Weekly Round-Up Of Tax Cases: 17 April to 23 April 2022

Supreme Court1.Plea In Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutional Validity Of Levy Of GST On Lease/ Rent Payments Case Title: Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. The Supreme Court of India has asked the petitioner(s) to serve an advance copy to the Additional Solicitor General to seek instructions in a plea challenging constitutional validity of levy of GST on lease/ rent payments.2.Interest On Delayed Refunds Covered Under Principal Provision Of Section 56 Of CGST Act Cannot Exceed 6%:Supreme Court Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398 The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate. Bombay High Court1.Dept. To Decide Whether Corrected Form TRAN-1 Would Be Entertained As Per Transitional Provision Under GST: Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayers To Correct Form TRAN-1 Case Title: Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed the taxpayers to correct Form TRAN-1. The court has directed the department to consider the issue of whether Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed or corrected by the petitioner can be entertained in accordance with provisions of section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not. Madras High Court1.TPO To Mandatorily Pass Order Determining Arm's Length Pricing Within 60 Days: Madras High Court Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Saint Gobain India Private Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 162 The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayan Prasad has held that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) must mandatorily pass the order determining arm's length pricing within 60 days.2.Post Facto Changes In GSTRegistration: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed For Mismatch Of AddressIn Invoice And RC Case Title: Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166 The penalty imposed for mismatch of address in invoice and RC was quashed by the Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan on the grounds that there was a post facto alteration in GST registration.3.Mere Signing Of Statement Admitting T ax Liability, Making Payments Under Stress Of Investigation Doesn't Amount To Self-Ascertainment: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 167 The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.4.GST ITC Refund Can't Be Denied Even If Taxpayer Has Claimed Duty Drawback: Madras High Court Case Title: Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Sarvanan has held that the refund of input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied even if the taxpayer has claimed duty drawback.5.Pre-Deposit Payment Made By Parent Company Having Separate Service Tax Registration Amounts To Proper Compliance: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice N.Sathish Kumar has held that the pre-deposit payment made by the parent company having a separate service tax registration amounts to proper compliance. Rajasthan High Court1.Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136 The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.2.Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.=3.Rajasthan High Court Restrains GST Dept. From Recovery Of GST On Royalty Paid On Account Of Excavation Of Sand For Brick ...

Weekly Round-Up Of Tax Cases: 17 April to 23 April 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags