Adjudicating Authority's Inaction To Dispose Of Proceedings Can't Be Attributed To Taxpayer In Absence Of Any Malice On His Part: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court ruled that when the Revenue Dept. did not allege any malice on the part of Assessee in the context of disposal of the proceedings, then inaction on the part of Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the proceedings cannot be attributed to Assessees.Finding that the Authority had passed the final order after a lapse of more than 16 years from the date of CESTAT's order, the Division Bench of Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe and Justice M.S Sonak observed that such inordinate delay in...

Appeal Can't Be Dismissed Due To Non-Payment Of Pre-Deposit If Department's Portal Acknowledges Compliance: Bombay High Court

Observing that provisional acknowledgement automatically generated on Department portal shows that the requisite pre-deposit has been made, the Bombay High Court held that the Assessee had duly complied with the necessary pre-deposit required u/s 107(6) of the CGST Act.The Division Bench of Justice M.S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that in a similar matter in Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt Ltd vs. UOI [W.P (L) No.23724 of 2024], it was held by this court that “On the amount of...

Asset Deposited By Corporate Debtor As Security Before CIRP Commencement Continues To Be Asset Of Corporate Debtor: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that monies or any other asset deposited by a corporate debtor in court prior to commencement of CIRP by way of security would continue to be the asset of the corporate debtor.Brief Facts:The Appellant (Corporate Debtor) was directed to pay Rs. 12 lakh as damages along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a to the Respondent in a judgment dated 13.06.2016. In an appeal challenging the said judgment, an...

Taxpayers Can't Seek Writ Remedy By Bypassing Statutory Requirements Of Pre-Deposit: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that circumstances in which the appeals require some percentage of the demanded tax to be pre-deposited, do not render the appellate remedies any less efficacious.The High Court held so while considering an issue as to whether the demands are covered under the exemption notification or the notification providing for nil rate of taxes. The Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the practice of instituting petitions bypassing the...

Customs Act | Interest U/S 28AA Is Automatic When There Is A Default Or Delay In Payment Of Duty: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court ruled that the demand for interest u/s 28AA of the Customs Act raised for non-payment of demand, within three months of raising the demand, is properly tenable on the part of the Customs Authority.Interest u/s 28AA is automatic, when there is a default or delay in payment of duty, added the Court. Section 28AA of the Customs Act provides that any judgment, decree, order or direction of any Court or Appellate Tribunal or in any other provision of the said Act or the rules...

Writ Courts Shall Not Act As Court Of Appeal Against Decision Of Lower Court Or Tribunals To Correct Errors Of Fact: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently clarified that writ courts shall not trench upon an alternate remedy provided by statute (Income tax Act) for granting any relief, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Similarly, writ courts shall not act as a court of appeal against the decision of the lower court or Tribunals, to correct errors of fact, observed the Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain. Facts of the case: A show cause notice (SCN) was issued...