2023 Annual Digest Of Indirect Tax Cases: Supreme Court And High Courts
Mariya Paliwala
4 Jan 2024 1:30 PM GMT
Supreme CourtState Amendments Made To VAT Acts After GST Came Into Effect Are Invalid : Supreme Court Case Title: The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions., Civil Appeal No(S). 1628 Of 2023 Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927 A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the appeals arising from judgments of Telangana, Gujarat and Bombay High Court...
Supreme Court
State Amendments Made To VAT Acts After GST Came Into Effect Are Invalid : Supreme Court
Case Title: The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions., Civil Appeal No(S). 1628 Of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the appeals arising from judgments of Telangana, Gujarat and Bombay High Court with respect to the validity of VAT Amendment Act in their respective states, made several significant findings regarding Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act (Amendment), 2016, which allowed the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax.
Customs Duty - Undervaluation Must Be Proved By Evidence Of Prices Of Contemporaneous Imports; Else Benefit Of Doubt Goes To Importer : Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864
The Supreme Court has recently highlighted that the transaction value (the price actually paid or payable for the goods) should be the primary basis for customs valuation and that other valuation methods be invoked sequentially only when there is evidence to doubt the correctness of the declared transaction value.
Services Provided to IIT & NIT Exempt From Service Tax: Supreme Court Holds After Interpreting 'Or' & Semicolon In Exemption Notification
Case Title : Commissioner, Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna v. M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd; Union of India v.M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 885
In an interesting judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Institute of Technology and the National Institute of Technology will come under the Mega Service Tax Exemption Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in 2012(and amended and clarified by a subsequent notification issued in 2014).
Material Disclosed To Income Tax Settlement Commission Needn't Be Something Which Wasn't Discovered By Assessing Officer : Supreme Court
Case Title: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE AND ANR
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822
The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 245H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty to the assessee if he has co-operated with the Settlement Commission and has made “full and true disclosure of his income”, cannot be saddled with an artificial requirement that the material “disclosed” by the assessee before the Commission must be something apart from what was “discovered” by the Assessing Officer.
Excise Duty Exemption | To Determine If A Product Falls Under Description "Intravenous Fluids”, Its Composition & Not Its Use Matters : Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/s Denis Chem Lab Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 650
The Supreme Court has ruled that in order to determine whether a product would fall under the description of “Intravenous Fluids” so as to be eligible for exemption from excise duty, it is the composition of the product in question which is relevant and not whether the product is used for treatment of any particular disease.
Case Title: Central GST Delhi – III vs Delhi International Airport Ltd
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457
The Supreme Court has ruled that the “user development fee” (UDF) levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance, and development entities from passengers departing the concerned airports, is a statutory levy, and thus, it is not subjected to levy of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.
Case Title: M/S. Tata Motors Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (SPL) & Anr.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443
The Supreme Court has ruled that a credit note issued by an automobile manufacturer to a dealer of automobiles, in consideration of the replacement of a defective part done by the dealer pursuant to a warranty agreement, is exigible for sales tax.
Case Title: CC and CE and ST, Noida vs M/s Interarch Building Products Pvt Ltd
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 393
The Supreme Court has ruled that the value of the service portion in the execution of the works contract has to be determined as per Rule 2A of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, or as per the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 (Composition Scheme), if adopted by the assessee, and that the assessee has to pay service tax on the service element and can claim CENVAT Credit only on the said amount.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 397
The Supreme Court has ruled that the classification of a product under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cannot be changed merely on the ground of change of tax structure or tariff entries, without showing a change in the nature and character of a product or a change in the use of the product(Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy).
Case Title: Heinz India Limited v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 411
The Supreme Court Bench has held that prickly heat powders fall under the category of 'medicated talcum powder' and not 'medicine' for the purpose of sales tax under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act”). Whereas, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (“TNGST Act”), prickly heat powder would be taxed as a cosmetic.
Case Title: M/s K.B. Tea Product Pvt Ltd & Anr vs Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri & Ors
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari has rendered a split verdict on the issue concerning the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation where a tax holiday/ sales tax exemption granted to the appellant- manufacturer was stopped pursuant to the amendments made to the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs A. B. P. Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430
The Supreme Court has upheld the withdrawal of a customs notification which granted customs duty concession to “Rotary Printing Machine” of 'single width two plate variety', on the ground of indigenous angle, i.e., availability of the equipment in India. The top court remarked that the same cannot be characterized as an irrelevant factor for withdrawing tax concession.
Case Title: M/s. D.N. Singh vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Patna & Anr.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451
The Supreme Court has ruled that bitumen cannot be treated as a 'valuable article' under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy made the observation while dealing with an appeal filed against the decision of the Patna High Court, who had upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards the bitumen lifted by the assessee as a carriage contractor, which was allegedly not delivered by it to the consignee- the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar, as instructed.
Same Activity Can Be Taxed As 'Goods' & 'Services' : Supreme Court Upholds Levy Of Service Tax On “Engineering Design & Drawings”
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v M/S Suzlon Energy
Citation : 202LiveLaw(SC) 298
The Supreme Court has held that the import of “Engineering Design & Drawings” falls under the category of “design services” under section 65(35b) read with Section 65(105) (zzzzd) of the Finance Act, 1994, and are subject to levy of service tax. On the sole ground that “Engineering Design & Drawings” prepared and supplied by sister company were shown as 'goods' under the Customs Act and in the bill of entry, such services cannot be excluded from the definition of “design services” under the Finance Act, 1994.
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.
Mortein Spray, Harpic & Lizol Cleaner- Not Classifiable as 'Insecticide' Under KVAT; Dettol A 'Medicament': Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes & Ors.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari has ruled that Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) of the 3rd Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT), 2003 as 'insecticides'.
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.
Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition To Deposit Rs 70 Lakhs In Case For Wrongfully Claiming ITC
Case Title: Subhash Chauhan Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61
The Supreme Court has overturned a bail condition imposed by the High Court that a person accused of illegally claiming Input Tax Credit must deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of improperly claimed ITC.
Case Title: State of Punjab Versus Shiv Enterprises Civil Appeal No. 359 of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56
Observing that it was "premature" on the part of the High Court to quash a show-cause notice issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act by invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, the Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Supreme Court noted that there were allegations about evasion of tax and hence it was premature on the part of the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under Section 130 of the Act was issued.
Case Title: M/s. Paranthaman Hydraulics and Equipments Versus State Of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court has stayed the order passed by the Madras High Court directing the payment of a minimum 4% tax on the manufacturing of the water borehole drilling rigs.
