Tax Cases Monthly Round-Up: December 2022

Indirect Taxes Supreme Court Small Tax Effect: Monetary Limit To Prefer An Appeal Before The Supreme Court Is Rs. 2 crores: Supreme Court Case Title: CIT Versus Swapnil Finance Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effects. The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the monetary limit to file an appeal before the Supreme Court is Rs. 2 crores. Concessional Rate Of Sales Tax Not Applicable On Oxygen As It Is Not A Raw Material For Manufacture Of Steel: Supreme Court Case Title: State of Jharkhand and others Versus Linde India Limited and Another The Supreme Court has held that the main function of oxygen in manufacturing steel is to reduce the carbon content; therefore, it can be considered a refining agent but not a raw material, so the concessional rate of sales tax is not available on oxygen. The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh has set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court and restored the orders passed by assessing officers to revisional authority—the Joint Commissioner. Delhi High Court Tax deposited During Search Not Voluntary: Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Return Rs.1.80 Crores With Interest Case Title: M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to return the amount of Rs. 1.80 crores along with 6% interest as the recovery of tax made during the search was not voluntary. The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection, or investigation unless it is voluntary. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection Against Retrospective Denial Of Concessional Rate Of Customs Duty To Solar Units Case Title: ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection against the retrospective denial of the vested right of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under project import regulations granted to solar power developers. The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju have directed the customs authorities to refrain from taking any precipitative steps at the time of import of goods pursuant to the registration of contracts under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. Delhi High Court Refuses To Release Laptop, Computer, Documents, Seized By DGGI During Search Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187 The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search. The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the "documents, books, or things" can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund. Export Proceeds Not Remitted Within Time; Duty Drawback To Be Recovered: Delhi High Court Case Title: R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI The Delhi High Court has held that the exporter is otherwise not entitled to duty drawback and, if already paid, is liable to be reimbursed because the buyer did not send any export proceeds within the required time frame. The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that since the amount that is lying credited to the petitioner's account, concededly, represents a part of the duty drawback sanctioned in favor of the petitioner against 20 shipping bills, no such direction can be issued that would ultimately result in the petitioner getting access to the funds. Bombay High Court Marine Paint As Part Of Vessel? Bombay High Court Confirms AAAR Decision Case Title: Jotun India Private Limited Versus The Union of India The Bombay High Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the advance ruling given by the Maharashtra Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Gauri Godse has observed that the authority and the appellate authority followed the entire procedure and that full opportunity was given to the petitioner. There was no evidence of a violation of natural justice principles due to a lack of opportunity to be heard.All points put forth by the petitioner as to why anti-fouling paint should be considered part of the ship were taken into consideration, and the authority and the Appellate Authority took a particular view of the matter. Failure To Furnish Certified Octroi Exemption Form; Importer Not Ineligible For Refund Of Octroi Under Section 194(2) Of MMC Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Hyprecision...

Tax Cases Monthly Round-Up: December 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags