Jharkhand HC Quashes ITAT Relief To Assessee For Relying On Overruled Precedent In TDS Default Case, Remands Matter For Fresh Adjudication

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, after finding that it was solely based on a precedent that had been overruled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had earlier deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the payments in question had already been made. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar...

Interest Of 18% Can't Be Claimed In Arbitrations Commencing Before 2015 Amendment, When Award Specifies Particular Rate: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that interest at the default rate of 18% under unamended Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be claimed when the arbitral proceedings commenced before the 2015 amendment and the parties have not agreed to apply the amended provision. In such cases, the unamended provision applies, and only the interest specified in the award is...

GST Authorities Can't Deny Refund Of Pre-Deposit On Grounds Of Limitation, Violates Article 265: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained...

Delay Of 17 Months In Filing Appeal Not Condonable U/S 107 Of CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Cancellation Of Registration

The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we...

Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues. The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.In the words of the Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice MS Ramachadran Rao...

Pendency Of Proceedings Before Competent Authority Under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act Will Not Affect Application U/S 11 Of A&C Act: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has observed that 'competent authority' within the meaning of Section 3(l) of the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Owners Act, 2011 is an executive authority and not a quasi-judicial or judicial authority. Accordingly, pendency of some proceedings under the said Act would not preclude the court from appointing an arbitrator if there is a valid arbitration clause between the parties. Facts The Applicant and the deceased ...

Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess

The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.Finding that the refund was denied by the State on 'extraneous grounds', the division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice...

Jharkhand HC Directs Tax Authorities To Follow Due Procedure While Passing Orders; Imposes Costs For Passing Order Violating Natural Justice

The Jharkhand High Court directed the state tax authorities to follow due procedure while passing adjudication orders. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated that “despite directions issued by the Court, it appears that State Tax authorities are continuing to conduct adjudication proceedings in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice.” In this case, a show cause notice...

Department Retaining Balance Amount After Tax Demand Is Reduced Violates Article 14 & Article 265 Of Constitution: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court stated that retaining balance amount by department after the tax demand is reduced is violative of Article 14 & Article 265 of the constitution. The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the department cannot retain the amounts deposited by the assessee pursuant to condition imposed by the appellate authority for stay of the assessment order and contend that there is no necessity to refund the same. ...

Court Having Jurisdiction Over Seat Of Arbitration Would Be Entitled To Entertain Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has held that the court having jurisdiction over the seat of Arbitration would be entitled to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: A dispute arose between the petitioner and the opposite party. An Arbitration clause was invoked. The award was also passed which was subsequently challenged before the commercial court at Ranchi under section 34 of the Act. The opposite party challenged...

Arbitral Tribunal Not Bound By Strict Rigors Of CPC, Amendment Permissible At Any Stage Of Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary has held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptionally rare cases. Additionally, the court held that Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigours of CPC and an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Brief Facts: ...

Advocate Not Liable To Verify Fake Documents Provided By Client For Firm Registration To Evade Tax: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court stated that an advocate is not liable to verify fake documents provided by a client for registration of a firm to evade tax.The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was dealing with a case where an advocate had moved a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered under sections 406/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 132 (1) (b)/131 (1) (e)/132 (1) (1) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST).In this case, the petitioner who is a...