Tax Weekly Round-Up: April 07 - April 13, 2025

HIGH COURTSAllahabad HCNOIDA Authorities Deposited Party's Tax Under Wrong Head: Allahabad HC Directs Compensation To Assessee For Penalty Imposed U/S 73 Of GST ActCase Title: Surender Gupta vs. Appellate Authority State Gst / Additional Commissioner Grade-Ii And 2 OthersCase no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1892 of 2024Recently, the Allahabad High Court has directed the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) to compensate the assesee Rs. Rs.19,22,778/- which was imposed on the assesee as tax and penalty in proceedings under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner rented out his property in Gautam Budh Nagar(Noida). The rent received from the property was taxable under the GST Act. Petitioner duly deposited the one-time lease rent of Rs. 97,18,500/- and the tax of Rs.17,49,330/- with NOIDA. Petitioner pleaded that he filed his return under Section 39 of the GST Act. The tax deposited by the petitioner to NOIDA was not reflecting in the form GSTR-3B due to mistake on part of NOIDA.Delhi HCDelhi VAT | No Interest On Refund For Period Of Delay Attributable To Dealer: High CourtCase title: Lithium Urban Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Value Added Tax & Anr.Case no.: W.P.(C) 4925/2023The Delhi High Court has held that if the delay in granting refund to a dealer under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is attributable to the dealer itself, such period of delay shall be excluded for the purposes of awarding interest on refund. Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of DVAT Act stipulates a period of two months for refund of excess tax, penalty, etc., if the period for refund is a quarter. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Explanation to Section 42(1) of the DVAT Act and observed, “If the delay in granting the refund is attributable to the said person (dealer), whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which the interest is payable.”Delhi HC Flags Rise In GST Litigation, Asks Department To Depute Officials To Enable Expeditious DisposalCase title: M/S Raj International v. Additional Commissioner Cgst Delhi West & Ors.Case no.: W.P.(C) 4096/2025The Delhi High Court has flagged the rise in number of GST related cases being filed before it and to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, particularly those arising out of procedural issues, has asked the Department to depute at least two officials from its litigation section. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said these officials can coordinate with the various Commissionerates of the GST department and give instructions to the Department's counsels, in an expedited manner.S.161 DGST Act | Personal Hearing Can Be Dispensed Only If Assessee's Rectification Application Is Allowed, Not Rejected: Delhi HCCase title: HVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 67 & AnrCase no.: W.P.(C) 4506/2025The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of proviso 3 to Section 161 of the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, an order rejecting the rectification application filed by an assessee cannot be passed without first hearing the assessee.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further said that the hearing can be dispensed with only where the rectification application is allowed.S.54(11) GST Act | Assessee's Refund Can't Be Held Back On Commissioner's Opinion Alone, Twin Conditions Must Be Satisfied: Delhi HCCase title: Shalender Kumar v. Commissioner Delhi West CGST Commissionerate & OrsCase no.: W.P.(C) 3824/2025The Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes twin conditions for Revenue holding back Refund due to an Assesseee, despite an order to that effect. Section 54(11) of the Act would show that the refund can be held back on the satisfaction of the following two conditions – (i) when an order directing a refund is subject matter of a proceeding which is pending either in appeal or any other proceeding under the Act; and (ii) thereafter the Commissioner gives an opinion that the grant of refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue.Jharkhand HCJharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation CessCase title: Tata Steel Ltd v. State of JharkhandCase no.: W.P. (T) No. 2900 of 2024The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and orsCase no.: W.P. (T) No. 7091 of 2023The Jharkhand High Court has...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: April 07 - April 13, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags