Direct Tax Weekly Round-Up: 21 To 27 January 2024

Supreme Court Tax Return Filed Without Regular Books Of Account Not Invalid, Burden To Call For Curing Of Defects On Assessing Officer: Supreme Court Case Title: M/S Mangalam Publications, Kottayam V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kottayam Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 55 While deciding the question as to whether reopening of a concluded assessment under Section 147 of the...

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

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

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

On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court direct the Additional Commissioner, CGST, (Appeals), Meerut, to grant benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner and hear the appeal filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 afresh.Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the time during which an applicant/plaintiff prosecutes a case in a court...

Commercial Tax | Allahabad High Court Upholds Condonation Of 1365 Days Delay On Sufficient Cause

The Allahabad High Court has upheld condonation of delay of 1365 days by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in filing of appeal as it was sufficiently explained by the authorities.Revisionist-assesee approached the High Court against order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal condoning the delay of 1365 days on part of the Department in filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on the decision of the...

UPGST | Burden To Prove Intention To Evade Tax Lies Solely On Department: Allahabad High Court

On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court held that the burden to prove intention to evade tax lies solely on the Department. The Court held penalties in tax laws should not be imposed solely on insignificant technical errors which do not have any financial consequences.The Court held that penalties should only be imposed where there is concrete evidence to show that an assesee is...

UPGST | Opportunity Of Hearing Mandatory Under S75(4) Before Imposing Tax/Penalty: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that before passing of any adverse order, such as imposing tax or penalty, opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act provides that an opportunity of hearing must be granted if requested in writing or where any adverse action is contemplated...

Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Section 107 Of CGST Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.“The Central Goods and Services Act is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself. Section 107 of the Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. It is...

Assessee Failed To Cure Defects As Documents Were In The Custody Of Central GST Authority: Madras High Court Quashes Assessment Order

The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the defect was not cured due to the availability of records in the custody of the central GST authority.The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that a composite order of assessment was issued with regard to four defects, and the documents on record disclose that the non-availability of records, on account...

IGST Refund Claim May Be Made Before Expiry Of 2 Years From Date Of Export Of Goods: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that an IGST refund claim may be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. The relevant date is required to be computed from the date of export of the goods concerned by any mode.The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has observed that since the refund claim pertains to exports made between July 2017 and November 2017 and the...

Bombay High Court Directs Dept. To Accept Declaration Under VsV Act

The Bombay High Court at Goa has directed the department to accept the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VsV Act).The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Valmiki Sa Menezes has observed that the delay alleged on the part of the Petitioner is hardly 11 days. The alleged deficit payment, if any, is of hardly 2,21,862. However, even if it is assumed that there was some...

AO Has No Jurisdiction To Assess Or Reassess Income Which Was Subject Matter Of Appeal: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the AO has no jurisdiction to assess or reassess any income, which was the subject matter of an appeal.The bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that since the grant of benefit under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was the subject matter of appeal and has been held in favour of the assessee, the matter cannot...

Tax Return Filed Without Regular Books Of Account Not Invalid, Burden To Call For Curing Of Defects On Assessing Officer: Supreme Court

While deciding the question as to whether reopening of a concluded assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (“Act”) was legally sustainable or not, the Supreme Court recently held that for the purposes of tax assessment, an assessee's obligation is limited to making a "full and true" disclosure of all "material" or primary facts, and thereafter, the burden shifts on the...