Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 27 November To 3 December 2022

Supreme Court Section 45(4) Of Income Tax Act Applicable To Cases Of Subsisting Partners Of A Partnership Transferring The Assets In Favour Of A Retiring Partner: Supreme Court CASE TITLE: The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 991 A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh held that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was applicable to not only the cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring the assets in favour of a retiring partner. Delhi High Court DTVSV Act Is A Remedial Statute; Neither A Taxing Statute Nor Amnesty Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: MUFG Bank Versus CIT Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1122 The Delhi High Court has held that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) is neither a taxing statute nor an amnesty act. It is a remedial or beneficial statute. The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that any ambiguity in a taxing statute ensures the benefit of the assessee, but any ambiguity in the amnesty act or exemption clause in an exemption notification has to be construed in favor of the revenue. The amnesty or exemption has to be given only to those assesses who demonstrate that they satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing of the amnesty or exemption. Notice Under Section 148 Of Income Tax Act Against A Struck-Off Company Valid, In View Of Subsequent Order Of NCLT Restoring The Company: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal versus Income Tax Officer The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order passed by NCLT under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, directing restoration of a struck off company, will have the effect of placing the company in the same position as if the name of the company had not been struck off from the register of companies. Thus, the Court held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued against a Company on the date it stood dissolved as a consequence of being struck off, was valid in view of the subsequent order passed by the NCLT. 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. Jharkhand High Court Dispute Arising Out Of Erstwhile Central Excise Act Has To Be Dealt With Under Its Provisions And Not Under GST: Jharkhand High Court Case Title: M/s Usha Martin Limited Versus Additional Commissioner The Jharkhand High Court has held that the initiation of proceedings by the department under section 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged contravention of the Central Excise Act (C.E.A.) and Finance Act against the petitioner in terms of Section 140 of the CGST Act for the transition of CENVAT Credit as being inadmissible under GST was beyond his jurisdiction. Madras High Court Cancellation Of GST Registration On Health Issues; Madras High Court Revokes Case Title: Tvl.Marimuthu Venkateshwaran Versus The Commissioner Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 494 The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has lifted the cancellation of the GST registration as the tax returns were not filed by the taxpayer due to health-related issues. The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shafiq, while considering the directions issued in the cases of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, has directed the department to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration. Kerala High Court Wrong VAT Rate Can Be Rectified: Kerala High Court Case Title: M/s Crescent Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 631 The Kerala High Court has held that the mistake of applying the wrong value-added tax (VAT) rate can be rectified. The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that, as per Section 66 of the KVAT Act, once it is brought to the notice of the officer that there is a mistake in applying the correct rate of tax, it is within the power conferred on the officer to rectify the mistake. Allahabad High Court Revocation of GST Registration Can't Be Rejected Solely For Delay In Moving Revocation...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 27 November To 3 December 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags