Delhi High Court
Separate Notice For Counter Claims U/S 21 Of A&C Act Not Required When Arbitration Proceedings Are Pending Between Parties: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed that where the disputes between the parties are already the subject matter of an earlier arbitral reference, a separate notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) would not be necessary for separate proceedings to adjudicate counter claims. Facts The present petition under Section 11, ACA has been filed by the Petitioner seeking appointment of an independent sole arbitrator to...
Directors Not Personally Liable For Non-Fulfilment Of Company's Export Obligations Unless Specific Role Is Alleged: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that unless specific allegations which discuss the role of a director in the export performance are made, there is no question of finding the director personally liable for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the company.Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju relied on Santanu Ray vs. Union of India where the Supreme Court discussed vicarious liability of directors. In the case at hand, the Petitioner, a non-executive Director of M/s Poysha Industrial Ltd was aggrieved by...
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it.The decision is a contrast to a coordinate bench decision rendered in July last year, holding that uploading of notices under the heading 'additional notices' amounts to sufficient service.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held,“the notice if uploaded on the additional...
Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL's Appeal U/S 37 Of A & C Act, Upholds Arbitral Award Of Rs. 43.52 Crore
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia dismissed BSNL's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the Single Judge correctly upheld the Arbitrator's finding that Vihaan Networks Limited carried out the work under the Advance Purchase Order, issued on BSNL's specific instructions, which was later withdrawn. Therefore, the Respondent was rightly compensated under the principle of quantum meruit for the ...
JCIT Not Empowered To Issue Sanction For Reassessment Under Proviso To S.151(1) Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.Section 151(1) contemplates issuance of sanction by JCIT for initiating reassessment action under Section 148 against an assessee who has already undergone scrutiny assessment.The proviso to Section 151(1) however adds that if the reassessment action is sought to be initiated...
Income Escapement | Value Determined At S.148A(d) Stage Relevant To Determine Threshold U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia clarified that the value alleged by the AO at Section 148A(b) stage, i.e. before considering the Assessee's stand, is not relevant for the...
Delhi HC Flags Rampant Misuse Of Duty Drawback Scheme By Exporters, Says No Limitation For Proceeding Against Availment Of Excess Duty
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rampant misuse of the Central government's Duty Drawback Scheme by various exporters.It is a unique scheme to encourage exports and allows refund of customs and excise duties that are paid by the exporters on specified products.The said duty drawbacks are claimed under Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.This scheme however, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted, has become the subject of misuse by some traders/...
CGST Act | Right To Cross-Examine Is Not An Unfettered Right At SCN Stage, Party Must Specify Reasons: Delhi High Court
While dealing with a case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the Delhi High Court has held that though cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an unfettered right.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“The rationale behind setting aside an order/judgment on the grounds of non-provision of the right to cross-examine is to safeguard the affected party from...
Income Alleged To Have Escaped Assessment In Different Years Can't Be Consolidated To Meet ₹50 Lakh Threshold U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer cannot add income that allegedly escaped assessment in different previous years, to meet the threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for initiating reassessment action after lapse of three years.The provision bars issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Sub-clause (b) thereof adds that reassessment can be initiated...
Delhi HC Expresses Concern Over “Harrowing Experience” Of Widow Seeking Refund Of Balance In Electronic Cash Ledger Of Deceased Husband's Firm
The Delhi High Court recently recorded the “harrowing experience” that a widow had to go through for obtaining a refund from the GST Department.The GST registration of the firm owned by her now deceased husband was cancelled in view of his death. However, his widow sought a refund of ₹10,45,793/- balance in the electronic cash ledger of the firm.The said application was rejected by the Department and subsequently, the amount was debited from the Ledger without either being paid to the petitioner...
Customs' Decision To Prefer Revision Plea Against Order To Release Goods Not Grounds To Withhold Them: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot sit over an appellate body's order directing it to release the goods of an assessee, merely on the ground that the Department seeks to prefer a revision against such order.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “once the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has also allowed redemption, the decision to file revision cannot be a ground to withhold the release of the goods. Further, there is no stay...
Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Over Cash Deposits During Demonetisation, Says Order U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Transgressed Notice U/S 148A(b)
The Delhi High Court has set aside the reassessment action initiated against a partnership firm under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 over cash deposits made by it during demonetisation, stating that this ground was not mentioned in the notice issued to the firm under Section 148A(b).Section 148A(b) contemplates issuance of a notice asking assessee to show cause why reassessment proceedings should not be initiated against it.Notice under Section 148A(d) is issued after considering...