CBIC Notifies Special Procedure In Respect Of Revocation Of Cancellation Of Registration

The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has notified the special procedure in respect of the revocation of cancellation of registration.The Board has notified the special procedure in respect of the registered person, whose registration has been cancelled on or before the 31st December 2022, and who has failed to apply for revocation of cancellation of registration within the time period as the class of registered persons.The registered person may apply for revocation of...

Tax Cases Monthly Round Up: March 2023

Indirect Taxes Supreme Court KVAT Act | Dealer Claiming Input Tax Credit Must Prove Transaction Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court Case Title: State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187 The Supreme Court has held that under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, a dealer claiming Input Tax Credit on purchase ought to prove and establish actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of...

Rule Whittling Down Input Taxes Refund Paid In Course Of Making A Zero-Rated Supply Is Ultra Vires: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.The Bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has observed that Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules is ultra vires Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. The very intention of the zero-rating is to make the entire supply chain of...

Attachment Of Bank Accounts Is A Draconian Step, Attachment Is Subject To The Condition Mentioned U/s 83 Of GST Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that it is not open for the department to attach the bank accounts of other persons on the mere assumption that the funds were owned by any taxable person.Section 83 of the GST Act empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach...

Refund Claim Embedded In Return, No Need To File Fresh Claim: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Pay 6% Interest

The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.The assessee filed its revised return on 10.07.2015 for the fourth quarter of the Financial Year 2014-15. Since the assessee's tax period arises every quarter, in terms of Section 38(3)(a)(ii), in...

Minimum Period Of 7 Days To Respond Is Mandatory, Non-Compliance is To Reassessment Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a minimum period of seven days to respond as provided under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory in nature and non-compliance in this regard would be fatal to the reassessment proceedings.The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Amarjot Bhatti set aside the order under Section 148A(d) and consequential notice under Section 148 as the minimum period provided under Section 148A(b) of the Act was not provided.The...

Refund Can’t Be Withheld On The Ground That Assessee Is Selected For Scrutiny Assessment; Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Withholding Refund Due To OYO

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Revenue Department’s order withholding a refund of over Rs. 33 Crores due to OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd, while directing the department to reconsider OYO’s representations seeking disbursal of the refund amount, bearing in mind the provisions of Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju remarked that despite OYO receiving a refund intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, it...

ITAT Allows Section 54F Deduction Though Capital Gain Scheme Account Was Not Opened

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under section 54F though the capital gain scheme account was not opened.The two-member bench of V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) has observed that even though the assessee has not invested the sale proceeds in Capital Gain Account Scheme, but complied with the conditions under section 54F(1) by purchasing an independent house by executing a sale agreement.Under Section 54F...

Central Excise Act- No Separate Notice Necessary For Recovery Of Erroneous Refund Granted: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that no separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of an erroneous refund granted.The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that once the order originally sanctioning the refund came to be set aside, there was no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.The issue raised was whether the separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is...

Central Excise Act - To Be "Related Person", Buyer & Seller Must Have Direct Or Indirect Interest In Each Other’s Business : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while ascertaining who is the “Related Party” under the Central Excise Act for the purpose of valuation held that before the clause in Section 4(4)(c) could be used, the buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic.The division bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta referred to various precedents which explained that Section 4(4)(c) defines “related person”...

AO Has Reduced The Procedure To An Empty Formality, To Be Deprecated: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court had quashed the Assessment Order and held that the assessing officer has reduced the procedure to an empty formality, which has to be deprecated.The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that the first 21 pages of the assessment order are a verbatim extract of the show cause notice. On pages nos.22 and 23 in two paragraphs the reply given by the assessee has been summarised. From pages nos.23 to 36 of the assessment...

DGFT Has No Authority To Violate The Foreign Trade Policy, Power Lies Only With Central Govt: Karnataka High court

The Karnataka High Court has held that only the Central Government can make provision for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services, or technology and not the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).The single bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has observed that only the Central Government can formulate and announce the Foreign Trade Policy by ‘Notification’ in the Official Gazette and may also, in like manner, amend that policy. The power of the Central...