Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10 July To 16 July, 2022

Supreme Court Sufficiency Or Inadequacy Of Reasons To Believe Cannot Be Looked Into While Considering Validity Of Search & Seizure U/Sec 132 Income TaxAct: Supreme Court Case Title: Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) vs Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592 The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, restated the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. "The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. 'Anardana' Be Classified Under Heading 1209 Of Tariff Entries Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 & Attract 5% Custom Duty Till Revenue Takes Policy Decision Regarding The Same: Supreme Court Case Title: Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise, Amritsar (Punjab) v. M/s. D.L. Steels Etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 2360-2376 of 2009 The Supreme Court held that 'anardana' or dried pomegranate seeds would fall under Heading 1209 of the Tariff entries issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as classified by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, attracting a custom duty at the rate of 5%, till the Revenue takes a considered policy decision regarding its classification. The issue before the Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi was that revenue authorities (appellant) asserted that 'anardana' falls under the Heading 0813 of the Tariff entries, and would incur custom duty at the rate of 30%, while the importers claimed that it is covered by Heading 1209 and attracts duty at the rate of 5%. Bombay High Court Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra The Bombay High Court has ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both. The three-judge bench of Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Justice Nitin W. Sambre, and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that the fiscal legislation can very well stipulate as a requirement of law a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority. Thus, section 129E of the Customs Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional. Orissa High Court "Tobacco & Tobacco Products" In Schedule To Odisha Entry Tax Act Include 'Bidi': Orissa High Court Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha The Orissa High Court has held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..." Madras High Court Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application. The petitioner had made an application seeking registration in accordance with Section 22 read with Section 25 of the CGST Act and Rule 8 of the CGST Rules. The registration sought was in respect of a rice mandi. The receipt of the application was duly acknowledged and physical verification (pv) was also duly undertaken. Uttarakhand High Court Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable. The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Telangana High Court Erroneous Recording...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10 July To 16 July, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags