Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July, 2022

Delhi High Court Voluntary Statement Made Before The Revenue Authorities Cannot Substitute A Statutory Pre-Show Cause Consultation Notice: Delhi High Court Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604 The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020. The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived. Madras High Court No Demand Of GST, Interest And Penalty Can Be Made In Form DRC-01A Without Issuance of Section 74(1) Notice: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283 While quashing the assessment order, the Madras High Court held that a demand for GST, interest, and penalty on Form DRC-01A cannot be made without the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. The single bench of Justice M.Nirmal Kumar has observed that the department/respondent has not followed the procedure. After the issuance of notice on Form DRC-01A, the department issued Form GST DRC-01A. If the petitioner has any objections and has not paid the tax as determined, a show cause notice must be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act. After receiving objections and giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised. Officers Of DGGI Are "Central Excise Officers"; Can Issue Show Cause Notices And Adjudicate Service Tax Demand: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General The Madras High Court has ruled that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since they are vested with the powers of Central Excise Officers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while considering a bunch of writ petitions, held that that the definition of "Central Excise Officer" in Section 2(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is expansive and that any person, including an officer of the State Government, who is invested by the CBEC with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, is a "Central Excise Officer". Madras High Court Allows Re-Exportation Of Betelnut Products Subject To Execution Of A Bond To Cover Value Of Goods Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 The Madras High Court bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice S.Srimathy has allowed the re-exportation of betelnut products subject to the execution of a bond to cover the value of the goods. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Harassment By GST Department Case Title: Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department. The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry. Reopening of IT Assessment By Officer Having No Jurisdiction: Madras High Court Invalidates Proceedings Case Title: Charu K. Bagadia Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(2), Mumbai Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 292 The Madras High Court invalidated the reassessment procedures on the basis that the reopening of the income tax assessment was conducted by an officer without jurisdiction. The division bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad has observed that the ACIT Mumbai, who recorded the reasons for reopening the assessment, has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue a notice dated 28.03.2018. Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the ACIT Chennai has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings. Hence, the notice issued by him was also held to be invalid. Karnataka High Court No Suppression Of Facts, Show Cause Notice Based On Balance Sheet: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245 The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags