GST Department To Re-Inspect Changed Place Of Business Before GST Registration Cancellation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.” The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain stated that the officials of the GST Department ought to have re-inspected the new premises for Show Cause Notice proceedings to continue. It was also noted...

CGST Act | Bombay High Court Stays GST Demand Order Over Delayed Service Of Showcause Notice

The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief to the assessee by staying the operation of a GST Demand Order The Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar was hearing a writ preferred by the assessee seeking to quash the GST demand order challenging the Show Case Notice to be time barred per Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice did not follow the mandatory provisions...

Amount Deposited Under Protest During Customs Probe Can Be Adjusted Towards Pre-Deposit In Appeal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an amount deposited with the Customs under protest, during investigation by the Department, can be adjusted towards pre-deposit to be made when filing appeal against its order.For context, Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 requires deposit of 7.5% of the amounts which are in dispute, when filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT.In the case at hand, the Petitioner contended that the amount required for pre-deposit is already fully satisfied...

Assessee Missed Hearing Due To Faulty VC Link & Hearing Email Sent At 3AM: Kerala High Court Quashes CIT(A) Order

The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after finding that the assessee missed the hearing due to the non-functional video-conference link (VC link) and because the hearing link was emailed at an odd hour, i.e., at 3:13 a.m. CDT (Central Daylight Time) while he was in the U.S. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the assessee could not utilise the opportunities for reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the assessee can be...

Income Tax Act | Alternative Remedy No Bar When Reassessment Notice Lacks Jurisdiction U/S 148/149: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court stated that when the reassessment notice itself is illegal, issued without jurisdiction, or beyond the time limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act, the Court can directly examine the validity of the notice under Article 226, even though an appeal under the Act is otherwise available.A Single Bench of the Sikkim High Court, comprising Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar the exercise of writ...

International Tax Cases Not Exempt From Faceless Reassessment Regime: Bombay High Court Quashes S.148 IT Act Notice

The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the reassessment notice did not follow the mandate that the Faceless Assessing Officer only has the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It was further stated that even international taxation matters could be made subject to the faceless regime. A Division Bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Amit S....

Service Tax | Once Pre-Deposit Condition Is Fulfilled, Appeal Must Be Heard On Merits: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court held that once an appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount, the Appellate Authority does not become functus officio and was competent to decide the appeal on merits if the mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service Tax amount was subsequently complied with by the assessee. A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar, stated that the appeal at the earlier occasion...

Predominant Purpose Of Industry Is Essential For Determining Bracket Of Cess Taxation: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that in determining cess for an industry, the assessing authority must consider the predominant purpose of the industry. “In this case where the question is whether a particular industry is an industry as covered in Schedule I of the Act, it has to be judged normally by what that industry produces mainly. Every industry carries out multifarious activities to reach its goal through various multifarious methods. Whether a particular...

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cannot Pass Ex-Parte Orders Without Recording Reasons For Denying Adjournment: Allahabad High Court

While hearing an appeal under S. 260A of the Income Tax Act, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot reject adjournment applications and pass ex-parte orders without recording reasons for such dismissal. It was held that if the Tribunal was allowed to do such a thing, it would hamper the right of the parties to a reasonable opportunity of hearing. “While inordinate delays in judicial decision making is not healthy and expeditious disposal of the...

Use Of Word 'Determined' In SCN Shows Pre-Determination; S.74 Invocation Unsustainable: Madras High Court Quashes GST Demand

The Madras High Court has held that using the word 'Determined' in the show cause notice (SCN) betrays an element of pre-determination on the part of the authority. The bench highlighted that the show cause notice must clearly specify whether the assessee is being charged with fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to invoke section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The bench stated that the authority has used the word “determined”. There is an ocean of...

Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Assessment Orders Passed By Audit Officer Citing Lack Of Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.Form DVAT-50 enables the VAT Commissioner to authorize officials for carrying out audit, investigation and enforcement functions under Delhi Value Added Tax Act and Rules.However, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that no such authorization was made in favour of VATO (Audit) before...

“Gross Concealment”: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Party In Poppy Seeds Smuggling Case

The Delhi High Court recently imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the Petitioner had failed to disclose that his challenge to the penalty order passed by the Customs authority was previously dismissed by the Court.“The Counsel for the Petitioner had a duty to disclose the relevant facts and the relevant...