Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 15 January to 21 January 2023

Delhi High Court VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65 The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores. The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim. Bombay High Court Assessee Not Entitled for Deduction without A Certificate Declaring The Warehouse as Part Of The Port: Bombay High Court Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of a certificate declaring the warehouse to be part of the port. Nothing New Happened Between The Date Of Reassessment Order And The Date Of Forming The Opinion By AO: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Order Case Title: Clear Media (India) Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax The Bombay High Court has quashed the Reassessment Order and held that between the date of the order of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of the formation of an opinion by the Assessing Officer, nothing new has happened. There was no new information received, nor was there any mention of new material on file. CBDT Circulars Can’t Prescribe Limitation To Decide Application For Compounding Of Offence: Bombay High Court Case Title: Footcandles Film Pvt Ltd. & Anr. versus Income Tax Officer – TDS & Ors. The Bombay High Court has ruled that orders, instructions or directions issued by the CBDT under Section 119 or under the Explanation to Section 279 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot put fetters on the power of income tax authorities under Section 279(2) to consider an application for compounding of offence, by prescribing a period of limitation. The bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Valmiki SA Menezes, took note that Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for compounding of certain offences, either before or after the institution of proceedings, does not provide any rule of limitation. Madras High Court Expiry Of E-way Bill Does Not Create Any Scope For Tax Evasion: Madras High Court Imposes Minor Penalty Case Title: Tvl.Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 24 The Madras High Court has imposed a minor penalty and held that the expiry of the E-way bill does not create any scope for evasion. The single bench of Justice M. Sunder has observed that assuming there was no breakdown and assuming the portal was active, the maximum penalty would be Rs. 5,000. Gujarat High Court Failure Of Taxpayer To Disclose Fully: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash Reassessment Case Title: Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash the reassessment because the taxpayer has not truly and fully disclosed the material. The division bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that if the petitioner or assessee was not remedial and has now questioned the issuance of a notice, he is required by law to cooperate with the authority in the adjudication process. When the authority ultimately passes any adverse order, the entire remedy created under the special statute is very much available to the petitioner. Rajasthan High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Accused On The Payment Of GST Evasion Amount Case Title: Vikas Bajoria Versus Union Of India The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to the accused as he has already paid the amount of alleged GST evasion. The single bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal has released the accused on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. Taxpayer Cannot Be Compelled To Pay Tax On The Services Rendered By It Twice: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI The Rajasthan High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered twice. The division bench of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Subha Mehta ruled that the petitioner's supply of manpower to a company in Rajasthan is either an inter-state transaction subject to CGST+RGST or an intra-state transaction subject to IGST. The petitioner has deposited 18% of the IGST, and the respondents or department has recovered 35% of the CGST and RGST by attaching the petitioner's accounts. Calcutta...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 15 January to 21 January 2023

Mariya Paliwala

Tags