Tax Weekly Round-Up: 30th December 2024 - 5th January 2025

SUPREME COURT Motor Accident Claims - Tax Returns Can Be Accepted To Determine Income Only If They Are Appropriately Produced : Supreme Court Case name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Sonigra Juhi Uttamchand. Case no.: SLP (C) No. 30491 of 2018 The Supreme Court, recently (on January 02), while deciding a motor accident compensation claim case, observed that monthly income could be fixed after taking into account the tax returns. However, the details of tax payment must be properly brought into evidence to enable the Tribunal/Court to calculate the income. The Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol were deciding a batch of appeals preferred both by the insurer and the claimant. While the claimant prayed for the enhancement of compensation, the insurer pleaded for the reduction. HIGH COURTS Delhi HC Phrase "Where It Is Possible To Do" U/S 73(4B) Of Finance Act Doesn't Make Timeline To Determine Service Tax Dues 'Suggestive': Delhi HC Case title: MS L. R. Sharma And Co v. Union Of India & Ors. Case no.: W.P.(C) 13689/2024 The Delhi High Court has held that the usage of expression "where it is possible to do so" doesn't make the timeline stipulated under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 to determine service tax dues 'suggestive' in nature. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “...Section 73(4B) was framed and introduced in the Finance Act to ensure effective administration of taxation. While there cannot be denying that the taxation forms the backbone of a nation's economy, any inordinate delay by the Revenue itself in prosecuting its own cases cannot be construed in their favour by stretching the period of limitation to nine years especially when the provision requires the proceedings to be concluded within six months / one year.” Delay In Filing Certified Copy Of Impugned Order Doesn't Render Appeal Filed Electronically U/S 107 CGST Act Time-Barred: Delhi HC Case title: Chegg India Pvt Ltd v. UoI & Ors. Case no.: W.P.(C) 1062/2024 The Delhi High Court has held that delay in filing certified copy of impugned order in an appeal preferred by Assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would not render the appeal time-barred, if it was filed online within prescribed time. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned, “the condition to physically file the certified copy of the impugned decision/order is not mandatory…where the certified copy was submitted with a delay, may be condoned if the online filing was completed within the prescribed limitation period. Ultimately, what is to be borne in mind is the fact that online filing was within limitation…In most Courts and Tribunals, online filing and electronic filing is now prescribed mode and the Courts are moving towards technologically advance systems. It would be retrograde to opine that online filing, which was complete in all respects, including electronic copy of the order, is not valid filing.” S.28 Customs Act | Keeping Matter In Call Book, Taking It Up After Several Years Is Not Permissible: Delhi HC Quashes SCN Case title: Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Additional Director General New Delhi & Ors. Case no.: W.P.(C) 11207/2023 The Delhi High Court has cautioned the Customs Authorities against keeping show-cause notices pending in call-book only to take them up after several years, leaving the assessee in lurch. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma observed that in the absence of any “glaring impossibility”, such an approach of the authorities would not be permissible. In the case at hand, Petitioner challenged the delay of almost eight years in adjudication of the show-cause notice issued to it in 2015. Co-Accused Can Apply Separately For Compounding Of Offences Committed By Company Or HUF Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court Case title: Sumit Bharana v. UoI Case no.: W.P.(C) 16701/2024 The Delhi High Court has held that co-accused are entitled to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or a Hindu Undivided Family under the Income Tax Act, 1961. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the co-accused need not await filing of application for compounding by the company or the HUF. Designated Authority Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act Cannot Reopen Assessment After Issuance Of Final Certificate: Delhi HC Reiterates Case title: S A N Garments Manufacturing Private Limited v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 And Anr Case no.: W.P.(C) 932/2024 The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a designated authority under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 cannot reopen an assessment after a final certificate is issued under Section 5 of the Act and all disputes with...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: 30th December 2024 - 5th January 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags