Karnataka High Court Holds S. 271DA , IT Act Penalty Begins Only With S. 274 Notice, Reads In Six-Month Limit

The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that penalty proceedings under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act commence only when the Joint Commissioner issues a show cause notice under Section 274, and not when the Assessing Officer merely forwards a proposal for initiating penalty. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind partly allowed a batch of ten Revenue appeals, clarifying that, although the Act does not prescribe a time limit for issuing a notice under Section 274, the...

Delhi High Court Upholds Confiscation of 2.7 kg Undeclared Gold, Says Experienced Traveller Knew Customs Rules

The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of over 2.7 kilograms of gold brought into India from Dubai without declaration, observing that the petitioner's experience as an international traveller showed that he was fully aware of his obligation to declare dutiable goodsA Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the revisional authority, which had held...

Supreme Court Directs FanMade11, 9Stacks To Pursue GST Appeal Instead Of Writ Petitions

The Supreme Court has disposed of writ petitions filed by two online gaming companies, FanMade11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and 9Stacks, challenging GST proceedings against them. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard both pleas. The court directed both companies to pursue the statutory remedies available under the GST law instead of invoking its writ jurisdiction. In the matter involving 9Stacks, the court held that since a final assessment order had...

Income Tax Order Not Invalid If DIN Is Communicated Later Through Separate Intimation: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an income tax order initially communicated without a Document Identification Number (DIN) does not become invalid merely because the DIN is communicated later through a separate authenticated intimation letter. The court held that the procedure substantially complied with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 as it maintained the audit trail and authenticity of departmental communications. A Division Bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind allowed two...

KVAT Revision Orders Must Be Passed Within Five Years Of Order Sought To Be Revised: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that tax authorities cannot keep suo motu revision proceedings under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act pending indefinitely after initiating them within the statutory four-year period. While the authority validly initiates revision by calling for records within four years of the order proposed to be revised, the final revisional order must also be passed within a reasonable time, the court ruled. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V....

Madras High Court Holds Lease Area Reduction Cannot Attract Fresh Stamp Duty, Orders ₹1.15 Cr Refund

The Madras High Court on 13 July held that an amendment agreement executed only to reduce the leased area of a property does not create a fresh lease and cannot be subjected to a fresh levy of stamp duty. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the order directing refund of over Rs. 1.15 crore collected as stamp duty from Tata Communications Data Centers Pvt. Ltd. (now STT Global Data Centres...

GST Adjudicating Authority Not Bound To Seek Additional Documents Before Passing Order: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudicating authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not obliged to call for additional documents or clarifications from a business merely because it finds the material placed on record to be insufficient to determine tax liability.A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by Sodexo India, challenging a GST demand of around ₹8.75 crore.The Court rejected Sodexo's contention that the...

CENVAT Credit Rules Do Not Make Ownership Of Goods A Condition For Availing Credit: CESTAT Chandigarh

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not make ownership of goods a condition for claiming CENVAT credit. It observed that CENVAT credit is attached to inputs and not to persons. The tribunal, however, ruled that a manufacturer cannot claim credit on inputs where the contractor has availed the benefit of abatement under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme), as that would result in the same tax benefit...

MODVAT Credit On Furnace Oil Cannot Be Denied For Exempt Intermediate Goods: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that MODVAT credit availed on furnace oil used to manufacture exempt intermediate goods need not be reversed where such goods are captively consumed or transferred within the same company for manufacturing dutiable final products. A Division Bench of Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel upheld Tata Refractories Ltd.'s claim for MODVAT credit on furnace oil used in manufacturing Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM), holding that the credit could not be denied merely...

CESTAT Delhi Upholds CENVAT Credit Reversal On Common Services Used For Own Investments

The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the demand for proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit on common input services used for both taxable services and an assessee's own investment activities. The tribunal held that buying and selling securities on one's own account is neither a taxable service nor an exempted service. It ruled that CENVAT credit attributable to such activities is inadmissible. A bench of Judicial Member...

Karnataka High Court Says Third Parties Cannot Invoke Art. 226 Against GST Rulings, Dismisses BMRCL Challenge

The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that a person who is neither the applicant nor the concerned tax authority in an advance ruling proceeding cannot challenge the ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such rulings are binding only on the parties to the proceeding. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind dismissed Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited's (BMRCL) writ petition challenging an order of the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR),...

Carbon Credit Sale Receipts Are Capital Gains, Not Taxable Before AY 2017-18 : ITAT New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 13 July held that receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital receipts and are not taxable for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Manish Agarwal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and partly allowed the appeals filed by Jindal Saw Ltd. (formerly known as Saw Pipes Ltd.). The Bench observed: “We conclude in this factual backdrop that the assessee's impugned...