The division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar has observed that tax at the rate of 4% has already been deposited by the petitioner. The direction in the order to pay another 4% shall remain in abeyance until the next date of listing.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187
The Supreme Court has held that under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, a dealer claiming Input Tax Credit on purchase ought to prove and establish an actual physical movement of goods and the genuineness of the transaction. It noted that in order to establish the same, the dealer should furnish the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgment of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars, etc.
Only Retail Sale Can Claim Assessment Benefits Under Section 4A Of Central Excise Act :Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Versus M/S. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Etc.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 223
The Supreme Court has held that mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible for central excise duty exemption, and what is required along with the affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.
Case Title: M/S Bilag Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Daman & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 257
The Supreme Court while ascertaining who is the “Related Party” under the Central Excise Act for the purpose of valuation held that before the clause in Section 4(4)(c) could be used, the buyer and seller had to be interested in one another's businesses. Since two-way traffic is required, there shouldn't be any one-way traffic.
Special Effects & 3D Conversion Services Are Not 'Video-Tape Production' Services Under S. 65(120) Of Finance Act, 1994: Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax-IV vs Prime Focus Ltd.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561
The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as 'imparting special effects', 'post production service', 'digital asset management and content service' and 'digital restoration service', will not fall under the ambit of 'video-tape production' under Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994.
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.
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.
Revenue Dept Can't Recover Refunded Cess Amount Because Refund Was Based On A Judgment Which Was Later Overruled : Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J and K) vs M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 522
The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (J&K&L) High Court where the court had held that the assessee was not liable to return the Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess in view of the law subsequently laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Unicorn Industries vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 492.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Frequent Logistics Services PVT. LTD. v. Commissioner Goods and Service Tax Department And ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 799
Delhi High Court has recently set aside show cause notice proposing to cancel GST registration and the consequential order cancelling the same on the ground that reasons for cancelling registration of assessee were not clearly mentioned in the show cause notice.
Case Title: Gopal Corporates LLP Versus Commissioner Delhi-East
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Rule 8 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules 2010 (CTUT), which deals with the alteration in the number of operating packing machines.
Show Cause Notice Lacks Reasons In Detail For Denial Of Refund Of ITC To Mcdonald's India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Mcdonalds India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 479
The Delhi High Court has held that the show cause notice lacks reasons in detail for the denial of refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to Mcdonald's India.
Delhi High Court Quashes SCN For Being Devoid Of Reasons, Restores GST Registration
Case Title: Rishiraj Aluminium Private Limited Versus Goods And Service Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 517
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice as it was devoid of reasons and restored the GST registration.
Case Title: Ohmi Industries Asia Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 518
The Delhi High Court has held that Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is inapplicable to cases of refund of integrated tax paid on zero-rated supply.
No Justification For Not Adjudicating The Notice For More Than 13 Years After Its Issuance: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nanu Ram Goyal Versus Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 332
The Delhi High Court has held that there is no justification for not adjudicating the notice for more than thirteen years after its issuance.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the larger public interest requires that the Revenue Department and its officials adjudicate the show cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable time.
Refund Claim Embedded In Return, No Need To File Fresh Claim: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Pay 6% Interest
Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.
Attachment Of Bank Accounts Is A Draconian Step, Attachment Is Subject To The Condition Mentioned U/s 83 Of GST Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 282
The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.
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.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 288
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
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 293
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.
Case Title: M/S Balaji Exim Versus Commissioner, CGST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 267
The Delhi High Court has held that allegations of availing of fake credit cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Versus The Gst Commissioner, Cgst, And Central Excise And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 253
The Delhi High Court has ordered the petitioner to reveal the name of the friend who fraudulently obtained a GSTIN using his credentials at the department.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has directed the petitioner to disclose the identity of his friend, to whom he claims to have handed over his identity documents, to the police authorities as well as to the state GST authorities. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the concerned authorities and provide them with all the information as required.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) vs M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression 'issuance of show cause notice' in Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR), merely contemplates the dispatch of the notice and not its receipt by the Customs Broker, within the stipulated period.
Applications For Refund Of ITC Cannot Be Denied On Mere Suspicion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Balaji EXIM vs Commissioner, CGST and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court has held that applications for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be rejected merely on suspicion and without any cogent material.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.
The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.
Case Title: Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 282
The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.
Case Title: Ram Prakash Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Delhi (GST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 78
The Delhi High Court has held that the payment of tax and penalty to release the detained goods shall not be treated as "admission" on the part of the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for the release of the goods and that the said payment was not voluntary. Neither the show-cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as the penalty.
Case Title: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Hqrs.) versus M/s Spraytec India Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is “pending” consideration so as to bar the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling, under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
No Provision In GST Act for Confiscating Currency From The Premises: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arvind Goyal CA Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 83
The Delhi High Court ruled that there is no provision in the GST Act that would allow for the forcible removal of currency from the premises of any person.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the powers of search and seizure are draconian powers and must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute and only if the necessary conditions are satisfied.
VAT Department Not To Initiate Coercive Measures Against PSU Pawan Hans: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pawan Hans Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 65
The Delhi High Court has granted a stay to helicopter charterer PSU Pawan Hans Ltd. against a VAT demand of Rs. 176 crores.
The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the issue needs consideration and directed the VAT department not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the VAT demand confirmed by the Delhi VAT Tribunal in the interim.
Budgetary Support Under GST Regime Can't Be Denied To Eligible Unit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Special Cables Pvt Ltd versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has directed the revenue authorities to grant budgetary support to a manufacturing unit under the “Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime”, available to 'eligible units' located in specified States. The Court took note that the petitioner was eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty prior to 01.07.2017, i.e., before the introduction of the GST regime in India, and thus, in terms of the scheme, it was entitled to avail budgetary support.
Case Title: Jindal Exports and Imports Pvt Ltd vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), which empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce the foreign trade policy, cannot be applied retrospectively by the Central Government.
Case Title: Fayiz Nangaparambil Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 469
The Delhi High Court has held that the Show Cause Notice was short of the necessary requirements as it did not contain any specific allegation.
Case Title: Prem Kumar Chopra Versus ACIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 468
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notices on the grounds that the department has initiated reassessment by deviating from prior views without any cogent reasoning.
Case Title: Centre For Policy Research Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 466
The Delhi High Court has stayed the reassessment proceedings against the Centre for Policy Research
Case Title: Ideal Broadcasting India Pvt. Ltd Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 467
The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers filing declarations under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) cannot quantify the duty under indirect taxes.
