Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: May 2024

NOMINAL INDEX Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299 Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300 Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301 M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319 M/S Rajshi Processors Raebareli Thru. Its Partner Ashok Kumar Lakhotia v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax,Lko. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 320 The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawan And Another vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Lts. Sahjanwah Gorakhpur 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 327 The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. v. M/S R.P. Milk Made Products (P) Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 328 M/S S Kumar Construction v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Goods And Services Tax (Appeals) And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 344 M/S.Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus Cce Meerut 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 354 Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. At Lucknow V. M/S Pan Parag India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 356 M/S Tata Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 357 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 358 M/S Ace Manufacturing Systems Limited v. State Of U P And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 360 ORDERS/ JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH Tax Dues Can't Be Collected From Director Of Company Under Liquidation Unless Provided By Some Statute: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Case Title: Mr. Pranay Dhabhai v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 299 Relying on its earlier decision in A.S. Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that tax dues cannot be collected from director of company under liquidation unless it has been provided in any statute. The Allahabad High Court in A.S. Solanki had held that in a case where it was ascertained that the corporate veil had been used for malafide intent, the corporate personality shall be lifted so that the individuals responsible could be held liable. However, this doctrine could not be applied as a matter of course and be used to recover the dues of a company when they were unrecoverable, from the personal assets of the Directors. UPVAT | Computation Of Correct ITC Be Examined By Assessing Authority Not Later Than Stage Of Making Regular Assessment Order: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Mentha And Allied Products Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 300 The Allahabad High Court has held that computation of correct input tax credit can only be done till the passing of the regular assessment order by the Assessing Authority and not at a later stage. The Court held that reverse input tax credit is neither a 'rate of tax' nor a 'turnover' which can be subjected to reassessment under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008. ThE bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “ITC did not arise as a "rate" applied to "turnover". It was an "allowance" created/arising upon fulfillment of statutory conditions. If those conditions were not fulfilled, RITC could be done, under Section 14 of the Act and also in the course of regular assessment - for reason of that power specifically vested by the legislature. No such power/jurisdiction has been vested under Section 29(1) of the Act to assume jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings to redetermine ITC or to RITC.” S.144B(6) Income Tax Act | If Assessee “Requests” Then Opportunity Of Personal Hearing Is Mandatory, Not Optional: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Satish Kumar Bansal Huf v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Nafac And Another Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 301 The Allahabad High Court has held that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory under Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when show cause notice is issued regarding why assessment may not be completed as proposed. The Court held that once the assesee “requests” for an opportunity of personal hearing, it becomes incumbent on the Assessing Authority to grant that opportunity under Section 144B(6)(viii). S.129(3) UPGST| Burden To Prove Double Movement Of Goods Based On Same Documents Lies On The Department: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Case Title: M/S K Y Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 319 Relying on its earlier decision in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove double movement of goods based on same documents lies on the department. The Allahabad High Court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others held that the positive burden to prove that goods had been transported on an earlier occasion ...

Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: May 2024

Upasna Agrawal

Tags