Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 September To 17 September, 2022

Supreme Court Disputes Related To Tax Concessions Are Not Arbitrable: SupremeCourt Case Title: M/s Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt Ltd. Versus Union Of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774 The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable. The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. Undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration. However, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature. Delhi High Court EOU Entitled To Claim Deemed Export Drawback On Inputs WhichRemained Unutilized With Then-Existing DTA Unit: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India The Delhi High Court has held that duty drawback for goods should extend to unutilized goods which were available at the time of conversion of the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit into a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the restriction against the claim of concession in duties and taxes applied only vis-à-vis plants, machinery and equipment that had already been installed. The petitioner was allowed to carry forward the advance authorization to the converted unit i.e., 100% EOU, and thereafter fulfil the outstanding export commitment. Bombay High Court It Is The Bonafide Mistake Of Taxpayer Paying To Railways Instead Of GST Department: Bombay High Court Case Title: Arun Krishnachandra Goswami Vs. Union of India The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer has made a mistake and instead of paying the Government of India through the CGST authorities and the State of Maharashtra through the SGST authorities, the entire amount was paid to the Government of India through Indian Railways. The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has directed that the amounts which have been wrongly paid to railways should be paid to the CGST authorities and SGST authorities within two weeks. Madras High Court Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance:Madras High Court Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399 The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions. The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but restricted to the conveyance alone. Madras High Court Allows Concessional Customs Duty Benefit On Goods Used In Rotor Of Windmills For Notional Billing To Customer Case Title: Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401 The Madras High Court has allowed the concessional customs duty benefit on goods used in the rotor of windmills for notional billing to customers. The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has observed that the imported rotor blades need no customization and mechanisation. Hence, raising an invoice in the name of the client after importing and transporting it to the customer's site is only a notional exercise. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not the importer and that he is the person who has used it for a specific purpose for which it was imported. Allahabad High Court PCIT Failed To Recorded Satisfaction Under His Signature Prior To Issuance Of Reassessment Notice By AO: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Vikas Gupta Versus Union Of India The Allahabad High Court has held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has not recorded satisfaction under his signature prior to the issuance of a reassessment notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Chandra Kumar Rai has observed that subsequent to the issuance of the reassessment notice by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, at the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices, he had no jurisdiction to issue the reassessment notices. Consequently, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 were without jurisdiction. GST Dept. Made Attachment Without Recording Opinion And Referring To Any Tangible Material: Allahabad High Court...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 September To 17 September, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags