Stamp Authority's Delay In Deciding Stamp Duty Cannot Be Used To Refuse Registration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a delay caused by the Stamp Authority in adjudicating stamp duty cannot be used to deny registration of a document when the party seeking registration was not responsible for the delay.“A substantive legal right accrued to the Petitioners to have the document registered under the provisions of the Registration Act cannot stand defeated, merely on account of some delay, which is definitely not attributable to the party presenting the document for registration,...

DIN On Tax Appellate Order Does Not Prove It Was Delivered To Taxpayer: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that the presence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) on an appellate order does not, by itself, establish that the order was served on the assessee. The court ruled that the DIN cannot be used to establish the date of service for calculating the limitation period for an appeal.A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of nine appeals filed by Greaves Cotton Ltd. challenging CESTAT orders dismissing its...

Separate GST Proceedings Not Barred If Subject Matter Is Different: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that separate GST proceedings against a taxpayer are not barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, where the allegations, material relied upon and nature of the alleged defaults in the two proceedings are different.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by Star Traders challenging proceedings initiated by the GST authorities for alleged wrongful...

Customs Can't Levy Interest For Period Before Liability Was Determined In Confiscation Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Customs authorities cannot calculate interest for a period during which the liability sought to be subjected to interest had itself not been determined.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while partly allowing a petition filed by Vishal Oil and Lubricants Co., challenging the interest reflected in the Customs EDI System in respect of a Bill of Entry filed in 2015.The Court directed the Customs authorities to...

ITAT Delhi Dismisses Appeals Against Sahara Airlines After Claims Extinguished In CIRP

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently dismissed a batch of appeals involving Sahara Airlines Ltd., now known as Jet Lite (India) Ltd., after finding no material to show that the Income Tax Department's claims for the assessment years involved were admitted in the resolution or liquidation proceedings.The CIRP of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. was admitted by the NCLT on June 20, 2019, on an application filed by the State Bank of India under the Insolvency and...

GST Audit Proceedings Distinct From Section 74 Adjudication; Delhi High Court Declines To Quash SCN

The Delhi High Court has held that proceedings arising from a GST audit are distinct from the subsequent adjudicatory proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar declined to interfere with a show cause notice issued to a pharmaceutical distributor under Section 74, observing that the taxpayer could raise all its objections before the competent adjudicating authority.The Court was...

Central, State GST Officers Can Exercise Cross-Empowerment Powers Without Separate Notification: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that Central and State GST officers can exercise cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act even without a separate government notification. The notification is required only when the government wants to impose conditions on the exercise of those powers, the court observed.A Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice S. Raveekumar was dealing with a batch of 22 writ appeals. Sixteen were filed by State GST authorities and...

GST Act | Personal Penalty Can Apply To Non-Taxable Persons For Transactions From January 1, 2021: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “any person” under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 is not confined to a “taxable person” and can include persons who are not registered or liable to be registered under the GST regime.At the same time, the Court ruled that Section 122(1A), which provides for personal penalties in specified fraudulent GST transactions, operates prospectively and can be invoked only in respect of acts or transactions committed...

'Agreement For Assignment' Label Cannot Bar Stamp Duty Refund For Failed Deal: Bombay High Court

On Tuesday, 29 September, the Bombay High Court held that refund of stamp duty cannot be denied merely because a failed property transaction was documented as an “Agreement for Assignment” rather than an “Agreement to Sale”. Justice Amit Borkar directed the Maharashtra authorities to refund Rs. 29.75 lakh paid by Solanki Tea Company Private Limited, holding that the relief available under the Maharashtra Stamp Act depends on whether the transaction intended through the instrument had failed,...

Karnataka High Court Says Pregnancy Justifies Absence From GST Proceedings, Remands Ex-Parte Order

The Karnataka High Court on 18 September held that an ex-parte GST adjudication order can be set aside where a taxpayer's non-appearance is sufficiently justified, including on account of pregnancy and related medical complications. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil of the Kalaburagi Bench allowed a writ petition filed by Soumya, proprietrix of Ganga Medical Stores, against the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Bidar and the Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise. The Bench...

GSTAT Bengaluru Sets Aside 100% Penalty On I-NXT, Says ITC Mismatch Alone Can't Trigger Penalty

The Bengaluru Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 15 September held that an ITC mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot, by itself, attract Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act without establishing a link between the mismatch and fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A Bench comprising Technical Member Sudha Koka and Judicial Member Srikanth Venkatraman allowed I-NXT's appeal and set aside the 100% penalty imposed under...

CESTAT Upholds Service Tax On ₹12.66 Lakh JMRC Payment To Chandpole Bazaar Association

On 28 September, the Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the service tax liability on Rs. 12.66 lakh received by Chandpole Bazaar Vyapaar Mandal Samiti from Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation (JMRC) towards publicity and advertisement activities during Diwali celebrations. A Bench comprising Officiating President Rachna Gupta and Technical Member P.V. Subba Rao upheld the taxability of the amount while setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals),...