Indirect Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 To 17 February 2024

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Consider ITC Refund In Light Of CBIC Circular Extending Benefit Of Exclusion Period Case Title: M/S Bharti Enterprises Versus Commissioner, Value Added Tax, Department Of Trade And Taxes & Ors. The Delhi High Court has directed the department to consider refunding the input tax credit (ITC) in light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) extending the benefit of the exclusion period. Period Spent In Disposal Of Appeal Before CESTAT Shall Not Be Counted Towards Period Stipulated Under Section 28 (9) Of Customs Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Anand International And Ors. Versus Commissioner Of Customs The Delhi High Court has held that the period spent in the disposal of the appeal before the CESTAT, i.e., between the filing and the final order being passed, shall not be counted towards the period stipulated under Section 28 (9) of the Customs Act. Bombay High Court Assessee Ought Not To Have Meted Out Discriminatory Treatment Of Denying Clearance: Bombay High Court Allows Provisional Release Of Premium Cold Coffee Case Title: M/s. SCK International Versus Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-V) The Bombay High Court has held that the petitioner ought not to have been meted out such discriminatory treatment as denying clearance. The harsh and unreasonable conditions cannot be imposed, and more so when there is not an iota of material on the part of the department, as placed before the Court, indicating as to why a different yardstick would be required to be applied to the present consignments when earlier seven consignments were released at 16% to 28% bank guarantee. Madras High Court Madras High Court Quashes Revision Order Passed Under TNGST Act Against Renault Nissan For Travelling Beyond The Scope Of Revision Proceedings Case Title: Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 72 The Madras High Court has quashed the revision order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act (TNGST Act) against Renault Nissan for travelling beyond the scope of revision proceedings. Allahabad High Court Res-Judicata Does Not Apply In Tax Matters, But Doctrine Of Finality Applies Unless There Is Marked Change: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S John Oakey And Mohan Limited vs. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 91 The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of res-judicata does not apply from one assessment year to another. However, the Court held that the Department cannot be allowed to change its stance for the same assesee for different assessment years, unless there is a marked change from one year to another. UPVAT Act | Revision Jurisdiction Of High Court Limited To Questions Of Law, Jurisdictional Errors Or Procedural Irregularities: Allahabad High Court Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S. D.I.C. India Ltd. Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 94 The Allahabad High Court has held the revision jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 is limited to questions of law, jurisdictional errors, or procedural. The Court held that the High Court must refrain from going into questions of facts which have been decided by the Tribunal. S.75(4) UPGST Act | Failure To File Reply To Show-Cause Notice Does Not Take Away Right Of Personal Hearing: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Ms Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd v. State of U.P. and Another Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 95 The Allahabad High Court has held that not filing a reply to a show cause notice does not take away the opportunity for personal hearing mandated under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Govts Should Collect Taxes Like Honeybee, Without Disturbing Petals: Allahabad High Court While Quashing Penalty Order Against Hawkins Case Title: M/S Hawkins Cookers Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 96 Recently, while quashing penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against M/s Hawkins Cookers Limited, the Allahabad High Court cited the Arthashastra by Chanakya. Rule 108 CGST Rules | Self-Certified Copy Of Order Under Challenge Not Required For Appeals Filed Electronically: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida And Another Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 97 The Allahabad High Court has held that requirement of self-certified copy of order is not applicable to the appeals filed electronically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 108 of...

Indirect Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 To 17 February 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags