Bombay High Court
GST Law Does Not Bar More Than One Refund Application, Especially In Case Of Inadvertent Lapse: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has recently held that a GST refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the taxpayer had earlier filed another refund application for a broader tax period, where the later claim was filed within the limitation period and there is no statutory bar against such a claim. Referring to Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which governs refund claims, the Court said: “Section 54 does not provide any bar for a party to maintain more than one application,...
"Fishing Inquiry": Bombay High Court Upholds Quashing Of Income Tax Revision Against Impact Foundation
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against Impact Foundation (India), holding that revisionary proceedings under the Income Tax Act could not be sustained merely because the Commissioner believed the assessing officer should have conducted further enquiry. “The ITAT has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the CIT (Exemptions), could not have initiated proceedings with a view to start de novo or a fishing inquiry in matters or orders which are...
Bombay High Court Quashes Post-Merger GST Demand Against Vodafone Mobile Services
The Bombay High Court has recently held that GST proceedings initiated against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. after it ceased to exist due to its merger with Idea Cellular Ltd. and Vodafone India Ltd. were void ab initio. The court set aside the adjudication order and held that the show cause notice itself was issued without jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that, “the show-cause notice itself having been issued without jurisdiction, the...
Bombay High Court Issues LOC, Non-Bailable Warrant Against Elitecon Director In DGGI Contempt Case
The Bombay High Court has recently directed issuance of a lookout circular and a non-bailable warrant against Elitecon International Ltd. director Vipin Sharma. The court acted after Sharma failed to remain physically present before it despite an undertaking given through his counsel in contempt proceedings arising from an alleged breach of an assurance to appear before Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) officers whenever summoned. The court said Sharma had been in “continuous...
Financial Institution Need Not Be Secured Creditor To Invoke SARFAESI Arbitration: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a financial institution need not already be a secured creditor to invoke statutory arbitration under the SARFAESI Act, while referring a loan takeover dispute between Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd. and Axis Bank to arbitration.Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act does not require a bank or financial institution invoking arbitration to already be a secured creditor. The court observed, “Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act by itself...
Bombay High Court Directs Emirates To Pursue GST Appeal In Air Cargo Services Tax Dispute
The Bombay High Court recently disposed of a writ petition filed by Emirates challenging a GST demand order passed by the Maharashtra State Tax Department over taxation of air cargo transportation services. The airline argued that transportation of goods by aircraft from India to destinations outside India, along with ancillary services, formed part of a composite supply exempt from GST under a Central Government notification issued in 2018 granting exemption to export air cargo transportation...
Arbitrators Cannot Import Notions Of Fairness And Equity Into Commercial Contracts: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that arbitral tribunals cannot import principles of fairness and natural justice into commercial contracts contrary to their express terms. The court made the observation while setting aside an arbitral award passed against Nayara Energy Ltd. that had directed restoration of a petrol pump dealership in Barmer and payment of ₹4 lakh compensation to the franchisee. The court held that the tribunal acted contrary to Sections 28(2) and 28(3) of the Arbitration Act...
State Cannot “Unjustly Enrich Itself” By Denying Refund Of Wrongly Paid Stamp Duty Over Delay: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that the government cannot retain stamp duty wrongly paid by a citizen merely because there was a short delay in seeking a refund. The Court said procedural delay cannot defeat a person's substantive right to recover money mistakenly paid under a wrong stamp duty head, particularly when the transaction could not proceed further. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the state cannot “unjustly enrich itself” by forfeiting money paid due to...
Bombay High Court Condones 430-Day Delay By Charitable Trust In Filing Declaration For Tax Exemption
The Bombay High Court has condoned a 430-day delay by Bombay Prathana Samaj, a charitable trust, in submitting a mandatory declaration required for claiming a tax exemption benefit, after finding that the trust had shown reasonable cause for the delay and would otherwise suffer genuine hardship. “The approach of the authority ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious and availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation,” the Court observed while referring to the...
Algorithm-Based Arbitrator Selection Cannot Cure Unilateral Appointment Illegality: Bombay High Court
Recently, the Bombay High Court came down heavily on banks and non-banking finance companies for attempting to legitimise unilateral arbitrator appointments through institution-backed and algorithm-based selection mechanisms, holding that such practices are manipulative devices to circumvent Supreme Court rulings on arbitrator independence and neutrality. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan set aside arbitral orders passed in proceedings initiated by IIFL Finance and issued directions for compliance...
Urgent Interim Relief Test Cannot Defeat Commercial Suit At Threshold: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 4 April held that a plea for urgent interim relief cannot be used to defeat a commercial suit at the threshold by invoking non-compliance with Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act. Justice Gauri Godse held that whether a case involves “urgent interim relief” must be assessed from the plaintiff's standpoint at the time of filing, and not on the basis of the final outcome of the relief. On this reasoning, the Court dismissed interim applications filed by IIFL Finance...