Taxpayers Filing Declaration Under SVLDR Scheme Can't Quantify The Duty Under Indirect Taxes: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 446
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the plea of Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, and the Aam Aadmi Party, has held that neither the e-assessment nor the faceless assessment scheme in any manner modifies the power to transfer cases from one Assessing Officer under a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to another Assessing Officer under another Principal Commissioner of Income Tax who are holding non-concurrent charges.
Case Title: Carpet Export Promotion Council Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 434
The Delhi High Court has held that the summary rejection of the application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR Scheme) without affording the opportunity to be heard would violate the principles of natural justice.
Delhi High Court Quashes Penalty Order Under BMA On Failure Of Dept. To Consider Assessee's Email
Case Title: Prateek Chitkara Versus JCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty order under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA) for non-consideration of the assessee's email.
Case Title: Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed & Ors. Versus Commissioner Appeals Customs And Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeals of poor daily wage earners against the seizure of goods without insisting on the requirement of pre-deposit.
Knowledge Is A Necessary Element For Committing Abetment : Delhi High Court Quashes Penalty Against Customs Broker
Case Title: Rajeev Khatri Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Export)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court has quashed the penalty against customs brokers on the grounds that knowledge is a necessary element for committing abetment.
Mere Pendency Of An Appeal Would Not Detract From The Excise Duty Refund Demand: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Goldy Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere pendency of an appeal or an order of stay that may operate would not detract from the obligation of any person claiming a refund to make an application within the period prescribed and computed with reference to the "relevant date".
DGGI Can't Be Stopped From Taking Intelligence-Based Enforcement Action When Investigation By Other Authority Is Going On: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Hanuman Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Director General Directorate General Of GST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 756
The Delhi High Court has held that the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) cannot be stopped from taking intelligence-based enforcement action when investigations by other authorities are going on.
Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise And CGST Division
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has directed the adjudicating authority to process Blackberry's claim of interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act.
Section 67(2) Of The GST Act Does Not Empower Seizure Of Currency Available In Premises During Search: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rajeev Chhatwal Versus Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (East)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 67(2) of the GST Act does not empower the seizure of currency available on premises during a search.
Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Telecommunication Services Rendered By Vodafone Idea To Foreign Telecom Operators
Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1023
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund IGST on telecommunication services rendered by Vodafone Idea to foreign telecom operators (FTO).
Active Involvement In Customs Duty Evasion: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seekings Directions For Pre-Deposit Waiver
Case Title: Ajay Sagar Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 961
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing the petition seeking directions for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement as placed in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, noted that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of rare and exceptional cases.
Statutory Appeal Period Under Customs Act, Appellate Authority Has No Power To Condone Delay: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 944
The Delhi High Court has held that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days.
Refund Application Could Not Be Uploaded Due To Technical Glitches, Refund Can't Be Denied: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
Case Title: M/S Sethi Sons (India) Versus Assistant Commissioner And Ors.
The Delhi High Court has held that the refund application was filed twice on the GST portal but could not be uploaded due to technical glitches.
Order Cancelling GST Registration Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
Case Title: M/S Aaira Batteries Versus Principal Commissioner Of Department Of Trade Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi
The Delhi High Court has held that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is, thus, liable to be set aside.
Decision To Cancel GST Registration With Retrospective Effect Must Be Based On Some Objective Criteria: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310
The Delhi High Court has held that the decision to cancel the GST registration with retrospective effect must be based on some objective criteria.
ITC Reversal During Late Night Search Involuntarily: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Reverse ITC In Assessee's ECL
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reverse the input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 22,14,226 in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger (ECL).
Assessee Coerced To Deposit GST During Search: Delhi High Court Orders Refund
Case Title: Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner by making a payment of Rs. 23,70,000 in cash along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum.
Delhi High Court Allows Exemptions Claim Of Amazon On Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation Under Customs Notification
Case Title: AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
The Delhi High Court has held that Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation, and Echo Dot 4th Generation with Clock are eligible to claim exemptions in accordance with SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated June 30, 2017.
GST Officers Should Not Pressurise Taxpayers To Pay Tax Not Following Procedure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible for the officers to pressurize the taxpayers to pay tax without following the requisite procedure, notwithstanding that it may be apparent that such tax is due and payable.
VAT Applicable On Sale Of Repossessed Vehicles: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
The Delhi High Court has held that the sale of repossessed vehicles is subject to the charge of value-added tax (VAT).
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Restrains GST Dept. From Passing Final Order On Demand Notices Against Delta Corp.
Case Title: Delta Corp Limited & Anr. Versus Union Of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has restrained the GST Department from passing final order on demand notices against Delta Corp.
Bombay High Court Upholds The Validity of Provisions Dealing With Place Of Supply Under IGST
Case Title: Dharmendra M. Jani Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2), which deal with place of supply under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act).
Case Title: Dattaram Govind Naik Versus State Of Goa
The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench has held that when the legal heirs of the deceased license holder applied for cancellation, the excise commissioner was duty-bound to cancel it.
Bombay High Court Upholds The Validity Of Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000
Case Title: M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Versus State of Goa
The Bombay High Court has upheld the validity of the Goa Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak & Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes relied on the decision of the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Stainless Limited and another vs. State of Haryana and ors. which upheld the constitutional validity of entry taxes imposed by states on goods coming in from other states.
Case Title: Modi Car Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
The Bombay High Court has directed the sales tax commissioner to determine the applicability of VAT on road tax, insurance premiums, and octroi duty.
Case Title: Sunil Wamanrao Sakore Versus Union Of India
The Bombay High Court has held that the money lying in the corpus of the revenue had simply to be adjusted by way of a mathematical exercise and benefit accorded to the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV).
Case Title: TML Business Services Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
The Bombay High Court has held that the action of the department in making the adjustment of a refund due to the petitioner while considering the application under the Amnesty Scheme without notice to the petitioner is in utter disregard of the well-established principles of natural justice and has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner.
Case Title: Chanchal Bhagwatilal Gokhru Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings triggered by a change of opinion as to the calculation of tax payable by the assessee.
Constitutionality Of Taxing Intermediary Services Under GST: Bombay High Court Upholds Validity Of Section 13(8)(b) Of IGST Act
Case Title: Dharmendra M. Jani Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutionality of taxing intermediary services under the IGST Act.
Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 Defies The Doctrine Of Separation Of Powers: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Rohan Lobo Versus State Of Goa
The Bombay High Court has held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020, is an impermissible judicial override defying the doctrine of separation of powers.
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.
Case Title: Rohit Enterprises Versus The Commissioner State GST Bhavan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the provisions of the GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny the right to carry on trade and commerce to any citizen or subject.
