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...

S.69 CGST Act | Commissioner Must Specify Necessity Of Arrest In Addition To 'Reasons To Believe' That Assessee Committed Offence: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, which confers power to arrest on a Commissioner under the Act, requires the authority to not only record 'reasons to believe' that an assessee committed the specified offence but also specify the necessity to arrest.While dealing with a writ petition challenging Petitioner's arrest, Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “The requirement under Sub-section (1) of Section 69 is to have “reasons to believe”...

[Income Tax] Assessing Officer Not Only An Adjudicator But Also An Investigator, Cannot Remain Oblivious To Claim Without Enquiry: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.” Under Section 263 of The Income-tax Act, 1961,...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Excise Duty Demand On Oil Marketing Companies For Inter-Supply Of Petroleum Products

In a significant relief for Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs), the Supreme Court ruled (Jan. 20) that prices under the MoU for inter-supply of petroleum products, designed to ensure smooth nationwide distribution, do not constitute "transaction value" and are exempt from excise duty due to their non-commercial nature. The Court emphasised that the inter-supply arrangement was not solely price-driven but aimed at facilitating seamless distribution, rendering it ineligible for excise duty.Holding so,...

Trader Cannot Accept Settlement Commission's Order U/S 127C Of Customs Act 'In Parts': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 is in the nature of a 'settlement' and cannot be accepted by a trader only in part.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Given the nature of the order passed under Section 127C of the Act – which is in the nature of a settlement – it would not be permissible to dissect the same and accept that parts of the order...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: January 13 - January 19, 2025

SUPREME COURT'Will Pull You Up' : Supreme Court Asks GST Department To Rectify Issues Over Fake Invoices, Asks How Genuine Purchasers Are LiableThe Supreme Court on Wednesday flagged a recurring problem in GST matters whereby genuine purchasers who paid Goods and Services Tax (GST) face issues because their suppliers raised fictitious bills to evade crediting the GST to the department.The Court orally wondered how could the purchaser be held liable for the incorrect GST registration of the...

S.73 CGST Act | SCN, Order Issued Without Signature Of Proper Officer Is 'Ineffective': Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati HIgh Court has held that the Show Cause Notice issued to an assessee under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Statement issued along with the SCN as well as an Order passed under Section 73(9) must mandatorily be signed by the Proper Officer.Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “As it is the statutory mandate that it is only the Proper Officer who has the authority to issue Show Cause Notice and the Statement and pass the order, the authentication in the...

Penalty Provision U/S 16(7) HP VAT Act Cannot Be Invoked Without First Ascertaining Applicability Of S.16(4): Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the penalty provision couched in Section 16(7) of the HP Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be invoked until the statutory authority is satisfied regarding the applicability of Section 16(4) of the Act.Section 16(4) requires a registered dealer to pay the full amount of tax due from him into a Government Treasury before it furnishes the return. Failure to do so attracts a penalty under Section 16(7).A division bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and...

Importation Of Wireless Access Points Which Operate Solely On MIMO Technology Exempt From Customs Duty: Delhi High Court

Coming to the rescue of an IT distribution company, the Delhi High Court has held that the import of Wireless Access Points (WAPs), which operate on MIMO technology, are exempt from Customs duty.In doing so, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the word “and” used between 'MIMO and LTE Products', which are eligible for exemption under the relevant notification issued by the Centre, is disjunctive.It thus rejected the Customs'...

Tax Annual Digest 2024: Part I

Reopening Of Assessment Inspired From 'Review' & 'Change Of Opinion' By Subsequent AO Is Deprecated: Madras HCWhile setting aside the order disposing of assessee's objection for re-opening of assessment pursuant to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and the consequent reassessment order, the Madras High Court held that there is no scope for re-opening of the assessment, since the reasons cited for same was inspired from change of opinion of the Assessing officer. A...

Penalties Like Seizure, Detention Of Goods In Transit U/S 129 CGST Act Shouldn't Be Imposed To Penalise Minor Breaches: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 129 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 which pertains to detention, seizure and release of goods while in transit cannot be invoked for imposing penalties for minor breaches, like incomplete e-way bill.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that Section 129 cannot, merely by virtue of its non-obstante clause, be construed to have an overriding effect on Section 126 which interdicts tax...

Whether Entity Is 'Permanent Establishment' Is A Fact-Specific Issue, Must Be Examined Separately For Different Tax Periods: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that whether an entity is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign company or not is a “fact-specific” issue which must be examined separately for different tax periods.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,“The position of a PE being a facts-specific issue and thus liable to be examined against the backdrop of what obtained in a particular tax period…”Reliance was placed on a Commentary of the Organization for...