and section 14A exemption. After scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer allowed insurance deduction, disallowed under section 14A, and completed assessment. A notice for income escaping assessment was issued in the name of a non-existent company, alleging errors in keyman insurance relief and section 14A disallowance.
Decision: The High Court found the notice based on previously addressed issues during the initial assessment, making it untenable. The Assessing Officer's change of opinion after initial assessment was invalid, given the exceeded four-year period for reopening. Thus, the High Court quashed the notice and the subsequent order, declaring them legally flawed. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20436 OF 2018 | Shahlon Silk Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 24-08-2023 | 20-03-2023 | Reassessment Invalidated: Lack of Fresh Evidence and Income Escape | Facts:For AY 2015-16, the assessee's ITR was subjected to scrutiny. In response to notice, assessee provided comprehensive details about share capital increase and premiums received. Initial assessment accepted filed income; however, after 4 years, reassessment was initiated. The basis for the reassessment was the alleged inadequacy of material during the original assessment.
Decision: The court noted that original notice queries were effectively addressed by the assessee. The reassessment was found to lack fresh evidence and seemed grounded in a change of opinion. The revenue authorities were unable to demonstrate that there was an escape of income. As a result, the court invalidated the reassessment due to an absence of substantial grounds. The court found the reassessment unconvincing and rejected the claim of escaped income, leading to the decision to quash the reassessment. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19340 OF 2021 | Ball Aerosol Packaging India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 22-08-2023 | 07-08-2023 | Notice Methods and Liability: Section 169 of the CGST Act | Facts:Petitioner aims to halt Revenue Recovery Act proceedings by the first respondent. GST-registered petitioner contests a Rs. 19,22,566/- demand via Ext P1 order after registration cancellation, citing improper notice. Arguments from petitioner's counsel and government pleader were heard.
Decision: Section 169(1) permits various valid methods of serving orders, notices, etc., as interpreted by the Court. Petitioner's claim that GST registration cancellation absolves liability is rejected; Ext P1's presence on the common portal is acknowledged. The Court dismisses the writ petition, upholds Ext P1's validity, and affirms the legitimacy of notice methods in Section 169 of the CGST Act. | GST | WP(C) NO. 21212 OF 2023 | Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 21-08-2023 | 18-08-2023 | Conditional Nature of ITC: Judicial Interpretation and Ruling | Facts:The case concerns Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility when tax liability is fulfilled via a tax invoice, even if the selling dealer doesn't remit the tax to the government. The petitioner challenged an assessment order under Bihar GST Act through a writ petition, filed after the appeal period had lapsed. The petitioner's counsel argued that payments through bank accounts and tax invoices should enable ITC, while the Government Advocate emphasized compliance with Section 16 conditions. Decision:The court rejected petitioner's claim, stressing ITC conditions' fulfillment. It referred to a Supreme Court case highlighting the burden of proof on the purchasing dealer. The court dismissed double taxation argument, stating ITC relies on supplier's tax payment. It ruled ITC as benefit hinging on condition adherence. The court concluded that ITC requires supplier's tax payment, dismissing the claim. It directed parties to bear respective costs. | GST | CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.10395 OF 2023 | Aastha Enterprises v. State of Bihar | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 13-08-2023 | 18-07-2023 | Applicability of voluntary deposit towards pre-deposit requirement. | Facts:
The petitioner, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, complained about GSTN Portal issues preventing them from filing an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act. They made a voluntary CGST deposit under Section 73(5) and sought to use it for pre-deposit compliance under Section 107(6). The dispute revolved around the applicability of the voluntary deposit to fulfill the pre-deposit requirement.
Decision: The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that procedural rules should not obstruct appeal remedies. Referring to VVF India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the court ruled that the voluntary deposit made under protest could be considered for fulfilling the pre-deposit requirement. It granted the petitioner permission to file an appeal within two weeks, allowing adjustments for the pre-deposit, and emphasized the need for adjudication on merits without time limitation objections. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO.17026 OF 2023 | Vinod Metal v. State of Maharashtra | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 08-08-2023 | 25-07-2023 | Challenging Portal Glitches: A Case of Unutilized ITC Transfer | Facts:
The petitioner, an internet service provider, transferred its business and attempted to transfer unutilized ITC of Rs. 3,13,68,997/- under GST rules but faced technical issues with portal. Functionality for Form IT-02 was not available on portal, which was communicated to Authority. But No response was received. Faced with serious working capital issues, assessee manually accepted and availed ITC. After five years, the petitioner received a show cause notice demanding the differential ITC, but their objections were not considered, and order was passed on technicalities.
Decision: The Court found that the Respondent No. 2 had not considered the petitioner's objections and passed the order based on technical grounds. The Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner had an opportunity for a hearing, but the Court disagreed, stating that portal issues should not be a reason for rejection. The Court set aside the order, allowing the Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh order after considering the objections and an opportunity for a proper hearing. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 859 OF 2023 | Tikona Infinet (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 06-08-2023 | 19-06-2023 | Arbitrary Cancellation of CGST Registration | Facts: Respondent No.2 arbitrarily canceled the Petitioner's CGST registration after issuing a show cause notice with extremely short notice and peculiar timing. The Petitioner submitted a reply, but the Joint Commissioner of State Tax provisionally attached their bank account/property during the process. The Petitioner approached the Court, alleging a violation of natural justice, as they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the adverse order was passed. Decision:The Court set aside both the show cause notice and the order canceling the Petitioner's registration, finding Respondent No.2's actions arbitrary and a breach of natural justice. Respondent No.2 is allowed to issue a fresh show cause notice, and the Petitioner must be given an opportunity to reply as per the law. The Court recommended that future show cause notices related to dealer registration should be communicated not only via the Web-Portal but also through e-mail and/or hand delivery for effective communication. | GST | WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36594 OF 2022 | Mayel Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 03-08-2023 | 02-08-2023 | ITC cannot be denied to recipient without due investigation of supplier | Facts: Appellant, a registered dealer, claimed input tax credit (ITC) under WBGST Act for the financial year 2017-18. Some invoices from the supplier were not reflected in the appellant's GSTR 2A. Assistant Commissioner issued notices for ITC recovery without investigating the supplier. The appellant challenged the order, claiming fulfillment of ITC conditions. Decision: The court held that the appellant fulfilled ITC eligibility conditions under Section 16(2) of the Act. Referring to the Bharti Airtel Ltd. case, the court clarified the role of Form GSTR-2A as a facilitator for self-assessment. The court set aside the order of recovery and directed action against the supplier before proceeding against the appellant, except under exceptional circumstances. | GST | MAT 1218 OF 2023 | Suncraft Energy Private Limited And Another Vs Assistant Commissioner, State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 31-07-2023 | 20-07-2023 | Court Quashes Retrospective GST Registration Cancellation | Facts: Petitioner challenged retrospective cancellation of GST registration from 02.07.2017 after applying for cancellation on 20.07.2019 due to business discontinuation in June 2019.
Respondent delayed processing, rejected application on 28.06.2021 for non-filing of returns for six months, leading to Show Cause Notice and cancellation.
Petitioner claimed regular return filing till 30.06.2019, but authority failed to consider business closure; court allowed petition for cancellation from 30.06.2019.
Decision:Court directed authorities to process cancellation application from 30.06.2019, as retrospective cancellation solely for non-filing of post-business cessation returns was unjustified. Authorities could take action post-30.06.2019 if statutory violations found. Petition allowed; GST registration restored from 30.06.2019, considering business closure claim and unjustified retrospective cancellation. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 6652 OF 2023 | Ashish Garg v. Assistant Commissioner of State Goods and Service Tax, Delhi | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 27-07-2023 | 26-07-2023 | Constitutionality and Independent Operation of ITC Claiming Time Limit under Section 16(4) | Facts: Thirumalakonda Plywoods, a sole proprietorship dealing in hardware and plywood, registered under APGST Act and CGST Act during March 2020. Received a notice under Section 74(1) of SGST/CGST Act about the availing of ITC for March 2020 and responded with a detailed reply. The respondent issued a personal hearing notice, claiming the petitioner did not file a proper reply, leading to the court case.
Decision:The time limit for claiming ITC under Section 16(4) of APGST/CGST Act does not violate the Indian Constitution. Section 16(2) of APGST/CGST Act does not override Section 16(4); both provisions operate independently. Late filing of GSTR-3B with fees does not excuse the delay in claiming ITC beyond the specified period under Section 16(4). The court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting contentions about notice issuance and hearing opportunity, as the respondent had already addressed them. No costs were awarded. | GST | Thirumalakonda Plywoods Vs. The Assistant Commissioner | High Court of Andhra Pradesh | |
| 24-07-2023 | 15-06-2023 | Failure to Inform Assessee of Reversed ITC Determination in Show Cause Notice | Facts: The case involves an assessment order under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The issue revolves around the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) deemed ineligible by the Assessing Officer. Prior notices were issued for specific particulars, but the manner of submission and supporting documents caused contention. The Assessing Officer failed to inform the assessee about the determination of the ITC amount to be reversed in the show cause notice leads the Court to set aside the assessment order. Decision: The Court sets aside the assessment order and treats it as a show cause notice. The petitioner must appear on 13th July 2023 with complete supporting details. An order will be passed within six weeks after the hearing, on or before 25th August 2023, considering the materials presented. | GST | W.P.NO.17861 OF 2023 | Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (ST)-II | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 21-07-2023 | 05-07-2023 | Dismissal of GST Demand and Penalty and costs on State | Facts: In a bill-to-ship-to model, seller generated an E-Way Bill that contained the details of the assessee and also specified the place of delivery for the ultimate buyer. There were no discrepancies between the information mentioned in the invoice and the E-Way Bill. Despite this, the authorities proceeded to impose a demand for Goods and Services Tax (GST) and a penalty on the assessee.
Decision: The Court thoroughly evaluated the case and concluded that the imposition of GST demand and penalty on the assessee was unwarranted. The court emphasized that the E-Way Bill, being properly filled with all relevant details, including the ultimate buyer's delivery location, should have been sufficient to demonstrate the legitimate transaction. Moreover, the court acknowledged that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade GST. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, upholding original judgment in favor of the assessee. Cost was imposed on State payable to assessee. | GST | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 20769 OF 2023 | Additional Commissioner Grade-2 v. Sleevco Traders | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 19-07-2023 | 13-06-2023 | Dismissal of Time-Barred Appeal: Examining the Consequences of Filing Delay | Facts: The assessee couldn't file returns on time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the cancellation of their GST registration. The assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority after 209 days, which exceeded the time frame prescribed under Section 107(4). The writ petition argued that the registration was canceled due to the pandemic's impact on the assessee's business. The department contended that the appeal should have been filed within the prescribed time frame, and therefore, it was rejected.
Decision: The Central Goods and Services Tax Act is a self-contained code and a special statute, excluding the application of the Limitation Act. The provisions of a fiscal statute must be strictly construed and interpreted. The appellate authority's rejection of the appeal as time-barred under Section 107(4) was held to be legal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. | GST | WP(C) NO. 15574 OF 2023 | Penuel Nexus (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Headquarters (Appeals) | HIGH COURT OF KERALA |
| 19-07-2023 | 22-03-2023 | Principles of Natural Justice in Reversing Input Tax Credit | Facts: The appellant filed an appeal against an order refusing interim relief but directing affidavits to be filed. The main issue for consideration was whether the respondent department had the authority to direct the appellant to reverse the input tax credit based on the cancellation of registration of the selling dealer without providing details of the cancellation. The appellant argued that previous court decisions, including a Supreme Court judgment and a case reported in (1998) 109 STC 439, supported the proposition that the cancellation of a selling dealer's registration does not automatically give the department the right to reverse input tax credit.
Decision: The court held the department's direction to reverse input tax credit without details was not tenable in law. The appeal and writ petition were allowed, setting aside the communication sent by email. The court directed the department to remit the reversed amount and stated they could take appropriate legal action if necessary. | GST | MAT NO. 221 OF 2023 | Car Chassis Carriers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 17-07-2023 | 15-06-2023 | Detention of Vehicle and Smuggled Poppy Seeds: Court Orders Release of Unrelated Tea Consignment | Facts:The petitioner sought the release of a detained vehicle and its contents, which were initially declared as Ramdana seeds but were found to be smuggled poppy seeds from Nepal.
The consignment was disguised using a bogus invoice, and the authorized signatory of the company claimed ignorance of the true nature of the shipment.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence confirmed the smuggling and expressed no objection to releasing the petitioner's unrelated consignment.
Decision:The court disposed of the writ petition and ordered the release of the vehicle and tea consignment to the petitioner within one week. The petitioner was required to provide an undertaking to cooperate in any further investigations or inquiries. The authorities were granted the liberty to carry out additional investigations regarding the poppy seeds, and if found to be illegally transported, they were permitted to take appropriate legal action. | GST | W.P.A. NO. 729 OF 2023 | Bajaj Parivahan (P.) Ltd. v. Senior Joint Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 11-07-2023 | 13-06-2023 | GST Refund: Assessee Prevails Against Suppliers Mistake | Facts:Assessee's participation in a scrap auction leads to purchase, but supplier fails to report entries in GSTR-2A, resulting in invoice omission. Assessee repays GST charges under protest to avoid cancellation of GST registration. A writ petition is filed by the assessee, seeking a refund of the amount paid. The assessee seeks redressal for the supplier's mistake and requests the return of the refunded amount.
Decision:The assessee's payment of GST charges under protest exempts them from recovery, as the mistake was made by the supplier. The court affirmed the assessee's right to a refund and instructed them to file a claim with the GST department. The writ petition was granted, and the court ordered the department to return the amount while imposing a cost on the supplier. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 14297 OF 2020 | Agrawal & Brothers v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH |
| 10-07-2023 | 16-06-2023 | Reduced Penalty for E-Way Bill Violation: Validity Oversight | Facts:The appellant transported goods to Assam with a valid e-Way Bill, but the vehicle broke down, and the goods remained in West Bengal. The consignee sold the goods while in transit, and a new e-Way Bill was generated for their transportation to Assam. The vehicle was detained, and a 200% penalty was imposed on the appellant for not renewing the earlier e-Way Bill. Decision:The court found the violation not severe enough for a 200% penalty, as the goods had a valid e-Way Bill when intercepted. The penalty was modified to Rs. 50,000, including both CGST and WBGST, with the appellant instructed to pay and recover the remaining amount from the bank guarantee. The court set aside the penalty and directed the authorities to discharge the bank guarantee for the remaining amount. | GST | MAT NO. 1011 OF 2023 | Bitumix India LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax. | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 04-07-2023 | 03-05-2023 | Court Affirms Right to Personal Hearing Despite Assessee Selection of - No | Facts:The assessing authority passed an adverse assessment order without granting the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing. The assessee argued that the assessing authority was obligated to provide a personal hearing as per Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. The department claimed the assessee was denied a hearing based on their selection of "No" for personal hearing in the reply to the show-cause notice.
Decision: The court held that the assessee's selection of "No" for personal hearing does not override the mandatory requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing. The court emphasized the importance of providing minimal opportunity of hearing, even in cases involving significant liabilities, to uphold the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order, remitted the matter to the assessing authority, and directed the issuance of a fresh notice to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 551 OF 2023 | Mohini Traders v. State of U.P | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 04-07-2023 | 16-02-2023 | Court Upholds Fundamental Right to Business Liberty | Facts:The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled due to failure to file returns during the pandemic and a medical emergency. The petitioner's application for revocation and subsequent appeal were rejected on grounds of limitation. The petitioner approached the court seeking protection of their rights and revival of their registration. Decision:The court acknowledged the petitioner's hardships and held that the right to carry on trade and commerce cannot be curtailed contrary to constitutional guarantees. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the cancellation, and declared the petitioner's registration valid, subject to conditions. The court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to provide relief and ensure the petitioner's ability to continue their business. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 11833 OF 2022 | Rohit Enterprises v. Commissioner, State GST | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 29-06-2023 | 18-04-2023 | Dismissal of Writ Petitions - Appellate Remedy Available for Questions Involving Facts | FACTS:
Writ petitions challenged GST assessment orders for different assessment years. Petitioner claimed input tax credit (ITC) for transactions with Star Agencies.
Respondent alleged non-existent trading and issued show cause notices. Petitioner argued violation of natural justice and lack of opportunity to present case.
Decision: Impugned orders showed petitioner's failure to utilize hearing opportunities. Petitioner failed to prove eligibility for ITC or genuineness of transactions. Respondent provided evidence of fake invoices and non-operational premises. The court deemed the petitioner's arguments as factual and appropriate for consideration in an appellate remedy. The writ petitions were dismissed, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks before the Deputy Commissioner (St), with the possibility of condoning the delay. | GST | W.P.(MD) NOS. 7608 AND 7609 OF 2023 | TVL. Veera Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 29-06-2023 | 10-04-2023 | SC Rules No Penalty for Belated Remittance of TDS | FACTS: A software company retained a significant amount of tax deducted at source (TDS) without remitting it to the tax department. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty on the company under section 271C, equal to the amount of TDS retained without remittance. The High Court upheld the penalty, stating that failure to deduct or remit TDS would attract a penalty under section 271C.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that no penalty should be imposed under section 271C for belated remittance of tax deducted at source (TDS) by the assessee. Penal provisions are to be strictly construed, and section 271C(1)(a) applies to cases of non-deduction, not belated remittance. Consequences for belated remittance/payment of TDS are covered under other provisions such as section 201(1A) and section 276B. The court referred to the CBDT's Circular No. 551, which supports the assessee's position. The appeals were allowed. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7934 OF 2011 AND 1258-1260 OF 2019 | US Technologies International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of IT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 24-06-2023 | 03-02-2023 | Invalidity of Unsigned Order: Setting Aside the Impugned Decision | Facts:
The petitioner challenges an order dated 07.06.2022, which raised a demand of Rs. 49,26,623/- under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Prior to the order, a Show Cause Notice was issued, but it lacked specific allegations and was unsigned. The court finds the order dated 07.06.2022 invalid due to the absence of a signature. However, the Show Cause Notice remains valid, and the petitioner is granted a two-week period to file a reply to the notice.
Decision: The order dated 07.06.2022 is set aside due to the absence of a signature, rendering it invalid. The Show Cause Notice, despite lacking specific allegations, is deemed valid. The petitioner is given two weeks to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice. The concerned authority is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's reply and providing an opportunity for a hearing. The petition and pending applications are disposed of in light of the above decisions. | GST | W.P. (C) NO. 872 OF 2023 | Marg ERP Ltd. v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods & Service Tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 24-06-2023 | 24-04-2023 | Violation of Due Process: Simultaneous Notice and Order - A Breach of Statutory Requirement | Facts:
Petitioner's vehicle intercepted on 23.02.2022 due to expired e-way bill.
Penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act for movement without valid e-way bill.
Petitioner's appeal rejected by appellate authority.
Writ petition filed challenging orders of proper officer and appellate authority.
Decision: Penalty imposed by proper officer is illegal due to vehicle breakdown causing delay. Notice and penalty order issued simultaneously without show cause or hearing, violating statutory requirement. Penalty order quashed, matter remanded to Joint Commissioner of State Tax. Petitioner to appear on 05.05.2023, refund of 25% deposit granted within a week. | GST | CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.4924 OF 2023 | Sangam Wires v. State of Bihar | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 22-06-2023 | 21-04-2023 | Analysis of 120 Days vs 4 Months: Filing Period in Legal Context | Facts:
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, dismissing their appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the basis of exceeding the prescribed four-month filing period. The petitioner argued that the authority should have considered sufficient cause for the delay instead of focusing on the 120-day limit. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel did not dispute the legal or factual positions.
Decision: The court observed that the filing period was four months, not 120 days. The calculation of four months could be 121 or 122 days. The court found that the authority should have considered sufficient cause for the delay.The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeal was restored for further consideration. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 96 OF 2023 | Shri Ram Ply Product v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal State Tax | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 18-06-2023 | 24-05-2023 | Petitioner Seeks Refund of Amount Deposited Without Issuance of GST DRC-04 | Facts: Petitioner seeks writ to refund amount recovered without show cause notice or order under Sec 74 of GST Act. Petitioner was forced to deposit tax, interest, and penalty for claimed ITC without proper procedures. Respondents claim the petitioner voluntarily paid the amount after admitting to accepting bills without goods from a specific supplier. Petitioner alleges that no acknowledgment or notice was issued, and respondents failed to follow government instructions and CGST Rules.
Decision:The Court emphasizes that recovery during search should be voluntary, and notices must be issued within the prescribed period. The petitioner made the deposit but did not receive the necessary acknowledgment or notice under Sec 74(1). The respondents did not follow government instructions or Rule 142(2) of CGST Rules. The Court orders respondents to refund amount with interest. | GST | CWP NO. 26529 OF 2022 | Samyak Metals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA |
| 18-06-2023 | 12-06-2023 | Disputing Rejection of ITC Claim Due to Alleged Fake Supplier | Facts: The petitioner challenges the order rejecting their appeal and withholding the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The petitioner, a registered taxable person, claims input tax credit for a purchase from Global Bitumen. They provide relevant documents to support their claim. The respondents argue that the supplier is fake, and the petitioner failed to verify their genuineness and identity. The respondents cancel the supplier's registration with retrospective effect.
Decision:The Court finds that the petitioner verified the supplier's genuineness and complied with statutory obligations. The petitioner's payments were made through bank transactions. The cancellation of the supplier's registration was the sole basis for rejecting the petitioner's claim. The Court sets aside the orders and directs the authorities to reconsider the claim. | GST | W.P.A. 1009 OF 2022 | Gargo Traders v. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (State Tax) | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 09-06-2023 | 25-05-2023 | Bail Granted in Tax Evasion Case | Facts: The petitioner sought regular bail in a tax evasion case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint alleged the petitioner's involvement in a network of fake firms that evaded taxes totaling Rs. 131.96 crores. Co-accused had already been granted bail, and the petitioner argued for release due to a prolonged custody period and ongoing trial.
Decision: The court emphasized that bail should be the exception rather than the rule in economic offence cases. Considering the petitioner's prolonged custody and bail granted to co-accused, the court found further incarceration unnecessary and ordered the petitioner's release on bail. The court directed the petitioner to surrender the passport and warned against any attempts to intimidate witnesses. | GST | CRM-M NO. 38409 OF 2021 | Amrinder Singh v. State of Punjab | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA |
| 09-06-2023 | 03-04-2023 | Insufficient Notice: Violation of Natural Justice in Detention Order | Facts: A conveyance was intercepted, and a notice was issued proposing an addition under the IGST Act.
The assessee replied, stating that the IGST Act was not applicable, but the department issued a revised notice under the CGST/SGST Acts without allowing the assessee to respond.
The department detained the goods under section 129(3) of the CGST Act without hearing the assessee on the subsequent notice.
Decision: The court acknowledged a violation of natural justice in the proceedings and set aside the order of detention. The assessee was directed to appear before the department without further notice, and the department was instructed to pass orders de novo after hearing the assessee. | GST | W.P. NOS. 10371 TO 10373 OF 2023 | Shido Pharma v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 07-06-2023 | 02-01-2023 | Reopening Notice Quashed: Double Consideration of Revisionary Proceedings | Facts:
The assessee-company recorded a debit amount for the diminution in the value of investment in a subsidiary, which was added back as a deduction under normal provisions but not under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions. The Principal Commissioner initiated revisionary proceedings, stating that the deduction should have been added back while computing income under MAT provisions. However, the Principal Commissioner later dropped the revisionary proceedings. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice, citing the same reason for the diminution in value of investment in a subsidiary.
Decision: The High Court held that since the Principal Commissioner already reviewed the assessment order under section 263 and dropped the revisionary proceedings, approving the reopening on the same issue was unwarranted. The reopening notice was deemed to be quashed | Income Tax | SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 34646 OF 2022 | ACIT v. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 07-06-2023 | 18-04-2023 | Challenging Transit Orders: Ownership and Appeals | Facts: The vehicle carrying goods was intercepted during transit, and although all required documents were present, the vehicle number was mistakenly recorded incorrectly in the transit document, leading to the issuance of an order under section 129(3).
The petitioner argued that since the order was directed at the driver, the consigner or consignee would not have the right to challenge it before the appropriate forum.
The department contended that the consigner or consignee could challenge the order by providing ownership documents for the goods.
Decision:The petitioner is not deprived of the right to appeal. The consigner or consignee can challenge the confiscation of goods by presenting supporting documents of ownership, despite the order being addressed to the driver. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 292 OF 2023 | Delhivery Limited v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 03-06-2023 | 10-05-2023 | Striking Down the Cryptic Show Cause Notices | Facts:Writ petition challenges the show cause notices (Annex P-2, Annex P-4) issued under the GST Act, claiming that they lacked essential information and were cryptic in nature. Petitioner argues that the vagueness of the show cause notices hindered their ability to provide a proper response and invalidated subsequent orders. Decision:The court acknowledges the deficiencies in the show cause notices, as pointed out by the petitioner. Quashing the impugned orders and the show cause notices, the court provides the competent authority with the liberty to proceed in accordance with the law. The writ petition is allowed, highlighting the need for clarity and compliance with legal requirements in show cause notices. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 6119 OF 2020 | Balaji Electricals v. Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner State Tax. | HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH |
| 03-06-2023 | 13-04-2023 | Decision on Cryptic Notice: Ensuring Procedural Justice | Facts: The petitioner, a registered Enterprise, received a show cause notice alleging fraud in obtaining registration.
The petitioner challenged it, claiming on ground that same was one line cryptic notice and violation of natural justice.
Another notice was issued for registration cancellation due to non-conduct of business and issuing invoices without supplying goods or services. Decision:The petitioner is granted 15 days to submit a reply and supporting documents. A personal hearing must be scheduled within 15 days after the reply submission. The authority must decide on the merits within three weeks after the completion of the hearing. The court quashes the initial notice and allows the authority to issue a fresh order. The court refrains from expressing an opinion on the facts or merits. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18603 OF 2022 | Rathod Enterprise v. State of Gujarat | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 29-05-2023 | 01-05-2023 | HC upholds tax assessment based on diary entries | Facts:The petitioner was assessed for tax evasion based on documents recovered by the Special Investigation Branch. The petitioner had accepted receiving more advance than was shown in the returns. The appellate authority examined all documents submitted by the petitioner and upheld the assessment order. Decision: The High Court upheld the assessment order that demanded tax and penalty from the petitioner based on the entries found in a diary recovered by the Special Investigation Branch during an inspection. The petitioner had accepted receiving more advance than was shown in the returns, and the appellate authority examined all documents submitted by the petitioner and upheld the assessment order. The court rejected the writ petition as it found no error in the impugned order. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. - 206 OF 2022 | Jalsa Resorts v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 28-05-2023 | 15-05-2023 | Notice under Section 61(3) is not a prerequisite for action under Section 74 | Facts:
The petitioner submitted returns under the GST regime, and the department initiated proceedings under Section 74, claiming a tax shortfall.
The petitioner argued that the department should have pointed out any deficiencies in the returns and given an opportunity to rectify them before proceeding under Section 74.
The petitioner contended that the absence of a notice under Section 61(3) precluded action under Section 74. Decision: Section 61 pertains to the scrutiny of returns, while Section 74 deals with action against deficiencies and tax shortfalls. The court held that a notice under Section 61(3) is not a prerequisite for action under Section 74. The court rejected the argument that deficiency in returns must be pointed out before proceeding under Section 74, as the statutory scheme does not support this contention. The court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal against the decision within two weeks, without raising objections to the limitation. The petition was dismissed, subject to this allowance. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. 336 OF 2023 | Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 28-05-2023 | 03-04-2023 | Expired Bank Account Attachment: Court Decides Delay | Facts:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing business, seeks to remove the provisional attachment of bank accounts and return seized electronic devices.
An inspection in January 2019 alleged violations of the CGST Act, resulting in seizure of documents and the petitioner's arrest.
The attachments on bank accounts expired after one year, and the petitioner's request for mandamus is based on this expiration.
Decision: The court issues a mandamus to remove the attachments, stating they have expired as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The court expresses concern about prolonged attachments, emphasizing the need for timely proceedings and adherence to statutory procedures. The delay of nearly four years in issuing the show-cause notice undermines the justification for continued attachment under Section 83. | GST | W.P.NO. 18776 OF 2020 | Nitesh Jain Mangal Chand v. Senior Intelligence Officer, DG of GST Intelligence | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 24-05-2023 | 05-05-2023 | Release of Detained Goods: Pre-Deposit or Bank Guarantee | Facts: The petitioner's consignment of goods was intercepted and detained by the first respondent, who issued an order of detention.
The detention was based on the allegation that the supplier had wrongly passed on input tax credit, which the petitioner utilized for tax liability on their supplies. The petitioner argued that their movement of goods complied with GST enactments and rules.
Decision:The court concludes that if the supplier has wrongly passed on input tax, it is the Department's responsibility to initiate proceedings for recovery. The penalty imposed on the petitioner should be limited to a maximum of 200% of the tax amount payable. The court directs the petitioner to pre-deposit 200% of the maximum penalty or provide a bank guarantee. Upon furnishing the bank guarantee or making the payment in cash, the detained goods shall be released forthwith. | GST | W.P.NO. 14628 OF 2023 | Haresh Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 24-05-2023 | 21-04-2023 | Time-Barred Appeal Restored: Fresh Proceedings Questioned | Facts: The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal as time-barred by the Senior Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Howrah Circle. The first respondent initiated proceedings and issued an intimation of tax payable, to which the appellant replied, but the matter was left pending. The second respondent initiated fresh proceedings and issued a summary show cause notice without informing the appellant.
Decision: The court concludes that the appeal should not be considered time-barred, as the appellant had responded to the initial intimation and it was not considered or disposed of. The order of the appellate authority is set aside, and the appeal is restored for a decision on merits and in accordance with the law. The court allows the re-crediting of the excess amount deducted from the appellant's electronic credit ledger, which can be requested during the appeal process. | GST | M.A.T. NO. 90 OF 2023, I.A. NO. CAN 1 OF 2023 | SSB Petro Products v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 23-05-2023 | 23-03-2023 | Rectification of E-Way Bill Errors in Assessments: Court Decision | Facts: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the demand and FORM GST DRC-07, quash the attachment of their bank account, and allow them to reply to the show cause notice.
The petitioner generated a tax invoice for Rs. 1,97,047.86, but due to a typographical mistake, the e-Way Bill showed the taxable amount as Rs. 197047086.00.
The assessing authority passed an assessment order for less filing of returns and issued a notice, but no response was received.
Decision: The Court acknowledges the error in the e-Way Bill and suggests that it be brought to the notice of the assessing authority for reconsideration of the assessment order. The assessment order under Annexure-7 is quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, taking into account the petitioner's request and providing an opportunity for a hearing. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 10627 OF 2022 | Jena Trading and Co. v. CT and GST Officer | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 18-05-2023 | 02-05-2023 | Court Quashes Order, Upholds Validity of Input Tax Credit | Facts:
The petitioner-firm challenged the validity of certain sections of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. They also contested an order that rejected their claim for Input Tax Credit, despite the supplier having already paid GST on the materials supplied for the petitioner's road construction business.
Decision: The court acknowledged the fact that the GST had been paid by the suppliers, and the respondent counsel also admitted that this fact was overlooked while passing the initial order. Hence, the court quashed the contested order, instructing the respondent to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court also disposed of the petition seeking to declare the challenged sections as unconstitutional, as the petitioner's counsel was no longer pressing for those reliefs. | GST | D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5141 OF 2023 | Gajrar Singh Ranawat v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 18-05-2023 | 24-03-2023 | GSTIN Cancellation: Court Adjusts Calculation of Late Filing Penalties | Facts:
The petitioner filed a petition requesting a revocation of a penalty imposed due to late filing of GST returns. This delay resulted from the cancellation of GSTIN registration because they hadn't filed their GST returns for over six months. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner, which led them to file the returns. However, their registration was cancelled regardless, leading them to file for its revocation. Decision: The court concluded that the rejection of petitioner's application for revocation of the GSTIN cancellation was unsustainable as it didn't provide any valid reasons for the rejection. The court further stated that petitioner can't be held responsible for not filing its returns during the period when the registration stood cancelled. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating any penalty for the late filing of the returns, the period from 16.10.2020 (when the application for revocation was made) to 22.04.2022 (when the registration was restored) was liable to be excluded. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 10363 OF 2022 | Ishwar Chand Proprietor of Bhagwati Trading Co. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 15-05-2023 | 28-03-2023 | Modification of GST Cancellation Date to Date of Notice | Facts: The petitioner had her GST registration cancelled by the respondents for not filing returns for a continuous six months period.
A show cause notice was issued to her on 11.12.2020, and she did not respond.
Consequently, her GST registration was cancelled from the date it was granted, 01.07.2017.
The petitioner appealed the cancellation but it was rejected as it was filed beyond the stipulated period under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act. Decision: The court noted that the cancellation of the registration with retrospective effect was not mentioned in the show cause notice, hence, the petitioner had no chance to address it. The petitioner agreed that the cancellation could take effect from the date of the show cause notice, 11.12.2020, and not from the initial registration date. The respondents also agreed. Thus, the court ordered that the cancellation would take effect from 11.12.2020, not 01.07.2017. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 14493 OF 2022 | Aditya Polymers v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 12-05-2023 | 12-05-2023 | Gameskraft GST Notice Quashed | The Karnataka High Court on May 12, 2023 quashed a 21000 Crores rupee show cause notice issued to online gaming platform Gameskraft by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The DGGI had issued the notice on September 8, 2022, alleging that Gameskraft had evaded GST of 21000 Crores rupees by not paying the tax on its online gaming services. Gameskraft challenged the notice before the high court, which stayed it after noting that there were several contentious issues in the case. In its order, the high court said that the DGGI had failed to provide any evidence to support its claim that Gameskraft had evaded GST. The court also said that the DGGI had not followed the correct procedure in issuing the notice. As a result, the high court quashed the notice and dismissed the DGGI's demand for GST. | GST | Gameskraft v. DG of GST Intelligence, 2023 KARNATAKA 12 | Gameskraft Technology Private Limited Vs. DG of GST Intelligence | High Court of Karnataka |
| 11-05-2023 | 25-01-2023 | Court Orders Stay on Order Pending Examination of Internal Audit Objection | Facts: The petitioner challenged an order and notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act for long term capital gains earned from the sale of shares, and an assessment was framed on 24-11-2017 under section 143(3) of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were triggered based on an internal audit objection. Decision: The court ordered a stay on the operation of the impugned order and notices for Assessment Year 2015-16, pending examination of the matter as the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner were triggered based on an internal audit objection. The court noted that if the assessing officer had committed an error in law, they could have taken recourse to the provision of Section 263 of the Act at the appropriate time. | Income Tax | CM APPL. NO. 3648 OF 2023 | Kum Kum Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 08-05-2023 | 02-12-2022 | Application Disposed of Due to Negligence | Facts:
Official Liquidator filed an application and submitted a report of misfeasance.
The matter was listed 27 times, with the respondent directed to remain present on every hearing.
Despite multiple adjournments, the Official Liquidator sought the services of a retired Judge but did not pursue the matter further. Decision: The court disposed of the application due to the Official Liquidator's negligence in pursuing the matter. The court noted that the matter had been pending for over 15 years and that the respondent had taken advantage of delay tactics. The court concluded that keeping such stale matters pending would not result in any fruitful action. | Company Law | R/COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2007 | O.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Kirti Jain | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 08-05-2023 | 27-03-2023 | Bankipore Club challenges CGST summons | Facts: The petitioner is a Members Club established in 1865. The club operates on the principles of agency and mutuality. The Superintendent, CGST & CX, Patna issued a summons to the club under Section 70 of the CGST Act to produce documents and give evidence. The petitioner challenged the summons, claiming that the CGST Act was not applicable to it until the amendment introduced in 2021. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Decision: The court did not find any fault with the issuance of summons to the petitioner as it was in accordance with the provisions of Section 70 of the CGST Act. The court allowed the petitioner to plead before the proper officer that it has no tax liability under the CGST Act prior to the amendment. The court directed the competent/proper officer to take into account the said provision of law and any other plea while taking any further decision. | GST | CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 2384 OF 2023 | Bankipore Club Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 08-05-2023 | 18-04-2023 | Quashing of Summary Show Cause Notices | Fact: The High Court of Jharkhand is hearing three writ petitions filed by different companies challenging the proceedings initiated by the State Tax Officer for alleged wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and wrongful distribution of ITC benefit. The court found that no proper show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, in violation of Section 74(1) of the JGST Act, and that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners as required by Section 75(4) and (5) of the Act. Decision: The court quashed the impugned summary of show cause notices and adjudication orders, citing violation of principles of natural justice and the need for a proper opportunity to defend oneself. A summary of a show cause cannot be a substitute of a proper show cause notice. | GST | W.P.(T) NO. 2091 OF 2019 | Vishkarma Industries v. State of Jharkhand | HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND |
| 04-05-2023 | 14-02-2023 | Unsecured Loan Addition Upheld; Assessee Appeal Dismissed | Facts:The appeal concerns the addition of Rs. 45,29,020/- to the taxable income under the head 'unsecured loan' under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT remanded the matter to the AO with specific directions to verify the genuineness of the transaction.
