Tax Weekly Round-Up: December 02 - December 08, 2024

SUPREME COURT Subsequent Purchaser Of Imported Vehicle Cannot Be Asked To Pay Customs Duty; Liability On Importer : Supreme Court Case Title: NALIN CHOKSEY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOCHI The Supreme Court ruled that the 'subsequent purchaser' of an imported motor car cannot be called an 'importer' to attract the liability under the Customs Act, 1962 to pay customs duty on the import of the vehicle. The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the appeal preferred by the subsequent purchaser of a Porsche Car against the High Court's decision upholding the demand of custom duty of ₹17,92,847 from the appellant along with other individuals on the allegation of misdeclaration of the car's model, tampering with its chassis number, and undervaluation to evade customs duty. HIGH COURTS Allahabad HC Once HC Directs To Avail Alternate Remedy, Appeal U/S 107 GST Cannot Be Dismissed As Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Union Of India And 3 Others Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1733 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has held that once the High Court has directed the assessee to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the appeal cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. “Once the Division Bench of this Court has directed the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy as provided under Section 107 of the Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the appellate authority,” held Justice Piyush Agrawal. Appeals U/S 260A Of Income Tax Act Not Sustainable In Absence Of Perversity In Tribunal's Fact Finding: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly, U.P. v. Dharam Singh Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 85 of 2024 While entertaining an Income Tax Appeal, the Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained without establishing a perversity with the fact finding of the Tribunal. “In the instant appeal the department has only challenged the fact finding off the Tribunal. A catena of Supreme Court judgments have concluded that in relation to facts, no substantial question of law would arise unless the finding of fact is perverse,” held the division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit. Allahabad High Court Directs State GST Dept To Not Initiate Action For Assessment Years In Which Central GST Had Already Acted Case Title: M/S S. G. Plastic Industries v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And 2 Others Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1576 of 2024] The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Goods and Service Tax Authorities to not take action for any assessment year in which the Central Goods and Service Tax Authorities have already taken action. Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the actions taken by the State and Central GST Authorities for the same assessment year, 2017-18. It was argued that once State GST Authorities had completed assessment proceedings under Section 74, the Central GST Authorities could not have issued notice for the assessment year. [Income Tax] No Substantial Question Of Law Arises If Perversity Cannot Be Shown In Order Passed By Tribunal: Allahabad High Court Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhawab, Noida and Anr. v. M/s Sampark Management Consultancy LL Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 78 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has held that no substantial question of law arises in a case where no perversity can be shown in the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for an appeal to be filed before the High Court against the decision of an Appellate Tribunal. [Income Tax Act] Placing Funds In One Account Before Transferring It To Another Does Not Attract S. 69A: Allahabad High Court Case Title: The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v Sushil Kumar Sharma [ Case no.: INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 86 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has upheld the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that when an agreement between parties specifies a direct transfer of money, doing so indirectly by keeping the funds in a distinct account before sending them to the final account, does not place the money under the definition of 'unexplained money' as per Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. “The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in coming to the conclusion that only on account of purported infraction of the Agreement between the FRB and the assessee,...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: December 02 - December 08, 2024

Kapil Dhyani

Tags