Case Title: Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CBIC
The Bombay High Court has advised the Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) to construct GST tribunals to reduce needless litigation in the form of filing writ petitions.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra Versus Mahabal Enterprises
The Bombay High Court has directed to release the Gutka and Pan-Masala, which were banned in the state of Maharashtra, after furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs. 27,84,000.
Who Is The Proper Authority To Decide IGST Refund? Bombay High Court Directs The Dept. To Decide
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to decide who has the proper authority to decide on an IGST refund.
The division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja has noted that the customs authorities claimed that the GST authority is the proper officer for processing refund claims, whereas the GST authorities claim that it is the customs officer.
Bombay High Court Orders Dept. To Refund Tax Deposited By HSBC Under Protest
Case Title: The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has ordered the department to refund the tax deposited by HSBC under protest.
Tea Stored In Warehouse Is An Agricultural Produce, Not Exigible To Service Tax: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner
The Bombay High Court has issued a writ of certiorari against the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) and held that “tea” stored in warehouses is agricultural produce and is not eligible for service tax.
Bombay High Court Directs Dept. To Permit Amend In GSTR-1, Either Online Or Manual
Case Title: Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has directed the department to permit the petitioner or assessee to amend or rectify Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021, and January 2022, either online or manually.
Agreement To Provide Manpower For Maintenance Is Contract Of Service And Not A Sale Under MVAT Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Atos India Private Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court has held that an agreement to provide manpower to perform maintenance is a contract of service and not a sale contract under the MVAT Act.
Customs Deputy Commissioner's Order Contrary To AAR's Ruling, Bombay High Court Quashes
Case Title: Isha Exim carrying on business Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has quashed the customs deputy commissioner's order contrary to the ruling passed by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR).
Action Of Customs Assistant Commissioner In Selling Gold Jewellery Belonging To Assessee Is Illegal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Leyla Mohmoodi Versus The Additional Commissioner of Customs
The Bombay High Court has held that the action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in disposing of or selling the gold jewellery belonging to the petitioners or assessee subject matter of the proceedings was illegal and unconstitutional.
State GST Dept. Doesn't Have Jurisdiction To Retain Amount Of Tax On Export Transactions: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Media Net Software Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors.
The Bombay High Court has held that CGST/MGST authorities would not have jurisdiction to retain the amount of tax on export transactions.
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 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.
Shifting Of Commissionerates, Re-Organisation Of Office, Not A Valid Justification For Inordinate Delay In SCN Adjudication: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
The Bombay High Court has held that the belated hearing of the show cause notice would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Royalty Payment For Use Of Technology Is Inextricably Linked With Manufacturing Activity: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Cummins India Limited Versus ACIT
The Bombay High Court has held that the transaction of payment of royalty for the use of technology is inextricably linked with manufacturing activity and should be aggregated with other international transactions in the manufacturing segment for the purposes of benchmarking it.
Madras High Court
Madras High Court Allows Company To File Statutory Appeal After Limitation Period Noting That It Could Not Check GST Portal Due To Lack Of Employees
Case Title: SRM Engineering Construction Corporation Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High court recently allowed a company to file a Statutory Appeal against the Assessment Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) even though the limitation period to file an appeal had expired after noting that the company failed to access the notice in the GST portal.
Madras High Court Directs Customs Dept. To Release Fresh Apples Imported From New Zealand On Furnishing Of Bank Guarantee Towards Differential Duty
Case Title: The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s.N.C.Alexander
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty. The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to release fresh apples imported from New Zealand on the furnishing of bank guarantees towards differential duty.
Case Title: M/s. Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court has cancelled the cancellation of the customs duty exemption certificate (CDEC) issued to the Apollo Hospitals.
Case Title: Sundaresan Suresh Kumar Versus Assessment Unit
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment as the assessee was given only 13 hours to reply to the show-cause notice.
Case Title: Tvl.Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court has imposed a minor penalty and held that the expiry of the E-way bill does not create any scope for evasion.
The single bench of Justice M. Sunder has observed that assuming there was no breakdown and assuming the portal was active, the maximum penalty would be Rs. 5,000.
Case Title: M/s. Raju Construction & Ors. versus The Government of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
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.
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.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court has referred to the division bench the issue of the power of the high court under Article 226 to condone the delay beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under the GST Act.
The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has observed that there were two contradictory views expressed by two judges of the Madras High Court.
Case Title: M/s. Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management v. The Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed the pleas filed by music composers AR Rahman, GV Prakash and Santhosh Narayan challenging the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of the GST Department levying service tax on transfer of copyright in musical work for the period between 2013 and 2017.
Case Title: Tvl Metal Trade Incorporation Versus The Special Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court has held that the State Authority cannot prosecute the petitioner once again as the Central Authority has already initiated action against the petitioner in respect of the very same subject matter.
Case Title: Deepa Traders Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court has held that errors committed are inadvertent and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit (ITC) to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fashion by the assessees.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 107 of the CGST Act is an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act.
Case Title: Sasi Pathirakunnath Versus Assistant State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court has held that the presence of gold in your pocket without the appropriate documentation raises suspicions of tax evasion.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that there is no satisfactory explanation for the fact that there was a discrepancy in the number of documents produced by the petitioner in the evening before the department and the quantity of gold actually recovered from the petitioner.
Case Title: Pappachan Chakkiath versus Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that when the time limit for issuing an order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act stands extended by a notification, the time limit for issuance of show cause notice under Section 73(2) would also stand extended.
Classification Of Dr.Reddy's Senquel-AD As A Mouthwash Or A Medicament: Kerala High Court Remands The Matter Back
Case Title: Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court has remitted the issue of the classification of Dr.Reddy's Senquel-AD as a mouthwash or a medicament for fresh consideration.
DGFT Circular Providing 4% of SAD Refund Published On The Official Website Amounts To Public Notice: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court has held that a circular issued by the Directorate General Of Foreign Trade (DGFT) providing 4% of the Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund published on the official website amounts to public notice.
GST - Input Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied To Purchaser Merely Because Seller Didn't Record Transaction In GSTR-2A Form: Kerala High Court
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Aji V. Dev, H. Abdul Lathief, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, and S. Sajeevan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court recently held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchaser merely on ground of non-reflection of the transaction in the GSTR-2A Form.
KVAT Act | Tax Doesn't Apply To Transfer Of Goods But To Transfer Of 'Right To Use' Goods: Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. M/s Sathyam Audios and connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court recently held that the tax under the KVAT Act applied not to the transfer of goods but to the transfer of the right to use goods.
GST Registration Cancellation: Superintendent Of Central Tax To Take Independent Decision Without Influenced By Direction Of DGGI: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muhammad Salmanul Faris K Versus The Superintendent
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
The Kerala High Court has held that the Superintendent of Central Tax should take an independent decision without being influenced by the direction of the DGGI, Kochi Zonal Unit.
Karnataka High Court
ATM Management Service To Banks Are Pure Services, No VAT Payable: Karnataka High Court Quashes Re-assessment
Case Title: FIS Payment Solutions And Services India Private Limited Vesrsus The State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the re-assessment and held that ATM management services to banks are pure services and will not attract Value Added Tax (VAT).
Case Title: B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions determining the tax difference calculation for pre-GST works contracts.
Case Title: M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the recovery from the banker and directed the department to reconsider the application under the Karasamadhana Scheme.
Case Title: Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited Versus Directorate General Of Goods
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the GST Intimation Notice to the tune of Rs 21,000 crore and held that online/electronic/digital Rummy games and other Online/Electronic/Digital games played on Gameskraft's platforms are not taxable as "betting" and "gambling".
Rule Whittling Down Input Taxes Refund Paid In Course Of Making A Zero-Rated Supply Is Ultra Vires: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Wipro India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court has held that the circular regarding the mismatch of input tax credit (ITC) is applicable for 2019–20 in the case of identical errors.
No GST Applicable On Supply Of Vouchers: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that vouchers do not fall under the category of goods and services and therefore, the issue and supply of vouchers would not attract GST.
Charger Sold Along With Mobile Phone Can't Be Differently Taxed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The State of Karnataka Versus The Index Technologies India Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court has held that the charger, which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set, is taxable at the rate of 5%.
Case Title: M/S Patanjali Foods Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has held that only the Central Government can make provision for prohibiting, restricting, or regulating the import or export of goods or services, or technology and not the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Odhavjibhai Mohanbhai Gadhiya Versus State of Gujarat Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 28
The Gujarat High Court has held that Sales tax or VAT dues payable cannot be claimed as priority over dues of the secured creditor.
Case Title: Shree Ganesh Molasses Trading Company Versus Superintendent
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 49
The Gujarat High Court has held that the reversal of input tax credit (ITC) at midnight during search and seizure operations can't be treated as a voluntary payment.
The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Sandeep S. Bhatt has directed the department to reverse the ITC to the tune of Rs. 37,68,300 along with 6% interest.
Case Title: Sona Metals Versus State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 105
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an order cancelling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration of Sona Metals, citing a lack of detailed reasons for the cancellation.
GST Payable Only On The Cost of Construction and Not On The Cost Of Land: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 94
The Gujarat High Court, while giving major relief to the buyers, has held that GST is payable only on the cost of construction and not on the cost of land.
Case Title: RHC Global Exports Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 98
The Gujarat High Court has held that the state GST department can initiate proceedings against the unit situated in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
Gujarat High Court Directs To Release Seized Gold As Outstanding Demand Against Assessee
Case Title: Praveenbhai Girdharilal Agarwal Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)
The Gujarat High Court has directed the department to release the 100.350 grams of seized gold as the assessee had no outstanding demand.
Gujarat High Court Grants Assessee Permission to Pay Tax Liability in Installments, Lifts Bank Account Attachment
Case Title: Nirajkumar Nareshkumar Lakhyani (Pro. Of M/S Om Multitrade) Vs. State Of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 115
The Gujarat High Court has overturned the decision of the Adjudicating Authority and granted permission to an assessee to fulfill their tax liability through installment payments, consequently lifting the provisional attachment of the assessee's bank account.
Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Cryptic Order Of GST Registration Cancellation
Case Title: Om Trading Vs State Of Gujarat R/Special Civil Application No. 8990 Of 2023
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 117
The Gujarat High Court has clarified that an order for the cancellation of registration passed without providing any reasons is a non-speaking order and therefore is liable to be set aside.
Gujarat High Court Orders Refund Of IGST With Interest In An Inadvertent Tax Payment Case
Case Title: Tagros Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 128
The Gujarat High Court has directed the refund of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) amount, along with applicable interest, to a petitioner who inadvertently paid IGST at a higher rate than the concessional rate applicable.
Allahabad High Court
GST Act | If Invoice Or Any Other Specified Document Is Accompanying Goods, Then Consigner Or Consignee Are Deemed To Be Owner: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Western Carrier India Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 347
The Allahabad High Court held that if goods are accompanied by invoices or any other document as specified, either the consignee or the consigner shall be deemed owner of the goods. Penalty, if any, should be imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
UP VAT | Burden To Prove Purchase From Registered Dealer On Assessee: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/S Ramway Foods Ltd. [SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 26 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 334
In a revision preferred by the Tax Department, the Allahabad High Court has held that the burden to prove that purchases were made from registered dealer lies on the Assesee claiming the same. The Department cannot be made to discharge a negative burden to prove that the sales were made from unregistered dealers.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is a complete code in itself and there can be no deviation from the text of the Act, Rules and Forms.
GST | Allow Assesee To Upload ITC-01 To Claim Input Tax Credit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court has allowed the assessee-petitioner to upload ITC-01 to enable him to avail of Input Tax Credit for shifting from the Composite Scheme to the Normal Scheme.
Assessee Ought To Have Waited For Relevant Form To Go Live On GST Portal Instead Of Making Illegal Adjustment: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Tikona Infinet Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and Another Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 242
The Allahabad High Court has held that the assessee ought to have waited for the relevant form to go live on the GST portal instead of making an illegal adjustment.
GST | No Real Use In Relegating Cases Of Undisputed Facts To Forum Of Alternate Remedy : Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Paper Machinery Industries v. Commissioner Cgst And 2 Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 461
The Allahabad High Court has held that tax cases where the facts are undisputed and there are issues of jurisdiction and violation principles of natural justice involved may not be relegated to the Authorities.
E-Way Bill Expired Due To Vehicle Break Down: Allahabad High Court Quashes Seizure Memo
Case Title: M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 268
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act 2017 by which a penalty was imposed solely on the ground that no evidence had been adduced regarding the illness of the driver and the breakdown of the vehicle.
Case Title: Lalita vs. Central Goods And Service Tax And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 243
The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 which provides remedy to file objections against the attachment of property must be availed before approaching the Court.
Allahabad High Court Stays Rs.1,081 Crores GST Demand Against Paytm
Case Title: One 97 Communications Limited Versus UOI
The Allahabad High Court has stayed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand of Rs. 1,081 crores against Paytm.
"The amount of tax due on the transaction has already been paid, and the only dispute is whether it is to be treated as an intra-state sale or an inter-state sale; recovery of the demand raised shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing," the division bench headed by Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.J. Munir said while listing the matter for hearing on April 27, 2022.
