Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 July To 8 July, 2023

Supreme Court CTO For Enhanced Production Capacity Issued After SC’s Order Fixing Total Import Limit; Importer Not Entitled To Proportionate Increase In Import Quota: Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Sanvira Industries vs Rain CII Carbon (Vizag) Ltd. & Ors Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 497 The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court which set aside the increased quota allocated for import of raw pet-coke (RPC) based on the “Consent to Operate” (CTO) issued to the importer for an enhanced production capacity, after the top court’s order dated 09.10.2018. Taxation Classification | Specific Provision Will Prevail Over General Provision In A Statute : Supreme Court In ‘Maize Starch’ Case Case Title: Santhosh Maize & Industries Limited vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499 The Supreme Court has ruled that if in any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one in general words and the other in special terms – then, as per the rules of interpretation, the special terms are not meant to be included in the general expression. Alternatively, the court said that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Self-Assessment Of Assessee Not Rendered Malafide Merely Because It Was Based On A CETSTAT View Which Was Later Overturned : Supreme Court Case Title: The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs & Anr vs M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 512 The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred. Bombay High Court GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Bombay High Court Case Title: Bharat Parihar Vs. State of Maharashtra The Bombay High Court has held that the GST provisional attachment order is not valid after one year. Assessee Entitled To Claim Depreciation In Respect Of Assets On The Actual Cost Of Assets: Bombay High Court Case Title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of any assets based on the actual cost of the assets. Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Proceedings Initiated To Tax 'Share Premium' Of Rs. 679.32 Crores Case Title: SLS Energy Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated to recover the tax share premium of Rs. 679 crores. Income-Tax Dept. Cannot Ignore The Valid TRC Issued By The Govt.: Bombay High Court Allows DTAA-Benefits To Alibaba Singapore Case Title: The Commissioner of Income International Taxation-1 Versus Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Ltd. The Bombay High Court has granted the benefit of the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) to the e-commerce platform Alibaba Singapore. Consideration Received By Colgate Palmolive Malaysia From It’s Indian Entity For Providing Access To SAP System Is Not Royalty, Not Taxable: Bombay High Court Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Colgate Palmolive Marketing SDN BHD The Bombay High Court has held that consideration received by assessee Colgate Palmolive's Malaysian arm from its Indian entity for providing access to System Analysis Program Development (SAP) system is not taxable as royalty. Priority Of The Secured Creditor Over Govt. Dues Under SARFAESI Act, 2002: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ronak Industries Versus Assistant Commissioner The Bombay High Court held that priority belongs to the secured creditor in respect of the dues of the Central government, state government, or local authority under Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Bombay High Court Allows IGST Refund On Zero Rated Supply Along With 7% Interest Case Title: Sunlight Cable Industries Versus The Commissioner of Customs The Bombay High Court has allowed the refund of IGST on zero-rated supply along with 7% interest. Gujarat High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Reopening Of Assessment Order And Notice In Land Acquisition Case, Rules Compensation Not Taxable As Capital Gains Case Title: Anilaben Rohitbhai Modi Versus Income Tax Officer The Gujarat High Court while quashing the reopening of an assessment order and notice issued to the petitioner in a land acquisition case, has ruled that compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land is not taxable as capital gains. Andhra Pradesh High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Suspension Order Of Customs Broker Licensee Passed Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing Case Title: M/S. Richmark Shipping And...

Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 July To 8 July, 2023

Mariya Paliwala

Tags