'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

The Delhi High Court recently expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear...

'Extra Duty Deposit' Different From Customs Duty, Limitation For Seeking Refund U/S 27 Of Customs Act Is Inapplicable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD.Section 27 deals with a person/entity's claim for a refund of Customs duty in certain circumstances.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of Section 27...

Survey Report On Existence Of 'Permanent Establishment' In Tax Year Not Relevant For Previous/Future AYs: Delhi HC Grants Relief To Swiss Co

The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while dealing with a Swiss company's case, which was aggrieved by various reassessment notices issued for AYs 2013-18 for alleged escapement of income generated by...

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT,...

Delhi HC Asks CESTAT To Decide If Tax On Services Purchased By Prepaid Mobile Subscribers From Existing Balance Would Amount To Double-Tax

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.Considering that the matter would involve factual evaluation of the manner in which services are provided and charged by the company, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta...

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars. Brief Facts of the case: The dispute arose with respect to an agreement for the...

[Arbitration Act] Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law. The Court further observed that such a non est filing would not stop the limitation and the date of filing would be reckoned from the date...

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence. Brief Facts of the case: The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &...

Delhi High Court Allows Indigo Airlines' Plea, Holds Levy Of Additional IGST On Repaired & Re-Imported Aircraft Parts To Be Unconstitutional

In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that “additional duty even after the transaction has been subjected to the imposition of a tax treating it to be a supply of service would be clearly...

Respondent Cannot File Cross-Objections To Appeal Before High Court U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal...

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Disposal Of Matters Before National Faceless Appeal Centre

The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the...

When Application U/S 33 Of A&C Act Is 'Disguised Review', Limitation For Challenging Award U/S 34 Cannot Be Extended: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is purely an application for review, then the person seeking to challenge the award cannot avail of the time taken between the filing of the application under Section 33 and the date of disposal for calculating the period to challenge the award. The court stated that Section 33 cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to prolong limitation...