Case title: Ernst & Young, US LLP v ACIT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the show cause notice cannot be denied due to a one-day time limit.
Case title: Shubham Thakral v ITO
Delhi High Court Bench consisting of Judge Manmohan and Judge Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora referred the case to the Assessing Officer as only 3 days were given to respond to the Tax Notice on revenue.
Case title: Indo Enviro Integrated Solution Limited versus ACIT
The Delhi High Court bench of Judge Manmohan and Judge Manmeet Pritam Singh stayed an income tax assessment order and consequent application and penalty notice, which were challenged on the ground that they violated the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Bombay High Court
Case title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
The Bombay High Court ruled that the recipient of the service is liable to pay GST to the government on the interest under an arbitrary decision and that it cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.
The Single Chamber of Judge BP Colabawalla observed that the service tax is an indirect tax and it is possible that it will be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to transfer their liability for service tax.
Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willful and willful concealment of his income by failing to file his tax return on time, even after the late submitted return by the assessee has been accepted by the tax authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is issued.
The Single Bench of Judge G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee only came to light after an investigative operation had been carried out and the assessee had not filed his declaration only after a legal notice had been issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing their income tax return on time.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Case Title: Sanjay Trading Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh refused to order the re-measurement of the stockpile of charcoal in the premises as the research team obtained the signatures of those present during the performance of the Panchanama.
The divisional bench of Judge Sheel Nagu and Judge Maninder S. Bhatti went through the panchanama and observed that on the date of the search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty were filed by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock, and so there was no question of any sort of seizure.
Case Title: M/s Saisanket Enterprise v Advance Ruling Authority
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that the application under Section 97 of the CGST Act for obtaining the advance ruling cannot be filed with the Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) while the matter is pending before the authority and after receipt of the notice. .
The divisional bench of Judge Vivek Rusia and Judge Amar Nath observed that the petitioner approached the authority to obtain the advance ruling only after a search during which the escape of the SGST was noted, which resulted in the issuance of a justification. to remark. By the notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay the remaining amount of GST/SGST and submit the response. Since the petitioner has not paid the 18% GST, the matter is being treated as pending before the authorities.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: ADI Enterprises v Union of India
The Gujarat High Court Bench consisting of Justice AJ Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia ordered the department to reimburse the IGST on the ocean freight with interest.
Meghalaya High Court
Case title: Jaguar Overseas Limited v Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 20
The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that if a contractor/bidder does not accept the names of the prospective arbitrators who are on the list prepared by the bidder, the list cannot be enforced as there would always be justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality. appointed arbitrators.
The Single Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee held that even if a person is appointed as an arbitrator in the arbitration agreement entered into before the dispute arose, and whose appointment would otherwise be contrary to the Seventh Schedule, a party is not prevented from objecting to the agreed arbitrator taking reference. The Court added that the proviso in section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (A&C Act) specifically refers to a post-dispute waiver of the applicability of the Seventh Schedule and no to a pre-litigation waiver.
Case Title: Naveen Tyagi v ITO
The Delhi Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of CN Prasad (Judicial Member) observed that a reassessment cannot be made until there is notice .
Case title: Shri Satyawan v ITO
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of CN Prasad (Judicial Member) observed that if the assessment officer does not make any addition on the primary ground on the basis which the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act were initiated, he cannot make any further additions.
Case title: DCIT versus M/s. Mineral Management Services India Pvt. ltd.
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appeals Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the sanction proceedings as the notice issued to the assessee did not mention any categorical indication of specific breach with respect to the provision inaccurate details or concealment of particular income.
The two-member bench headed by GS Pannu (Chairman) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) observed that in the Assessment Order and the Sanction Order, there is apparent ambiguity as to the underlying reason for the sanction. The notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act was also found to be defective as it was unclear as to which branch the penalty was imposed.
Case title: Aditya Saraf HUF v ITO
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) consisting of Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) upheld the addition on the grounds that there had been an astronomical increase in the share price in due to price manipulation and rigging.
Business Title: Jain Peripherals Pvt. ltd. Versus DCIT
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the issue of authenticity of purchases will only be applicable if the purchases belong to the current year.
The two-member bench of Anubhav Sharma (judicial member) and Shamim Yahya (accounting member) observed that while the department is of the opinion that purchases were made in previous years but now liability has ceased to exist, dismissal can only be made if persuasive evidence is on file for cessation of liability.
Case title: M/s. Rane Industries Pvt. ltd. Versus DCIT
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT) Income Tax Appeal Tribunal (ITAT), headed by RS Syal (Deputy Chairman) and Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member ), waived the penalty on the grounds that the excess deduction claim was made due to an honest and unintentional error.
Case Title: M/s Seher v Service Tax Commissioner, Delhi – II
The Delhi bench of CESTAT reiterated that service tax cannot be levied on the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the service provider.
The bench, consisting of Judge Dilip Gupta (Chairman) and PV Subba Rao (Technical Member), held that since Rule 5 of the Service Tax Rules (Determination of Value), 2006 was deemed ultra vires by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. ltd. (2018), the nature of the services makes no difference and that no service tax can be levied on refunds.
Case title: M/s. International Seaport Dredging Pvt. ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appeal Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unused education tax and Krishi Kalyan Cess to the CENVAT account.
Case Title: Tega Industries Limited v CCE and ST-Vadodara
The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT ruled that if a unit of a company is located in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), said SEZ unit should be treated as having a separate identity from other units of said company which are located outside the SEZ.
Therefore, the Single Court of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair held that a claim for a refund of service tax paid by a SEZ unit on services received by it from its units located in an Inland Tariff Area (DTA) cannot could be refused, even if the SEZ unit was not a separate legal entity.
Applicant Name: M/s Mody Education Foundation
The Advance Ruling Authority bench of Rajasthan, consisting of Vikas Kumar Jeph and MS Kavia, has ruled that GST is not payable on the movement of goods between two units working under the same GSTIN.
Name of Applicant: M/s Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited
The Uttarakhand Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) consisting of Anurag Mishra and Rameshvar Meena has ruled that no GST is payable on the work of ‘Shaheed Dwar’ in Banjarawala, Dehradun.
Name of Applicant: M/s. Dry Blend Foods Pvt Ltd
The Uttarakhand Advance Ruling Authority (AAR) consisting of Anurag Mishra and Rameshvar Meena has ruled that GST is not payable on the basis of Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on the commission paid to the overseas commission agent.