Quarterly Digest Of Tax Cases: January-March, 2023

Indirect TaxesSupreme CourtSabka Vishwas Scheme : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC MoratoriumCase Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of IndiaCitation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15No one can be expected to do the impossible, the Supreme Court remarked while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium imposed on it.Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition To Deposit Rs 70 Lakhs In Case For Wrongfully Claiming ITCCase Title: Subhash Chauhan Versus UOICitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61The Supreme Court has overturned a bail condition imposed by the High Court that a person accused of illegally claiming Input Tax Credit must deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of improperly claimed ITC.'Premature For High Court To Opine On Tax Evasion': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Which Quashed Notice Under Section 130 CGST ActCase Title: State of Punjab Versus Shiv Enterprises Civil Appeal No. 359 of 2023Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56Observing that it was "premature" on the part of the High Court to quash a show-cause notice issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act by invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, the Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.The Supreme Court noted that there were allegations about evasion of tax and hence it was premature on the part of the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under Section 130 of the Act was issued.Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court’s Order Directing Payment of Tax On Manufacture Of Water Borehole Drilling RigsCase Title: M/s. Paranthaman Hydraulics and Equipments Versus State Of Tamil NaduThe Supreme Court has stayed the order passed by the Madras High Court directing the payment of a minimum 4% tax on the manufacturing of the water borehole drilling rigs.The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar has observed that tax at the rate of 4% has already been deposited by the petitioner. The direction in the order to pay another 4% shall remain in abeyance until the next date of listing.KVAT Act | Dealer Claiming Input Tax Credit Must Prove Transaction Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private LimitedCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187The 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 an actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of the transaction. It noted that in order to establish the same, the dealer should furnish the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars, etc.Only Retail Sale Can Claim Assessment Benefits Under Section 4A Of Central Excise Act : Supreme CourtCase Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Versus M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Etc.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223The Supreme Court has held that mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible for central excise duty exemption, and what is required along with the affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.Central Excise Act - To Be "Related Person", Buyer & Seller Must Have Direct Or Indirect Interest In Each Other’s Business : Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S Bilag Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Daman & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257The 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.Delhi High CourtAllegations Of Availment Of Fake Credit Cannot Be A Ground For Rejecting The Refund Applications Unless It Is Established: Delhi High CourtCase Title: M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGSTThe Delhi High Court has held that allegations of availing of fake credit cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them.Fraudulent GSTN Registration: Delhi High Court Directs Petitioner To Reveal Details Of His Friend Who Obtained ItCase Title: Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253The Delhi High Court has ordered the petitioner to reveal the name of the friend who fraudulently obtained a GSTIN using his credentials at the department.The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has...

Quarterly Digest Of Tax Cases: January-March, 2023

Mariya Paliwala

Tags