Case title - Pankaj Khare vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Custom And Cgst, Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 187 [WRIT TAX No. - 148 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 187
The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Commissioner, GST to issue clear direction to the GST Commissionerate in Lucknow that no notices regarding payment of service tax /GST are issued to the lawyers rendering legal service falling in the negative list so far as service tax is concerned.
Vague Arrest Memo, Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Accused In Fake GST ITC Worth Rs.88 Crores
Case Title: Ashish Kakkar V/s UOI
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 223
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the person allegedly involved in the creation of 92 fake GST Forms and the passing of fake Input Tax credits (ITC) to the tune of Rs. 88 crore.
No Notice For GST Recovery Issued Against The Applicant, Was Illegally Arrested: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail
Case Title: Ravinder Nath Sharma vs. UOI [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 26376 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail on the grounds that no notice for GST recovery was issued against the applicant, who was illegally arrested.
No Notice For GST Recovery Issued Against The Applicant, Was Illegally Arrested: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail
Case Title: Ravinder Nath Sharma vs. UOI [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 26376 Of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 213
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail on the grounds that no notice for GST recovery was issued against the applicant, who was illegally arrested.
GST | Show Cause Notice Must Contain Foundation Of Case On Which Action Is Necessitated: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Abhay Traders v. Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow And Another
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 230
The Allahabad High Court has held that show cause notice must contain the foundation of the case based on which action is being necessitated. In case, the show cause notice is sufficient, assessee has remedy of filing reply/objections before the concerned authorities.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Devyani International Limited Versus The Additional Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that the sale of 'pizza' and 'sandwich' would qualify as the sale of 'cooked food' and the sale shall be eligible for the exemption of payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) in excess of 5%.
Case Title: M/s Compuage Infocom Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that the burden to prove that a specific product falls within a particular tariff is always on the revenue, more so when the revenue is trying to classify products in the residual entry as against the specific entry.
Case Title: Commercial Taxes Officer Versus Chokhi Dhani Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that Value Added Tax (VAT) is leviable on the entire 'entry-coupon' amount charged by Chokhi Dhani Resort, which is adjustable against food.
Entitlement Of ITC After Cancellation Of GST Registration Can Be Considered During Revocation: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s R.K. Jewelers Versus The Union of India
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to lodge an ITC claim when the department considers the issue of revocation of GST registration cancellation.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds GST Demand On Royalty Paid To The Mining Department Towards Mining Lease
Case Title: Rajasthan Granite Mining Association Versus Union of India
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the GST demand on royalty paid to the Mining Department towards mining lease.
Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Accused On The Payment Of GST Evasion Amount
Case Title: Vikas Bajoria Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 2
The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to the accused as he has already paid the amount of alleged GST evasion.
The single bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal has released the accused on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Taxpayer Cannot Be Compelled To Pay Tax On The Services Rendered By It Twice: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s. Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 3
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the taxpayer cannot be compelled to pay tax on the services rendered twice.
The division bench of Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Subha Mehta ruled that the petitioner's supply of manpower to a company in Rajasthan is either an inter-state transaction subject to CGST+RGST or an intra-state transaction subject to IGST. The petitioner has deposited 18% of the IGST, and the respondents or department has recovered 35% of the CGST and RGST by attaching the petitioner's accounts.
Online Gaming Not Betting/Gambling; Rajasthan High Court Grants Interim Relief to Myteam 11
Case Title: Myteam11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 4
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the issue regarding the nature of gaming services provided online is no longer res-integra, adding that such gaming services have been held to be games of skill and not games in nature of betting or gambling.
Welding Electrodes Used For Repairing Plant & Machinery Are Capital Goods: Rajasthan High Court Allows CENVAT Credit To Hindustan Zinc
Case Title: Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus C.C.E.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
The Rajasthan High Court has granted CENVAT Credit to Hindustan Zinc and held that welding electrodes used for repairing plants and machinery are capital goods and inputs.
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
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
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.
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.
GST Tribunal Not Constituted: Orissa High Court Condones Delay And Stays GST Demand
Case Title: M/s. Laxman Barik Versus Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)
The Orissa High Court stayed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand subject to deposit of tax as the GST Tribunal is not constituted.
Mosquito Repellent 'Good Knight' Is An Insecticide, 4% VAT Applicable: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha Versus M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.
The Orissa High Court has held that the mosquito repellent "Good Knight" sold by Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. is an insecticide.
Case Title: State of Odisha Versus M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa High Court held that the sale of packaged drinking water under the brand name Kinley Water falls within the expression "water but not aerated or mineral water sold in bottles or sealed containers," which is covered under Entry No.39 of the Tax-Free List.
Chokad Is Not An Industrial Input: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Imposing 4% VAT
Case Title: M/s. Kamadhenu Cattle & Poultry Feed Unit versus The State of Odisha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
The Orissa High Court has quashed the order imposing a 4% value-added tax (VAT) on the wheat bran (chokad) as it is not an industrial input.
Case Title: M/s. Galaxy Bar and Restaurant, Nayagarh Versus State of Odisha and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
The Orissa High Court has held that the license application should not be rejected only because a GST return has not been filed yet, since it is unrealistic to expect that to happen without the actual commencement of its business.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Valluru Pavan Chand Versus State of AP
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 29
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that life tax is to be collected from the vehicle owner upon sale based on the net invoice price of the vehicle and not the ex-showroom price of the vehicle.
Case Title: Tarachand Logistics Solutions Limited Versus State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 30
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the motor vehicles exclusively used for the petitioner's contract inside the Central Deposit Yard of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) are not liable for taxation and are entitled to exemption.
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
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP)1
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 the claim, if any, of the petitioner is barred by limitation.
Case Title: M/s Master Minds versus AAAR (GST)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 6
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the term 'any proceedings' referred to in the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act/ Andhra Pradesh GST Act (APGST Act), includes within its ambit the investigation initiated against the applicant under the said Act.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Suspension Order Of Customs Broker Licensee Passed Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing
Case Title: M/S. Richmark Shipping And Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Versus The Commissioner Customs
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 32
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the suspension order passed by the Customs Commissioner suspending the customs broker licence without giving the opportunity for a hearing.
Acceptance GSTR-3B Returns With Late Fee Will Not Condone Delay In Claiming ITC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Thirumalakonda Plywoods Versus The Assistant Commissioner State Tax
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AP) 38
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere acceptance of Form GSTR-3B returns with a late fee will not exonerate the delay in claiming the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Himachal Pradesh High Court
'Milk Cream' Can't Be Classified As 'Milk': Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Tax Demand
Case Title: M/s Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. Versus Additional Excise & Taxation Commissioner and Another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 61
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that 'milk cream' cannot be classified as 'milk'.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Revision Petition Against Nokia On Differential Tax Amount On Sale Of Mobile Charger
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Versus M/s Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 65
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the revision petition filed by the Department against Nokia on the differential tax amount on the sale of mobile chargers.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Smt K. Himabindu v. TSRTC
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tel) 3
In a Writ Petition, the Telangana High Court ordered that the Petitioner is liable to pay the GST on the license fee in place of service tax as the Petitioner was paying service tax separately under the terms of Deed of License.
Case Title: M/s. Musaddilal Gems and Jewels (India) Private Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Tel) 4
The Telangana High Court has set aside the search and seizure of cash and jewellery by ED as it was done without recording the "reasons to believe."
Tripura High Court
Case Title: M/S SR Constructions Vrs. The Union of India & Ors.
The Tripura High Court has held that in providing taxable work contract services for the said construction of a hotel building, the assessee is entitled to take an input tax credit on the goods and services being utilized for providing the taxable work contract services.
Case Title: M/s Maharaja Gas Agency versus State of Tripura & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Trip) 1
The Tripura High Court has ruled that the State of Tripura has no jurisdiction to levy VAT under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT), on transport or supply of LPG cylinders to Tripura under the work orders executed outside the State. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh held that that the situs of the sale would be the place where the contracts were executed.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
GST Budgetary Support Scheme Can't Be Interpreted Liberally: J&K And Ladakh High Court
Case Title: M/s Best Crop Science Industrial Area Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (152)
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts have held that the GST Budgetary Support Scheme cannot be interpreted liberally.
Case Title: Godrej Consumer Products Limited Versus Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 4
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court have held that units located in Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to central excise duty exemption prior to July 1, 2017, and are therefore liable to pay GST.
The division bench of Justice Tashi Rabsdan and Justice Mohan Lal has observed that in terms of the Central Excise regime, as it existed prior to July 1, 2017, the units located in Jammu & Kashmir and other states were eligible to avail exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of area-based exemption notifications. While exemption was available to the units located in Jammu and Kashmir, who were required to pay Central Excise Duty and avail exemption by way of refund of the cash component of duty paid, under the GST regime there was no exemption, and the existing units availing exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty prior to July 1, 201,7 are required to pay CGST and SGST/IGST like a normal unit. Thus, no exemption is available to the units by way of either an ab initio exemption or a refund.
Case Title: M/S Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Assessing Authority Sales Tax Circle D Jammu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 105
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court has held that no sales tax is exigible for the supply of goods for erecting transmission lines, substations, and power grids.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s Om Prakash Kashyap Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS scheme), cannot be denied by the designated committee for the reason that the department has decided to file an appeal against the order.
Jharkhand High Court Allows Migration Of The TDS Amount Under GST
Case Title: M/s Subhash Singh Choudhary Versus The State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the unadjusted TDS amount has to be treated as an input tax credit amount and is required to be carried forward in the next succeeding months.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the unadjusted TDS amount would have been otherwise refundable to the petitioners if it were not allowed to be carried forward as excess input tax credit in the statutory format of a quarterly return (Form JVAT 200).
Case Title: M/s Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of State Tax
The Jharkhand High Court has stayed the show-cause notices issued by two different authorities in respect of the same subject matter as being outside its jurisdiction.
Jharkhand High Court Rejects ESL Steel's ITC Claim Prior To The Approval Of The Resolution Plan By NCLT
Case Title: M/s ESL Steel Limited Versus Principal Commissioner
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 20
The Jharkhand High Court rejected ESL Steel's Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Patna High Court
Writ Petitioner Concealing CESTAT's Order Of Confiscation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Rs. 25K Cost
Case Title: Hitesh Nagwani Versus Commissioner Of Customs
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on the writ petitioner seeking provisional release of goods for suppressing the fact of CESTAT's final order of confiscation, which was well within his knowledge.
Case Title: M/s DEN Networks Limited Versus The State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 57
The Patna High Court has held that the power to collect entertainment tax would no longer vest in the state after the 101st Amendment.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Sah Versus The State of Bihar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 1
The Patna High Court has held that the GST registration was canceled without granting him the opportunity of a personal hearing.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Partha Sarthy has quashed the GST cancellation order and held that the authority ought to have at least referred to the contents of the show cause and the response thereto, which was not done. Not only is the order non-speaking, but it is also cryptic in nature, and the reason for cancellation is not decipherable.
No Penalty Under Section 129(3) Of CGST Act Could Be Imposed Without Providing A Hearing Opportunity U/S 129(4) Of The Act
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 80
While observing that a petitioner's response to the show cause is required to be considered after due opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the statutory provisions, the Patna High Court has overturned the penalty imposed on a petitioner for moving goods without a valid e-way bill.
Case Title: Sita Pandey Versus The State of Bihar
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 111
The Patna High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on officers for surreptitiously making tax recoveries contrary to GST enactment.
Patna High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused In Money Laundering Case Due to Lack Of Satisfactory Explanation Of Assets And Cash Holdings
Case Title: Chandrama Prasad Singh @ Chandrama Prasad @ Tuntun Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Another
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 106
The Patna High Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner in connection with a Special (Trial) PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) Case arising from ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) proceedings. The petitioner faced charges under Sections 3, 4, 44, and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Appellate Authority Or Article 226 Of The Constitution Cannot Extend Delay Condonation Period With A Specified Timeframe: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Narayani Industry vs. The State of Bihar
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 107
The Patna High Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying the limitations of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in cases involving the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST). The court has held that when a statute prescribes a specific time frame for condoning delays, the Appellate Authority under Article 226 does not have the authority to extend this stipulated period.
Income Tax Act | Assessment U/S Section 153A Must Be Based On Incriminating Material Disclosed In Search: Patna High Court
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Satish Kumar Keshri
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 108
The Patna High Court while providing important clarifications regarding assessments conducted under , of the Income Tax Act, 1961, emphasized that such assessments must not be arbitrary and should rely on material evidence discovered during the search.
Patna High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 16(4) Of CGST Act, 2017
Case Title: Gobinda Construction Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 109
The Patna High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017 and did not find Section 16(4) to be violative or inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.
Civil Liability Imposed for Failing to Settle Tax Dues Due to Incorrect Input Tax Credit Claim, Attracts Penalty: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s Munna Traders vs. The State of Bihar and Others
LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Pat) 112
In a recent verdict, the Patna High Court upheld the imposition of interest and penalty on M/s Munna Traders, an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (BGST Act). The penalties were enforced due to an excessive claim of input tax credit, with the Court deeming the penalty as a civil liability arising from the failure to pay the due tax, stemming from an erroneous input tax credit claim.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Kia Motors India Private Ltd. Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 76
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of information given, the entry of a demo car into the state of Madhya Pradesh renders it exigible to GST.
VAT Act, Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Dept. To Refund Pre-Deposit With 6% Interest
Case Title: Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 45
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state/commercial tax department to refund the pre-deposit amount paid during the appeal with 6% interest to the assessee.
The division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta has observed that even though there is no provision for payment of interest on the refund of amounts so collected under the VAT Act, the petitioner would be eligible for 6% interest per annum w.e.f. April 17, 2017, until the date of refund.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Monotosh Saha Versus Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Management Act
The Calcutta High Court has held that the accused is entitled to cross-examine natural persons whose statements were recorded under the Customs Act, 1962.
Lawyer-Client Privileged Communication; GST Dept. Can't Issue Notice To Lawyer : Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Himangshu Kumar Ray Versus State Of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court has held that the GST department cannot issue notice to the advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee.
Buyer Not Liable For Seller's Default: Calcutta High Court Set Aside ITC Reversal Demand Against Buyer
Case Title: Suncraft Energy Private Limited And Another Versus Assistant Commissioner
The Calcutta High Court has held that before directing the recipient of service or buyer to reverse the input tax credit and remit it to the government, the department ought to have taken action against the selling dealer.
No Evidence Of Supplier Of Tea Involved In Smuggling Poppy Seeds: Calcutta High Court Releases Vehicle And Tea
Case Title: Radha Tea Merchant versus Senior Joint Commissioner
The Calcutta High Court has released the attached vehicle and tea on the grounds that the tea supplier was not involved in smuggling poppy seeds.
Case Title: M/s. Gargo Traders Versus The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
The Calcutta High Court, while noting that at the time of the transaction, the name of the supplier as a registered taxable person was already available with the government record, and the buyer/petitioner had paid the amount of the purchased articles as well as tax through the bank and not in cash, remanded the matter back to the department.
Case Title: M/s Harsh Polyfabric Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
The Calcutta High Court has held that a writ court cannot answer the classification of products under the Customs Tariff Act as it requires technical analysis.
GST Dept. Empowered To Detain Vehicle And Seize The Goods: Calcutta High Court Upholds Penalty
Case Title: Ashok and Sons (HUF) Vs. Joint Commissioner
The Calcutta High Court has held that the GST department was lawfully permitted to impose a penalty under Section 129 as well as the SGST as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the state.
The bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri has observed that Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, empowers the statutory authority to detain the vehicle and seize the goods. The goods shall be released only upon payment of a penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on the goods.
Case Title: Mega Flex Plastics Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India
The Calcutta High Court, while upholding the ruling of the Orissa Appellate Authority, held that the classification of polypropylene bags cannot be changed just to avail a lower tariff rate.
The single Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that the polypropylene bags manufactured by the petitioner are made from plastic granules and cannot be treated as textile articles.
Case Title: Asian Switchgear Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer
The Calcutta High Court upheld the penalty and stated that there was no requirement in law to verify the reason for transporting goods in a vehicle without a proper e-way bill.
Case Title: Sandip Kumar Singhal Versus Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Bureau of Investigation North Bengal Headquarter & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has directed the refund of the penalty and held that the department was vacillating between Sections 67 and 68 of the GST Act, depending on whether the goods are in transit or in the godown.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Reusing E-way Bills Demonstrates Intention Of Tax Evasion: Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Penalty Against Transporter
Case Title: M/s Bright Road Logistics Versus State of Haryana and Others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 142
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the penalty against the transporter and ruled that reusing e-way bills demonstrates the intention of tax evasion.
Case Title: M/s Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 109
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the GST Department to return illegally recovered GST without issuing a Show Cause Notice, along with 6% interest.
Case Title: Probo Media Technologies Versus Union of India
The Punjab and Haryana High Court impeded coercive actions against the online opinion betting app, Probo Media Technologies, in respect of the GST Notice demanding Rs. 1500 crore.
Once The Export Obligation Is Discharged, Customs Dept. Could Not Initiate Proceedings Against Assessee: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana Versus M/s Jindal Drugs Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 120
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that once the export obligation is discharged, the customs department cannot initiate proceedings against the assessee.
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: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 57
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.
Case Title: M/s. Punjab Wool Syndicate Versus The State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 26
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that non-appearance before the Information Collection Centre (ICC) cannot be made a ground to initiate penalty proceedings if no attempt to evade tax is made.
The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahari and Justice Manisha Batra has observed that the driver had produced the documents at I.C.C. and subsequently, at the time of checking, he showed all the invoices. There was no attempt to evade tax. Hence, the VAT appeal was allowed, and no case for the imposition of a penalty is made out under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005.
Case Title: Vijay Garg Versus the State of Haryana and another
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 33
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the person accused of forging bills worth Rs. 367 crores and evading GST payments worth Rs. 26 crores.
Meghalaya High Court
Excise Act | Meghalaya High Court Upholds Order Granting Interest To Assessee On Refund Of Deposit Made 'Under Protest' During Investigation
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Central vs. M/s Green Valliey Goods and Service Tax Industries Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Meg) 28
The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday upheld the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting interest on the delayed refund of a deposit made by the assessee under protest, during investigation for allegedly claiming excess cenvat credit.
Gauhati High Court
Output Tax Was Paid Using ITC, Railway Can't Deny GST Reimbursement On Price Variation: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: HCC-CPL (JV) Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
The Gauhati High Court had held that railways cannot deny GST reimbursement on account of price variation merely on the grounds that the output tax was paid through an electronic credit ledger using the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Case Title: Chyawan Prakash Meena Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 23
The Gauhati High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) to expeditiously process the request for a refund of income tax deducted from the salary of the DIG (Ops) of the Border Security Force, who is a member of the scheduled tribe.
Case Title: Dr. Chyawan Prakash Meena v. Raja Ghosh, IRS & 4 Ors.
The Gauhati High Court on Monday issued notice to the Income Tax Officials in a contempt petition filed by a DIG of Border Security Force alleging non-compliance of the court order directing the IT authorities to refund the tax deductions made from the officer's salary.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: M/s Nava Raipur Atal Nangar Vikas Pradhikaran Versus The Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Chh) 14
The Chhattisgarh High Court grants 3 months time to the assessee for depositing pre-deposit before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
