Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: February 2024

INDEXM/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75 The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94M/S Yadav Steels Having Office vs. Additional Commissioner And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 109M/S Indeutsch Industries Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 110M/S Akhilesh Traders v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 111M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 112M/S Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U P And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 113M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 116M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 124ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH75(4) UPGST Act| Even If There Is No Request For Personal Hearing, Must Be Heard Before Adverse Decision: Allahabad High CourtCase title - M/s K.J. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and othersCase citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 73 The Allahabad High Court has held that before taking any adverse decision under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the assesee even if there is no request on his part. Relying on various decisions of the Allahabad High Court regarding the mandatory opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that “Even if no request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, an opportunity of personal hearing must be granted if any adverse decision is contemplated against such person” UPGST | Expired E-Way Bill, But No Intention To Evade Tax: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty OrderCase title - M/s Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 74 The Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty which was imposed due to production of expired e-way bill at the time of detention. The Court held that no intention to evade tax was established by the authorities. Since, there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the Court held that penalty could not be imposed for a technical error in absence of any intention to evade tax. S.148 Income Tax| For Assumption Of Jurisdiction Satisfaction Needs To Be Bonafide, No Need To Record “Reason To Believe”: Allahabad High CourtCase title - Shri Durga Trading Co vs. Income Tax Officer And AnotherCase citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 75 The Allahabad High Court has held that under the new law, it is not necessary for the assessing authority to record “reasons to believe”. The Court held that the assessing authorities are only required to record bonafide satisfaction regarding escapement of income for assuming jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that “under the amended law, it is no longer, the obligation of the Assessing Authority to record a "reason to believe", before assuming jurisdiction to reassess an assessee. A bonafide satisfaction reached as to escapement of income made suffice the test of valid assumption of jurisdiction.” UP VAT Act | Where Assessee Has Paid Far More Tax Than Input Tax Credit Claimed, Section 13(1)(f) Will Not Apply: Allahabad High CourtCase title - The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Cribhko Shyam Fertilizer Ltd.Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 77 The Allahabad High has held that where assessee has paid far more tax than the input tax credit claimed, Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 will not apply. “Upon perusal of the documents, the finding of the Tribunal seems to be crystal clear and leaves no room for doubt. The assessee has paid far more tax than the ITC claimed, and accordingly, the rigours of Section 13(1)(f) of the Act would not be applicable to the assessee. There does not appear any need for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal.” S 107 CGST | Appellate Authority Does Not Have Power To Remand Case Back To Adjudication Authority: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: M/S Kronos Solutions India Private Limited v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1417 of 2023]Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 78 The Allahabad High Court has held that the appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 does not have the power to remand the case back to the adjudication authority. It only has the power to confirm or modify or annul...

Allahabad High Court Monthly Tax Digest: February 2024

Upasna Agrawal

Tags