Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1 January to 7 January 2023

Supreme Court Non-Banking Finance & Leasing Companies Not Liable To Pay Interest Tax On Instalments Paid Under Hire Purchase Agreement : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s. Muthoot Leasing And Finance Ltd. versus CIT Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7 The Supreme Court has held that non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalment paid under the hire purchase agreement. Sabka Vishwas Scheme : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC Moratorium Case Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15 No one can be expected to do the impossible, the Supreme Court remarked while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium imposed on it. Bombay High Court It Is A PAN Which Follows The Jurisdiction And Not The Jurisdiction Which Follows PAN: Bombay High Court Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court ruled that the transfer of PAN is a result of the order transferring jurisdiction and that the PAN follows the jurisdiction rather than the other way around. Clause Contained In The Tax Invoice Amounts To An Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court Case Title: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd Versus MAD (India) Pvt.Ltd The Bombay High Court has held that the clause contained in the invoices, which clearly stipulates a reference to arbitration, deserves to be construed as an arbitration clause. The single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre has observed that any document in writing exchanged between the parties that provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and would amount to an arbitration clause. Madras High Court No Promissory Estoppel Involved In Grant Of Temporary Reprieve From Service Tax On Works Contract; Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Raju Construction & Ors. versus The Government of India & Ors. The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015, which withdrew service tax exemption on services in nature of works contract, as granted under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2012. Entities Evading Tax Payment Are Liable To Be Punished Under Criminal Charges With Penalties: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 The Madras High Court, while analysing the growing trend of tax evasion, has stated that companies, firms, or entities that evade tax payments are liable to be punished under criminal charges with substantial penalties. Refund Or Carry Forward The ITC To GST Regime Is Dealer’s Choice: Madras High Court Case Title: Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 4 The Madras High Court has held that the dealer has two options: refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime. The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has observed that the dealer cannot be compelled to opt for one of the two, i.e., refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime. It is, after all, an option given to the dealer. The provisional refund order issued by the department and the issuance of what is known as "Form-P" clearly defined the entitlement of the dealer. Orissa High Court Vedanta Claimed Unutilized ITC Refund, No Scope For Supplementary Refund Application Based On Fresh Calculation: Orissa High Court Case Title: Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda Versus Union of India The Orissa High Court has held that Vedanta has claimed the refund of the unutilized input tax credit on account of zero-rated supplies by clubbing up all the transactions relating to three units. There is no scope to insist on consideration of a supplementary refund application based on a fresh calculation made by taking individual unit-wise transactions into account. Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Dept. Can’t Retain Disputed Amount Paid Due To Inadvertent Error: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: Varshan Enterprises Versus Office of GST Council The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the GST department cannot retain the disputed amount that is paid to them due to an inadvertent error. The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the amounts that were paid by the assessee or petitioner who furnished the incorrect details cannot be taken as a tax due from the department or respondents, legally. The department cannot contend that ...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1 January to 7 January 2023

Mariya Paliwala

Tags