Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: April 2024

INDEXM/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223 M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes UP Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228Dipak Kumar Agarwal v. Assessing Officer And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 248M/S Arvind Kumar Shivhare v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 249Hotel President Through Its Partner / Proprietor And Another v. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 251Mukesh Kumar Jha vs. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 261Ram Kishan Bairwa v. Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 262Meera Pandey Thru. Her Attorney v. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue (Cbdt) , New Delhi And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 271Sandeep Singh v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 278ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTHEntry Tax | Indian Made Foreign Liquor Not Taxable Under UP Entry Of Goods Into Local Area Act 2007: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 222The Court held that since Indian Made Foreign Liquor was not provided in the schedule of taxable goods under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007, authorities had no jurisdiction to impose tax on it.S.58 UPVAT | In Revisional Jurisdiction, HC Must Uphold Sanctity Of Judgments/Orders, Must Intervene Only When There Are Compelling Reasons: Allahabad HCCase Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India LimitedCase Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 223The Allahabad High Court held that 'appeals' includes a comprehensive review encompassing both law and fact whereas 'revision' is like the power of superintendence of the High Court where the Court can only see if the decision was passed in accordance with law.While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.Confiscation & Penalty Order Must Be Quashed If Quantification Of Stock Based On Eye Estimate: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 OthersCase Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 224The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that quantification of stock was based on eye estimate and not in accordance with law, the confiscation order as well as the penalty order are liable to be set aside.The Court further held that the authorities had acted in a callous manner by issuing the confiscation order 11 months after the survey had been conducted. The Court held that such inordinate delay in issuing show cause notice goes to the root of the matter.S.16 UPVAT Act | Invoices, RTGS Details Not Sufficient For Deciding ITC Claim, Transportation Details Must Be Produced: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises LtdCase Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 225Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details. The Court observed that Tribunal had recorded a specific finding that certain dealers from whom goods had been purchased were not entitled to issue of tax invoices as they were following compounding scheme. Further, it had been recorded that registration of certain dealers had been cancelled. The Court observed that despite recording such findings, the Tribunal had allowed the claim of ITC solely based on the fact that payments were made through RTGS and the assesee had submitted invoices which was not permissible.UPVAT | Intention To Evade Tax Essential For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 54(1)(2): Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes UP Lucknow Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 228The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. Emphasizing on the word “wilful”, the Court held that order of the Assessing Authority under Section 28(2) of the UPVAT Act was based on cogent material does not indicate wilful attempt to defeat or circumvent the tax law to reduce the tax liability. The Court held that intention to evade tax is a must for imposition of penalty.S.132B(1)(i) Income Tax Act | Power Of Assessing Authority To Decide Application For Release Of Seized Assets Not Automatically Abated After...

Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: April 2024

Upasna Agrawal

Tags