Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 4 September To 10 September, 2022

Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging CGST Rules Case Title – SAT Industries Limited v. Union of India & Anr. The Bombay High Court on Monday issued notice to Maharashtra government and central government in a petition challenging amendment to Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules). "Petitioner is challenging both CGST as well as MGST Rules in this regard. Therefore, notice has to be issued to the learned Attorney General of India as well as the Advocate General", the court stated. Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor, were dealing with a writ petition challenging the amendment to Rule 21A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Madras High Court Interest Leviable On Belated Remittance of GST Even If Credit In Cash/Credit Ledgers Is Available: Madras High Court Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384 The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available. The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability. Audit Objection Can't Be The Basis Of AO's 'Reasons To Believe 'That Too After Lapse Of 6 Years: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385 The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that an audit objection does not satisfy the requirement of the Assessing Officer having an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years. The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that all materials with regard to the computation of tax under the provisions of MAT were available before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings. Allahabad High Court GST Dept. Can Only Seize Goods In Transit And Not From Godown :Allahabad High Court Case Title: Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 418 The Allahabad High Court has held that the goods lying in the gowndown cannot be seized by invoking section 129 of the CGST Act. The power of seizure can be exercised only in the case of goods in transit and not for goods lying in godown. The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that it is unbelievable that two (not one) authorities of the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department chose to act with negligence. The provision of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to a search and seizure operation. The department was unmindful of the Act as no action was taken under Section 67. Section 67 of the CGST relates to the existence of "reasons to believe" that premise is subject to search and seizure of goods or documents found therein. Rajasthan High Court Person Making 'Voluntary Disclosure' After Subjected To Audit Is Ineligible To Avail Benefit Of SVLDRS, 2019: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Malik Builders Versus UOI Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 228 The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person making "Voluntary Disclosure" after being subjected to any enquiry, investigation, or audit is clearly ineligible to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019). The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has observed that the petitioner fell within the mischief under Section 125(1)(f) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and was thus not entitled to avail the benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019 by submitting a declaration. The petitioner suppressed the most material fact of its having been subjected to audit proceedings vide intimation dated 28.11.2019 while submitting its declaration on 31.12.2019. It was to mislead the authorities by withholding relevant information, upon disclosure of which its declaration was not liable to be proceeded further. The petitioner, by suppression, procured benefit by way of the issuance of a discharge certificate. CESTAT Cenvat Credit On Group Mediclaim Policy Cannot Be Disallowed:CESTAT Case Title: M/s. Diamond Beverages Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the cenvat credit on group mediclaim policy cannot be disallowed. The two-member bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the insurance policy was taken by the Appellant for its factory employees. The appellant is registered ...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 4 September To 10 September, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags