Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 19 June To 25 June, 2022

Delhi High Court Right To File Objection To SCN Can't Be Denied Due To One Day Delay: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ernst & Young, US LLP Versus ACIT Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 586 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ruled that the right to file an objection to the Show Cause Notice cannot be denied owing to a one-day delay. Just 3 Days' Time Granted To Respond To The Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court Remands The Matter Back To Assessing Officer After Setting Aside Case Title: Shubham Thakral Vs ITO The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer as just 3 days' time was granted to respond to the income tax notice. Whether Income Tax Demand And Penalty Extinguished In CIRP? Delhi High Court Stays Demand Notice Case Title: Indo Enviro Integrated Solution Limited Versus ACIT The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh stayed an income tax assessment order and consequential demand and notice of penalty, which were assailed on grounds of being in contravention of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Bombay High Court Service Recipient Liable To Pay GST On Interest Amount Under Arbitral Award For Delayed Payment: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay The Bombay High Court has held that the service recipient is liable to pay the GST to the government on interest under an arbitrary award and it can not be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider. The single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla has observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax. Madras High Court Deliberately Concealing The Income, Assessee Can Be Prosecuted :Madras High Court The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willfully and deliberately concealing his income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time, even after the return belatedly submitted by the assessee is accepted by the revenue authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is passed. The Single Bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee came to light only after a survey operation was conducted and that the assessee had filed his return only after a statutory notice was issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time. Madhya Pradesh High Court Signature Of the Person Present Obtained in Panchanama, Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Re-measuring of Stock Case Title: Sanjay Trading Company Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to direct the re-measuring of the stock of coal lying in the premises as the search team has obtained the signatures of the persons present while carrying out the Panchanama. The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti perused the panchanama and observed that on the date of search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty were deposited by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock, and thus there was no question of any kind of seizure. Advance Ruling Can't Be Sought After The Receipt Of The Notice:Madhya Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/s Saisanket Enterprise Versus Authority of Advance Ruling The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the application under section 97 of the CGST Act for obtaining the advance ruling cannot be made before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) during the pendency of the issue before the authority and after the receipt of the notice. The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath has observed that the petitioner approached the authority to obtain the advance ruling only after a search was conducted in which the evasion of SGST was found, which has resulted in the issuance of a show-cause notice. By the notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the remaining amount of GST/SGST liability and submit the reply. Since the petitioner has not paid GST at 18%, the issue is treated as pending before the authorities. Gujarat High Court Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest Case Title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union Of India The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest. Meghalaya High Court ...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 19 June To 25 June, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags