Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 August To 20 August, 2022

Bombay High Court Customs Authorities Cannot Encash Bank Guarantee Before Expiry Of The Limitation Period For Filing An Appeal: Bombay High Court Case Title: S. J. Enterprises & Anr. versus Union of India The Bombay High Court has reiterated that Customs Authorities cannot encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the assessee before the expiry of the statutory period available for filing an appeal. The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Sonak ruled that despite the assurances given to the Bombay High Court in the case of Legrand (India) Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India (2007), the Customs Authorities had breached the law by adopting coercive measures and encashing the Bank Guarantees before the expiry of the limitation period available for filing a statutory appeal. Madras High Court Madras High Court Stays IT Dept's Order Imposing ₹1.5 Crore Penalty On Actor Vijay For Undisclosed Income Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others Case No: WP No. 21006 of 2022 The Madras High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against Actor Vijay for "admitted" undisclosed income of Rs. 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16. The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth passed the interim order on an application filed by the actor and directed the Department to file its counter by September 16. Orissa High Court 12% Sales Tax Applicable On Robinson Barley And Purity Barley: Orissa High Court Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. versus State of Odisha and Others Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 124 The Orissa High Court has held that a 12% sales tax is applicable on Robinson Barley and Purity Barley. The division bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik has observed that if a customer went to a shop and asked for barley, such a customer would not be supplied with Robinson Barley or Purity Barley. Conversely, if the customer was to ask for Robinson Barley or Purity Barley, he would not be supplied with plain barley. The distinct commercial product "Robinson Barley" cannot be classified as "cereal". Allahabad High Court Illegal Demand Of Income Tax Mechanically- Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of 50 Lakhs On Income Tax Authorities Case Title: SR Cold Storage versus Union of India and Ors. Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 374 The Allahabad High Court has directed that the Union of India or other authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall not interfere with the quasi-judicial functions and discharge of statutory duties by the Assessing Officers unless permitted by the Income Tax Act. Further, the High Court directed the Union of India to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the information fed on data-base/ portal of the revenue department is verified in reality, and not as an empty formality, before initiating proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Punjab & Haryana High Court Insurance Company Not To Deduct TDS On Interest On Compensation Awarded To The Claimant Till 01.06.2015: Punjab & Haryana High Court Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited versus Ravinder Kumar @ Vickey and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 227 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Insurance Company is not required to deduct TDS on the interest on the compensation awarded to the claimant uptil 01.06.2015, even if the interest amount exceeds Rs. 50,000 per claimant in the financial year. The Single Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan reiterated that 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a charging provision and hence, the provisions of Section 194A that deal with tax deducted at source, do not make the interest income chargeable to tax if it is otherwise not taxable. Jharkhand High Court Goods Or Conveyance Can't be Detained Without Service of detention Order: Jharkhand High Court Case Title: M/s. AMI Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 81 The Jharkhand High Court has held that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods. The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order and the appellate order both suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked proper opportunity for the person transporting to defend himself. CESTAT Refractories Meant For Re-lining Of Furnaces Is Covered Under"Capital Goods": CESTAT Allows Customs Duty Exemption Under EPCGScheme Case Title: M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the customs duty exemption on refractories meant for re-lining of...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 August To 20 August, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags