Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 January To 3 February 2024

Mariya Paliwala

5 Feb 2024 12:45 PM GMT

  • Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 January To 3 February 2024

    Indirect TaxDelhi High Court Exporters Not Traceable, Customs Broker Can't Be Held Liable After Issuance Of 'Let Export Orders': Delhi High Court Case Title: Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General The Delhi High Court has held that as a customs broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable after the issuance of...

    Indirect Tax

    Delhi High Court

    Exporters Not Traceable, Customs Broker Can't Be Held Liable After Issuance Of 'Let Export Orders': Delhi High Court

    Case Title: Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General

    The Delhi High Court has held that as a customs broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable after the issuance of 'Let Export Orders' and the export of the goods out of the country.

    Bombay High Court

    Goa Cess Act Is Not Subsumed By GST Laws: Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Sesa Sterlite Limited through Company Secretary Chandrashekhar D. Chitnis & Anr. Versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary

    The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that the Goa Cess Act is not subsumed by the GST laws.

    Calcutta High Court

    Dredger Accessories Rules, Vessel Still In Use, No Case Of Unjust Enrichment, Duty Not Leviable: Calcutta High Court

    Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Limited

    The Calcutta High Court has held that when the goods are still in use, the question of passing the burden of customs duty does not arise, and the question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable.

    Madras High Court

    Electricity Qualifies As Input For Grant Of CENVAT Credit: Madras High Court

    Case Title: M/s.India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs

    The Madras High Court has held that electricity qualifies as an input for the grant of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR).

    Refund Claim Has To Be Examined Based On Documents Pertaining To Availing Of ITC And Export Of Products On Zero Rated Basis: Madras High Court

    Case Title: Flow Link Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

    The Madras High Court, while remanding the matter, held that the refund claim has to be examined and determined based on documents pertaining to the availing of ITC as well as the export of products on a zero-rated basis.

    Allahabad High Court

    [Limitation Act] Allahabad High Court Extends Benefit Of Exclusion Of Time U/S.14 To Appeals Under S.107 CGST Act

    Case Title: Murli Packers Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. State Of U P Through Secretary, Institutional Finance

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 52

    On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court directed the Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 afresh.

    CGST Act | Time Extension For Filing Appeal Against Orders U/S 73, 74 Can Be Extended To Orders U/S 129, 130: Allahabad HC Asks CBIT To Consider

    Case Title: M/S Veira Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 54

    The Allahabad High Court directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance to consider extending the benefit of extension of time to file appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 to orders passed under Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act.

    GST | Show Cause Notice A Vital Checkpoint, Delineates Boundaries Within Which Any Authority Can Operate: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P., Through Secretary Institutional Finance U.P. Govt. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 57

    The Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot travel beyond the show cause notice to impose penalty on the assesee.

    Writ Of Certiorari Not Issued As A Matter Of Course, But Granted At Discretion Of Superior Court: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59

    The Allahabad High Court has held that the writ of certiorari is discretion granted to a superior court to review and quash decisions of lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies and is not issued as a matter of course.

    GST | Technical Error Without Any Financial Implications Do Not Attract Penalties: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: M/S Falguni Steels vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 59

    The Allahabad High Court has held that mere technical errors under tax laws without any financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of penalties.

    CESTAT

    Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Is State Transport Corporation, Do Not Fall Under Definition Of Rent-A-Cab Scheme Operator: CESTAT

    Case Title: M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

    The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is a state transport corporation and does not fall under the definition of a rent-a-cab scheme operator.

    Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Is State Transport Corporation, Do Not Fall Under Definition Of Rent-A-Cab Scheme Operator: CESTAT

    Case Title: M/s. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

    The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is a state transport corporation and does not fall under the definition of a rent-a-cab scheme operator.

    Commission Shared By Head Office With Branch Office Of Same Entity Is Not Taxable: CESTAT

    Case Title: M/s. Akbar Travels of India (P)Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax

    The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that commission shared by the head office with a branch office of the same entity is not taxable.

    AAR

    ITC Admissible On Sale And Buyback Transactions When Payment Is Settled Through Book Adjustment: AAR

    Name of the applicant: Paragon Polymer Products Pvt. Ltd.

    The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that in cases of sale and buyback transactions, the input tax credit is admissible in respect of goods purchased from outsourced vendors when payment is settled through book adjustment against the debt created on outward supplies to those vendors.

    Direct Tax

    Delhi High Court

    Sales Tax Subsidy/Incentive Is Capital Receipt: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/S Indo Rama Textiles Ltd.

    The Delhi High Court has held that the sales tax subsidy or incentive received by the assessee under the Dispersal of Industries Package of Incentives, 1993, was a capital receipt.

    Calcutta High Court

    Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of CIT's Order Speculating Possibility Of Understatement In Closing Stock Without Specific Finding

    Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gopal Sharma

    The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of an order passed by the CIT speculating on the possibility of understatement in closing stock without a specific finding.


    Next Story