Service Tax Liability Can't Be Levied On Freight And Cartage Expenses Under GTA Services: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax liability cannot be levied on freight and cartage expenses under GTA (Good Transport Agency) services. “The said amount/expenses/charges were not paid by the assessee directly to the transporter for transportation of any goods. Thus, the said activity cannot be covered under GTA Services, hence, no service tax liability can be levied on the aforesaid amount/expenses/charges...

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...

Rule 36(4) Of CGST Rules Is Constitutionally Valid, Does Not Derive Power From Section 43A: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The provision stipulates documentary requirements and conditions for a registered person claiming input tax credit (ITC).A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed that the provision was enacted based on powers derived from Section 16 of the CGST Act and the general rule-making powers under...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: February 23 - March 02, 2025

SUPREME COURTGST Act | Can Time Limit To Adjudicate Show Cause Notice Be Extended By Notification Under S.168A? Supreme Court To ConsiderCase Name: M/S HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & ORS. Case no.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025The Supreme Court is to decide whether the time limit for adjudicating show cause notice and passing an order can be extended by the issuance of notifications under Section 168-A of the GST Act. This provision...

SCN & Orders Not Containing Signature Of Proper Officer Cannot Sustain Judicial Scrutiny: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court stated that the show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara observed that “since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the...

Tax Monthly Digest: February 2025

SUPREME COURTIncome Tax Act | Offence Committed Before Show-Cause Notice Compoundable As Covered By 'First Offence' In Compounding Guidelines: Supreme CourtCase title: VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA Vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCase no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20519 OF 2024The Supreme Court on January 7 set aside the Gujarat High Court's judgment dated March 21, 2017, through which the rejection to the compounding application of the Appellant for the assessment year 2013-2014, for...

[CGST ACT] Dept Can't Seize Goods If Quantity Or Weight Of Goods Is Found Correct On Physical Verification: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court stated that GST department cannot seize the goods if the quantity or weight of the goods is found correct on physical verification. The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the quantity or the weight of the goods, which were carried in the vehicle, has been found to be correct by the department on physical verification and there is no discrepancy. The bench further stated that “the inspecting authority...

What Is The Difference Between 'Non-Service Of Notice' & 'Lack Of Knowledge Of Service Of Notice'? Kerala High Court Explains

The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'. “Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural...

Transactions Between Holding & Subsidiary For Issuance Of Shares Not Covered U/S 56(2)(viib) Of IT Act: Delhi ITAT Quashes Revision Against OYO

The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib) in absence of any benefit arising from such transactions. Referring to the Coordinate Benchs, the Bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) reiterated that Sec 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the present case where the transaction is between the assessee (subsidiary...

S.153C Income Tax Act | Two-Tier Satisfaction Of Assessing Officers Of Both Searched & Non-Searched Entity Needed Even Prior To 2015 Amendment: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.Section 153C allows the Revenue department to proceed against a party other than the person who is being searched, if incriminating articles belonging to the other person are found during the search.The provision was...

[S.292B Income Tax Act] Inadvertent Mistakes In Reassessment Can Be Saved But Assessment Order Overlooking Apparent Error Cannot: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record.The provision provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.A division bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said while the...