Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 April to 8 April, 2023

Supreme Court Memorandum Issued By The Government To Deduct 4% TDS Is Not Ultra Vires To Tripura Sales Tax Act: Supreme Court Case Title: The State Of Tripura Versus Chandan Deb Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 280 The Supreme Court has held that the liability to pay the tax shall be on the transferor who transfers the right to use any goods as per proviso to Section 3(1) read with Section 2(b) and 2(g) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act (TST Act). Issuance Of Corporate Guarantee On Behalf Of Group Companies Without Consideration Is Not A Taxable Service: Supreme Court Case Title: Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Versus M/S Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 281 The Supreme Court has held that the issuance of a corporate guarantee on behalf of group companies without consideration is not a taxable service. The division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra has observed that, as there is no consideration involved, no service tax would be assessed on the corporate guarantees given by a parent company to its subsidiaries. Section 263 Income Tax Act | Erroneous Order Of Assessing Officer Causing Prejudice To Revenue Is Revisable By CIT : Supreme Court Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282 The Supreme Court has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise revision powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act over the orders of the Assessing Officer which cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue. Delhi High Court Services Provided By EY India To Overseas EY Entities Not “Intermediary Services”: Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund To EY India Case Title: M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr. The Delhi High Court has ruled that the services provided by M/s Ernst and Young Limited (India), the Indian Branch Office of UK based company, M/s Ernst & Young Limited (E&Y Ltd), to overseas EY Entities, is not an “intermediary service”. Delhi High Court Quashes Service Tax Demand of Rs. 56.61 Crores Against MTNL Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India The Delhi High Court has quashed the service tax demand of Rs. 56.61 crores against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL). The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that MTNL had received the compensation during the financial year 2015-16, which was prior to May 14, 2016, i.e., the date on which the Finance Act, 2016, came into force and Clause (j) was introduced in Section 66E of the Act. Thus, the surrender of any right to use the spectrum by MTNL prior to the said date would not be chargeable to service tax. Orissa High Court Different Amount Mentioned In Tax Invoice And E-Way Bill: Orissa High Court Orders Issuance Of Fresh Assessment Order Case Title: M/s. Jena Trading and Co. Versus CT and GST Officer The Orissa High Court has held that the different amounts mentioned in the tax invoice and e-Way Bill indicate a palpable error in the waybill, which may be construed as a human error. The bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice M.S. Raman quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law. Punjab and Haryana High Court Punjab And Haryana High Court Directs To Refund Tax Collected Illegally With 6% Interest Case Title: Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Citation: CWP-23788-2021 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if the tax is collected without any authority of law, the same would amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe on his right under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. ITAT In Absence Of Proper Show Cause Notice To The Assessee, There Is No Merit In Levy Of Penalty: ITAT The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that where the initiation of penalty is one limb and the levy of penalty is another limb, then in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in the levy of penalty. CESTAT Breast Pump Is Not A Medical Device, Classifiable Under CTH 39269090: CESTAT Case Title: M/S Mehar Healthcare Corporation Versus Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that breast pumps have nothing to do with any medical or surgical procedures and are not used by any medical practitioner. The two-member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P V Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the manual breast pumps are classifiable under CTH 39269090. Cenvat Credit Available On Books Of Account Cannot Be Rejected Without Following Due Procedure: CESTAT Case Title: M/s Saavn Media...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 April to 8 April, 2023

Mariya Paliwala

Tags