The Assessee did not produce the farmers from whom the unsecured loan was borrowed, and failed to provide confirmation of loan repayment. Decision: The Appellant's argument that the AO should have issued summons to the farmers is not persuasive, as the Assessee did not ask for summons or produce fresh affidavits confirming loan repayment. Cited cases, such as CIT v. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co., India Rice Mills v. CIT, and CIT v. Kewal Krishan, do not help the Appellant as they are distinguishable on facts. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT order and dismissed the appeal. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO.50 OF 2020 | Unideep Food Processing (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 04-05-2023 | 29-03-2023 | Provisional Attachment Limited to Taxable Persons | Facts : 1. The petitioners were not taxable persons or persons specified in Section 122(1A) of the Act. 2. The funds received by them were return of advances and loans that were extended by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners had withdrawn Rs. 12.62 crores from the account of petitioner no. 1 in favour of M/s Hindustan Paper Machinery Industry or Mr. Rajiv Chawla. 4. The respondent had ordered provisional attachment of the savings bank accounts of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it was without jurisdiction. Decision: The court allowed the petitioners' challenge to the impugned order, which provisionally attached their savings bank accounts. The court found that the power under Section 83 of the Act, to provisionally attach assets or bank accounts, is limited to attaching the bank accounts and assets of taxable persons and persons specified under Section 122(1A) of the Act. As the petitioners were not taxable persons, the impugned order could not be sustained. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 3986 OF 2023 | Sakshi Bahl v. Principal Additional Director General | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 01-05-2023 | 28-04-2023 | Supreme Court strikes down pre-import condition | Facts of the case: The case involves the imposition of a "pre-import condition" on the duty exemption scheme for advance authorisation (AA) under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) in India. The condition required importers to pay the integrated goods and services tax (IGST) before exporting, and was found to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of India. Decision: The Supreme Court of India struck down the notification that imposed the "pre-import condition" and allowed the Revenue's appeals, subject to the condition that the respondents can claim refunds or input credit by approaching the jurisdictional commissioner and applying with documentary evidence within six weeks from the date of the judgment. The court held that the subsequent notification withdrawing the pre-import condition cannot be given retrospective effect. | GST | CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 290, 292 TO 298 AND 303 OF 2023 | Union of India v. Cosmo Films Limited | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 01-05-2023 | 10-04-2023 | Penalty not leviable for belated TDS remittance | Facts of the case: The case pertains to the levy of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for belated remittance/payment/deposit of TDS. The assessees appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessees' appeals by holding that imposition of penalty under Section 271C was unjustified and reasonable causes were established by the assessee for remitting the TDS belatedly. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessees' appeals, and the High Court allowed the Revenue's appeals by holding that failure to deduct/remit the TDS would attract penalty under Section 271C of the Act, 1961. Decision: The Supreme Court of India ruled that no penalty shall be levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for belated remittance/payment/deposit of TDS. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court were quashed and set aside. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7934 OF 2011 AND 1258-1260 OF 2019 | US Technologies International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 29-04-2023 | 29-03-2023 | Transfer of Funds to genuine Sahara Depositors | The Union of India filed an application to transfer Rs. 5,000 Crores from the unutilized amount of Rs. 23,937 Crores in the Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to disburse the legitimate dues of Sahara Group Cooperatives Societies depositors. The court directed the transfer of Rs. 5,000 Crores from the Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies for disbursement to genuine depositors. Justice R. Subhash Reddy would supervise and monitor the disbursement, and Gaurav Agarwal appointed as Amicus Curiae would assist him. The court also directed payment of Rs. 15 lakhs per month to Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Rs. 5 lakhs per month to Gaurav Agarwal. The amount should be paid to genuine depositors within nine months. | COMPANY LAW/SEBI | IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 191 OF 2022 | Pinak Pani Mohanty v. Union of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 29-04-2023 | 24-04-2023 | Loss incurred for an unlawful purpose or prohibited by law cannot be deducted as an expenditure. | The phrase "any expenditure" as stated in Section 37 encompasses losses that are incurred during the course of business and are related to it. However, if the loss is incurred for an unlawful or prohibited purpose, it cannot be considered as an expenditure and cannot be deducted under Explanation 1 to Section 37. Additionally, losses resulting from penalties or confiscation cannot be claimed as a deduction as they are not incidental to any business. To summarize, Section 37 includes losses incurred during the course of business, but losses incurred for illegal purposes are not deductible under Explanation 1 to Section 37. Losses resulting from penalties or confiscation cannot be claimed as a deduction as they are not incidental to any business. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7689-90 OF 2022 | Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prakash Chand Lunia (D) Thr. Lrs. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 29-04-2023 | 20-04-2023 | HC cites lack of fresh material as reason for non-opening of assessment. | The Gujarat High Court ruled that the re-opening of an assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the 2015-2016 tax year was impermissible as there was no fresh tangible material distinct from what was made a part of the assessment proceedings. The court found that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in appeal over the decision of his predecessor and that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee. The court noted that during the course of assessment, the issue relating to bad and doubtful debt and write off of bad debt was specifically explained. Therefore, the attempt to re-open the assessment beyond the period of four years was not justified. | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19336 OF 2021 | Axis Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1)(1) | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 28-04-2023 | 31-01-2023 | Court Rules Taxing Authority Failed to Prove E-Way Bill Reused | The petitioner challenged an order imposing tax and penalty on them and another order rejecting their appeal. The case involved a transport vehicle carrying the petitioner's goods that was intercepted due to discrepancies in the invoice and e-way bill. The petitioner argued that the goods were damaged during transportation, repacked, and sent again with the same invoice and e-way bill. The tax and penalty were paid under protest.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the taxing authority had a duty to provide positive evidence of e-way bill reuse and cited a relevant judgment. The court found that the seizing authority did not provide evidence of e-way bill reuse in this case. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. | GST | WRIT C. NO. 31593 OF 2019 | BI Agro Oils Ltd. v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 24-04-2023 | 06-02-2023 | Technical Glitch on Income Tax Portal: Court Quashes Assessment Order | In this case, the petitioner filed its return of income, received a notice seeking to reassess its income, and claimed that it did not have access to the notice on the income tax portal. The petitioner also received a non-speaking order disposing of its objections and subsequently received a final assessment order with a demand notice and notice of penalty. The court held that the absence of the notice on the web portal due to a technical glitch prevented the respondent from fulfilling its statutory obligation to serve notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the court quashed and set aside the order of assessment and relegated the matter to the authority concerned from the stage of issuance of notice under section 142(1). | Income Tax | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7661 OF 2022 | SP Developers v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income-tax Officer | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 20-04-2023 | 13-04-2023 | Assessee Wins Appeal; Prior Period Expenses Deduction Allowed | In this case, the assessee claimed prior period expenses adjustment in the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses, stating the assessee did not follow the mercantile system of accounting. The assessee appealed, arguing that the expenses were deductible as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and that expenditure though related to earlier period got crystallized during year. The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim, and the revenue failed to disprove the explanation provided by the assessee. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the ruling was in favor of the assessee. | Income Tax | TAT NO. 259/2022 IA NO. GA/02 OF 2022 | Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 20-04-2023 | 20-01-2023 | Natural Justice Violations Addressed in Tax Appeal Case | The petitioner sought relief against orders that rejected their Input Tax Credit claim and imposed tax penalties. The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal on grounds of limitation. The court identified violations of natural justice, including not affording sufficient time to the petitioner to represent their case, and insufficient reasoning in the orders passed.
The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits, complying with principles of natural justice. The petitioner was to deposit a percentage of the demand raised, and their bank account was ordered to be de-frozen. The Assessing Authority was to pass a fresh order, with both parties given the liberty to challenge the order or take other legal recourse as needed. | GST | CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.642 OF 2023 | Himanshu Traders v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF PATNA |
| 15-04-2023 | 10-04-2023 | Deduction under Section 80-IB for Duty Drawback and DEPB Schemes | The case discusses the taxability of incentives received by industrial undertakings, such as Duty Drawback and DEPB Schemes, under the head of "Profits and gains of business or profession". The court determines that such income cannot be considered "derived from" the industrial undertaking and therefore is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The incentives are considered ancillary profits and belong to the category of separate items of revenue or income. The case cites the decision in Liberty India to support this view. The court held that such benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertakings for the purposes of Sections 80-I/80-IA/80-IB of the 1961 Act. The court dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs. | Income Tax | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4822 OF 2022 | Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income-tax | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 15-04-2023 | 02-02-2023 | Court Deems Premature Challenge to GST Rate Classification, Awaits Reply | The petitioner challenges a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017, arguing that the respondents predetermined the classification of their goods, resulting in an 18% GST rate. The petitioner claims their goods are exclusively for Railways and should be under Chapter 86 with a lower GST rate.
The court states a show cause notice can be challenged on grounds of jurisdiction, authority, or predetermination. The petitioner cites a Supreme Court judgment, but the respondents argue that the goods can be used for other purposes. The court deems the petition premature and directs the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice. The respondents must then pass final orders on the merits uninfluenced by the court's observations in this order. | GST | W.M.P. NO.2649 OF 2023 | Coimbatore Compressor Engineering Company (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| 10-04-2023 | 29-03-2023 | Cellular Company Wins Deduction, Losses Dismissed | The assessee-company, a cellular telecommunication service provider, claimed a 100% deduction under Section 80-IA for the assessment year 2005-06. Due to a shareholding change in 2001-02, accumulated losses from 1997-98 to 2001-02 lapsed under Section 79. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that losses before 2001-02 should be set off against current income. The High Court ruled that the lapsed losses couldn't be carried forward and set off against profits when computing the deduction under Section 80-IA(1). The petition against the decision was dismissed, but eligibility and set off of losses for subsequent years were left open. The judgment favored the assessee. | Income Tax | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 7912 OF 2023 | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-8 v. Vodafone Essar Gujrat Ltd. | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 10-04-2023 | 09-03-2023 | Court Remands GST Registration Cancellation for Reconsideration | The petitioner sought to quash orders canceling their GST registration for not filing returns for over six months.
The petitioner was a proprietary concern providing professional actress services, registered under GST laws.
The petitioner's appeal had been rejected, stating the application for revocation had expired. The court referred to a similar case, "Nithya Constructions v. Union of India." Following precedent, the court remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for reconsideration. The petitioner was to be given a fair opportunity to be heard and allowed to submit relevant returns. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO. 6331 OF 2023 | Balatripurasundari Anjali Saridevs v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Tax | HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA |
| 05-04-2023 | 07-03-2023 | Issuing Officer Exceeded Power in Directing to Stop Payments Under GST Act | The writ petition challenges a notice issued under Section 70(1) of the GST Act, directing M/s. Sterlight Technologies Limited to stop all further payments to the petitioner until clearance is given by the issuing officer. The petitioner's counsel argues that such a direction is beyond the jurisdiction of the issuing officer. The government pleader admits that the concerned officer may not have the power to issue such a direction under Section 70(1) but argues that such power is conferred under Section 83 of the GST Act. The court holds that the impugned notice was issued under Section 70(1) and not Section 83 and therefore the issuing officer has exceeded his power. The court sets aside the impugned portion of the notice and allows the officer to proceed in accordance with the law in other aspects of the notice. The interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. | GST | WRIT PETITION NO.4663 OF 2023 | Sri Sai Balaji Associates v. State of Andhra Pradesh | HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| 03-04-2023 | 23-03-2023 | Importance of Providing Sufficient Reasons for Withholding Refund | OYO, a reputed company with a large net-worth running into several billion dollars, filed a petition seeking directions for the disbursal of a refund and interest. The court ruled that the department had failed to provide sufficient reasons for withholding the refund, and that the fact that the company was under scrutiny was not a sufficient reason to withhold the refund. The department has been ordered to conduct a fresh review of the case within six weeks. The petitioner's creditworthiness is not in dispute, and the company has been a tax assessee for several years. The court also emphasized that the excess collection of tax is a liability of the State. | Income Tax | W.P.(C) NO. 16698 OF 2022 | OYO Hotels & Homes (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 03-04-2023 | 23-03-2023 | Delhi High Court Rules on GST Refund Eligibility for Overseas Services | Ernst and Young filed a petition in High Court challenging the rejection of its refund applications for input tax credit (ITC) in respect of export of services. The Adjudicating Authority denied the refund of ITC on the premise that the petitioner is an 'intermediary' and thus, the place of services is located in India. The High Court held that the petitioner was not an intermediary as it had provided the services directly to the overseas entities and had not arranged or facilitated the supply of services from a third party and also that it falls within the scope of the definition of 'export of services'. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 8600 OF 2022 | Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Appeals-IT | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 29-03-2023 | 31-01-2023 | No GST Tribunal: reason for Appeal against order of cancellation of registration could not be rejected | The petitioner's Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was canceled by respondent No.4 due to non-filing of GST returns for six months. After an unsuccessful appeal, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The court noted Since no Tribunal was constituted in the State of Telangana as per Section 112 of the Act, the petitioner filed a writ petition. A similar case, M/s. Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals-1), where the matter was remanded to the primary authority for reconsideration. Following this precedent, the court set aside the orders canceling the petitioner's GST registration and the dismissal of their appeal. The matter was remanded to respondent No.4 for a fresh decision, granting the petitioner a hearing opportunity and allowing them to submit GST returns during the remand proceedings. | GST | W.P. NO. 2471 OF 2023 | Southern Enterprises v. Appellate Joint Commissioner ST | HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA |
| 29-03-2023 | 10-01-2023 | Corporate Debtor Dispute: Service Quality and Payment Default | The operational creditor-appellant provided security services to the corporate debtor-respondent. The respondent placed a work order for security guards, and the appellant sent monthly invoices based on the agreed terms and conditions. The respondent defaulted on an outstanding payment, leading the appellant to issue a demand notice under section 8. In response, the respondent claimed pre-existing disputes and poor service quality by the appellant, which caused theft and property damage. These service deficiencies were communicated to the appellant via email before the notice was received. The appellant filed a section 9 application against the respondent, but the NCLT dismissed it, citing a pre-existing dispute between the parties. | Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code | COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (INS.) NO. 1470 OF 2022 | Talbot & Company v. Austin Distributers (P.) Ltd. | NCLAT, NEW DELHI |
| 27-03-2023 | 08-03-2023 | Writ petition challenges notice to reopen assessment based on vague cash deposit information | The Court set aside a notice to reopen assessment. The notice was based on vague and ambiguous information related to cash deposits from different places, which lacked a live link to the purported income. The court found that the respondent had not applied their mind before granting approval under section 151 of the IT Act. The petitioner argued that the cash deposit mentioned in the affidavit in reply was for a period that did not fall under the year under consideration. The court also noted that the cash deposits were not a large sum that would lead to a belief that the income had escaped assessment. The court found no new tangible material as contended by the respondents and no live link or nexus between the information received and the income escaping assessment. | Income Tax | WRIT PETITION NO. 1798 OF 2022 | Digi1 Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-13(2)(2) | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| 27-03-2023 | 03-03-2023 | Penalty for Transporting Goods without Valid E-way Bill: No Scope for Appreciating the Reason. | The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill. The petitioner claimed that the delay in issuing the gate pass caused the e-way bill to expire. The court held that the Act is clear on the issue of transporting goods without a valid e-way bill. There is no provision to transport goods with an expired e-way bill. The court dismissed the writ petition. Transportation of goods with a proper e-way bill is a salient feature of the Act. There is no scope to dilute this provision of law for granting relief to an errant transporter. The authority is not supposed to appreciate the reasons as to why the vehicle was moving without a valid e-way bill. | GST | W.P.A. 3374 OF 2022 | Abinash Kumar Singh v. State of West Bengal | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 25-03-2023 | 25-01-2023 | Court quashes income tax notices due to non-compliance with jurisdiction transfer provisions. | The petitioner challenged notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2013-14. The challenge was based on the transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to Balasore. The petitioner had been filing returns in Bhubaneswar and Kolkata. Objections were filed when the jurisdiction was shifted to Balasore. The court found that the transfer was done without complying with section 124(4) of the Income-tax Act. The impugned notices were quashed by the court. The court clarified that the petitioner would continue to be within the jurisdiction of the relevant Income-tax Circle at Kolkata. The case highlights the importance of complying with relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act when transferring jurisdiction. | Income Tax | W.P. (C) NOS. 5586 & 7861 OF 2016 | Biswajaya Dagara v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 23-03-2023 | 13-03-2023 | Burden is upon the purchasing dealer to prove while claiming ITC | The purchasing dealer had produced the invoices or payment by cheques to claim ITC. The Assessing Officer had doubted the genuineness of the transactions. The registration of the selling dealers had been cancelled or even the sale by the concerned dealers had been disputed. It was held that over and above the invoices and the particulars of payment in absence of cogent material like furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. and the actual physical movement of the goods by producing the cogent materials, the Assessing Officer was absolutely justified in denying the ITC, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Authority. | GST | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2023 | The State of Karnataka Versus M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited | THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 21-03-2023 | 15-11-2022 | Activity related or incidental but not carried out at site in source country is not to be construed as a PE | Clause (g) of Article 5(2) of India Cyprus Treaty ostensibly refers to activity based PE, because the main emphasis is on "where such site project or activity continues for a period of more than 12 months". On the facts and material on record and in view of reasoning given which is in consonance and in line with the principle laid down in the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it was held that threshold period of 12 months have not exceeded in the present case and consequently no PE can be said to have been established in Article 5(2)(g). Accordingly, it was held that no income of the assessee on the Contract executed by assessee in India can be held to be taxable in terms of Article 7. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NOS. 90 OF 2019 & 357 OF 2022 | Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation-1 v. Bellsea Ltd | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 19-03-2023 | 23-02-2023 | Correction of entries wrongly taken in B2C instead of B2B allowed | The Petitioner before Court seeks a direction to Opposite Parties to permit Petitioner to rectify the GST Return filed for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 i.e. on 16th October 2017, 25th November 2017, 30th January 2018 and 30th March, 2019 in Form-B2B instead of B2C as was wrongly filed under GSTR-1 in order to get the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit by the principal contractor. In similar circumstances, the Madras High Court in its order dated 6th October, 2020 in Writ Petition No.29676 of 2019 (M/s. Sun Dye Chem v. The Assistant Commissioner ST) accepted the plea of the Petitioner. Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected GSTR-1 because if it is not permitted, then the Petitioner will unnecessarily be prejudiced and there will be no loss caused to Opposite Parties. | GST | W.P.(C) NO.12232 OF 2021 | Y. B. Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF ORISSA |
| 18-03-2023 | 16-01-2023 | Offline appeal due to glitches in GST portal - is a valid appeal | The Act has granted right to every person, who is aggrieved by an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority to approach the appellate forum as envisaged under Section 107. The act of the respondents in not entertaining the appeal offline is an act from stopping the assessee from getting his right adjudicated as provided under the Act. The view was taken by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ali Cotton Mill interpreting Rule 108 to the extent that in case of notification not issued by the Chief Commissioner, it will be presumed that other mode is only through offline. This Court finds that the taxing authorities cannot stop any assessee from claiming his statutory right, as provided under this Act in the garb of technicality. | GST | WRIT TAX NO. - 1027 OF 2022 | Yash Kothari Public Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. | HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD |
| 21-03-2023 | 17-01-2023 | Natural justice by Appellate Authority is No cure Lack of natural justice by Adjudicating Authority. | Refund was rejected by the authority without providing opportunity of hearing. It was held that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority only on account of the fact that it had provided opportunity of hearing, did not interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority, both the orders cannot be sustained. As this would encourage the tendency of the authorities to give a short shrift to the proceedings before them. | GST | CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5460 OF 2020 | Chandni Crafts v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 19-03-2023 | 02-11-2022 | When a direction issued by High Court, the Tribunal is expected to follow in pith and substance | The direction of the High Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal was to verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of the City and for that purpose, if necessary to take the help of the Revenue Authority. The ITAT without taking help of the Revenue Authority simply remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for the purposes of recording finding with regard to the distance of the land in question from the outskirts of the city of Jaipur. This is completely in derogation of the spirit of the order of the High Court. It was held that the ITAT manifestly erred in remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority instead of recording the finding with regard to the distance of the land itself. | Income Tax | IT APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2020 | Pooja Agarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax | HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN |
| 18-03-2023 | 20-01-2023 | Delay in filing Appeal within prescribed period on account of illness was condoned | The assessee was ill and appeal was not filed within prescribed period. The appellate authority was of the opinion that the period of one month beyond the statutory period of limitation is available to the said authority, which expired on 30th June, 2022 and the appeal was presented only on 17th August, 2022 and therefore, the appeal is barred by the law of limitation. It is not a case that deliberately the appellant had presented the appeal beyond the condonable period. Therefore, it was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court can examine the factual circumstances and grant appropriate relief as the appellate remedy is a very valuable remedy since the appellate authority can re-appreciate the factual position. | GST | M.A.T. NO.1924 OF 2022 I.A. NO.CAN 1 OF 2022 | Kajal Dutta v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax | HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA |
| 17-03-2023 | 25-01-2023 | The show cause notice must clearly state the allegations that the concerned noticee has to meet. | The petitioner assailed impugned SCN on ground that it does not disclose any reason for proposing cancellation of its registration and therefore none that could be addressed by the petitioner. According to respondent, the portal reflected the reason in the remarks column which does not form a part of the impugned SCN communicated to the petitioner. It was held that The show cause notice must clearly state the allegations that the concerned noticee has to meet. This being the essence of a show cause notice, any notice that does not qualify this criterion, cannot be considered as a show cause notice. | GST | W.P.(C) NO. 17626 OF 2022 | VDR Colors and Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF DELHI |
| 16-03-2023 | 02-03-2023 | Experts Commitee set up by SC to probe Adani shares crash | The petition concerns the loss of investor wealth in the
securities market over the last few weeks because of a steep decline in the share
price of the Adani Group of companies. The decline in the share price was precipitated by a report published by Hindenburg Research on 24 January 2023. SC appoints a 6 members expert committee to probe into this matter. The Expert Committee shall be headed by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Also directs SEBI to study the stock market crash. | Corporate Law | Writ Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023 | Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 13-03-2023 | 22-02-2023 | Rejection of refund by Appellate Authority for not mentioning name and GSTIN of supplier in shipping bill was not sustainable as refund was granted after due verification. | The petitioner exported certain goods through valid Exporter and, therefore, applied for refund. The petitioner also submitted documents in support of the refund claim. The said application was sanctioned by an order dated 26.3.2019 sanctioning the refund of the petitioner. However, the CGST department being dissatisfied with the said refund order preferred an appeal against the said order on the ground that the Exporter had not mentioned the name and GST Number of petitioner and was not mentioned in the shipping bill. However, subsequently, upon a request made by the petitioner, revised form was submitted by the Exporter. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for the refund granted by the Authority as refund was granted considering the factual aspect of the matter. It is also true that subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, correct form was submitted by the Exporter to the authority. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9860 OF 2020 | Apex Formulations (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
| 11-03-2023 | 27-02-2023 | Part pre-deposit of disputed amount cant be imposed as condition for grant of anticipatory bail | Offence was availing ITC based on fake documents. In an identical matter in Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023, Subhash Chouhan v. Union of India, the Court vide Judgment dated 20.01.2023 set aside the order passed by the High Court imposing a condition of deposit while granting bail to the appellant therein. It was held in present case, appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail without imposing condition of deposit at least half of the revenue loss of Rs. 14.68 Crores to the state exchequer as suggested by Learned Additional Solicitor General. Also it is held that in case the appellant is arrested, he shall be liable to be released forthwith, subject to such terms and conditions which the Trial Court/Investigating agency may deem fit and proper to impose. | GST | CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2023 | Rajesh Kumar Dudani v. State of Uttarakhand | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| 09-03-2023 | 18-01-2023 | Coercive reversal of ITC during search to be refunded back. | Department reversed the ITC in the electronic credit ledger and corrosively and illegally filed Form DRC03 under Section 74(5), although it was not voluntary. According to the petitioner, there is no tax evasion and there arises no question of admitting any wrong doing. It also found the Instruction sidesteps direction contained in order of Bhumi Associate v. Union of India MANU/GJ/0174/2021, which states that even if the assessee comes forward to make voluntary payment in the prescribed form i.e., GST DRC-03, he/she should be advised to file the same the day after the search has ended. It is held that the revenue is required to reverse the ITC to the tune of Rs. 37,68,300/- along with 6% interest. | GST | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4026 of 2022 | Shree Ganesh Molasses Trading Co. v. Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner | HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT |
