Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 21 August To 27 August, 2022

Delhi High Court Application Under Companies Act Against Order Rejecting Waiver Of Interest; Dispute Falls Within Scope Of VSV Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Kapri International Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 796 The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an application under the Companies Act has been filed by a company in liquidation against the order of the revenue authorities rejecting the application for waiver of interest for delay in payment of tax dues, the said dispute would fall within the scope of Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act). The Bench consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal ruled that the VSV Act is not a taxing statute but one which provides a dispute resolution scheme for tax disputes and hence, it would be amenable to a purposive construction. The Court held that it was the intent of the legislature to include all sorts of disputes under the VSV Act, even if they were pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax or the courts. Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Is Not An Assessment; Delhi High Court Dismisses Ernst And Young's Writ Petition Case Title: Ernst and Young U.S. LLP versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 798 The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not an assessment for the purposes of Section 147 and hence, it is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to form a belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment in order to reopen assessment. The Bench of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that no opinion is formed by way of the order passed under Section 143(1), and that only an intimation is issued to the assessee when the return initially filed by it is processed; thus, the doctrine of change of opinion is not attracted. Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized CENVAT Credit On Account Of Export Of Legal Services: Delhi High Court Case Title: Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on account of the export of legal services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, as per Rule 5, as long as the service provider provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, such a service provider will be eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit. Madras High Court Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959). Timelines For Uploading TRAN-1 For Seeking Credit And Revision Of Credit Cannot Be One: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367 The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position. The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance. Kerala High Court Officer Is Duty Bound To Consider Explanation Offered For Expiry Of The E-Way Bill: Kerala High Court Case Title: Sanskruthi Motors Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 458 The Kerala High Court has held that the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. The single bench of Justice Gopinath P has observed that the officer rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner by stating that no evidence of repair being carried out has been produced. The officer imposed a penalty/tax on the grounds that the petitioner had ample time to revalidate the E-way bill. Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50000 For Arbitrary Cancellation of GST Registration Case Title: Drs Wood...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 21 August To 27 August, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags