Tax Cases Monthly Round Up: March 2023

Indirect Taxes Supreme Court KVAT Act | Dealer Claiming Input Tax Credit Must Prove Transaction Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court Case Title: State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187 The Supreme Court has held that under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, a dealer claiming Input Tax Credit on purchase ought to prove and establish actual physical movement of goods and genuineness of transaction. It noted that in order to establish the same, the dealer should furnish the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. Only Retail Sale Can Claim Assessment Benefits Under Section 4A Of Central Excise Act : Supreme Court Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Versus M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Etc. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223 The Supreme Court has held that mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible for central excise duty exemption, and what is required along with the affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP. Central Excise Act - To Be "Related Person", Buyer & Seller Must Have Direct Or Indirect Interest In Each Other’s Business : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S Bilag Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Daman & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257 The Supreme Court while ascertaining who is the “Related Party” under the Central Excise Act for the purpose of valuation held that before the clause in Section 4(4)(c) could be used, the buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic. Delhi High Court Allegations Of Availment Of Fake Credit Cannot Be A Ground For Rejecting The Refund Applications Unless It Is Established: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST The Delhi High Court has held that allegations of availing of fake credit cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them. Fraudulent GSTN Registration: Delhi High Court Directs Petitioner To Reveal Details Of His Friend Who Obtained It Case Title: Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253 The Delhi High Court has ordered the petitioner to reveal the name of the friend who fraudulently obtained a GSTIN using his credentials at the department. The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has directed the petitioner to disclose the identity of his friend, to whom he claims to have handed over his identity documents, to the police authorities as well as to the state GST authorities. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the concerned authorities and provide them with all the information as required. Issuance Of SCN in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, Contemplates Dispatch Of Notice And Not Its Receipt: Delhi High Court Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression ‘issuance of show cause notice’ in Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), merely contemplates the dispatch of the notice and not its receipt by the Customs Broker, within the stipulated period. Applications For Refund Of ITC Cannot Be Denied On Mere Suspicion: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227 The Delhi High Court has held that applications for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be rejected merely on suspicion and without any cogent material. Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Directs Release Of Seized Gutka And Pan-Masala On Furnishing The Bank Guarantee Of Rs. 27.84 Lakhs Case Title: State of Maharashtra Versus Mahabal Enterprises The Bombay High Court has directed to release the Gutka and Pan-Masala, which were banned in the state of Maharashtra, after furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 27,84,000. Who Is The Proper Authority To Decide IGST Refund? Bombay High Court Directs The Dept. To Decide The Bombay High Court has directed the department to decide who has the proper authority to decide on an IGST refund. The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja has noted that the customs authorities claimed that the GST authority is the proper officer for processing refund claims, whereas the GST authorities claim that it is the customs officer. Madras High Court Errors Committed Are Inadvertent, Rectification Would Enable Proper Reporting Of The Turnover And ITC: Madras High ...

Tax Cases Monthly Round Up: March 2023

Mariya Paliwala

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Tax Cases Monthly Round Up: March 2023

Mariya Paliwala

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers