Tax Weekly Round-Up: January 27 - February 02, 2025

HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCS.12(10) Central Sale Tax (R&T) Rules | Can Certificate Of Export Be Filed After Completion Of Sales Tax Proceedings: AP HC Refers To Full BenchCase title: M/s. Mohan Spintex India Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer and OthersCase no.: WRIT PETITION NOs: 7158/2018,10587/2016, 2514/2020, 6480/2020, 6597/2020, 3111/2021, 40351/2022, 40354/2022, 23960/2023 & 29854 of 2024A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has placed a matter regarding the interpretation of Rule 12(10) of the Central Sale Tax (R&T) Rules before the Chief Justice for reference to a Full Bench. The question that arose before the coordinate bench was whether akin to Form C (Form of Declaration) and F (Form of declaration to be issued by the transferee); Form H (Certificate of Export that relieves from payment of VAT/CST) can also be filed after the sales tax assessment proceedings have been completed.Delhi HCTime Spent To Defend Reassessment Notice Issued Without Following Procedure Doesn't Extend Limitation For Revenue When Issuing Fresh Notice: Delhi HCCase title: Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52Case no.: W.P.(C) 7405/2024The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking an approval from the competent authority…The fact that the Revenue had not taken the steps in accordance with law cannot possibly be construed as a factor in favour of the Revenue for extending the limitation.”Co-Owner Of Property Not Receiving Income From It Not Liable To Pay Tax On Income From Such Property: Delhi High CourtCase title: Smt. Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr.Case no.: ITA 573/2023The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an instrument of conveyance. In our considered opinion, the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property.”Foreign Nationals Coming To India Not Required To Declare Personal Gold Jewellery To Customs: Delhi High CourtCase title: Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And OrsCase no.: W.P.(C) 10482/2024The Delhi High Court has held that foreign nationals coming to India need not declare to the Customs Department their gold jewellery which they are carrying for bonafide personal use.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma further held that the Customs Department must make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery', while seizing items for violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act, 1962.Kerala HCMoney In Bank Account Is 'Property', Liable For Provisional Attachment U/S 281B Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed SalihCase Number: WA NO. 1413 OF 2024The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”Madras HCGST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High CourtCase Title: M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai v. The Joint Commissioner or GST (Appeals), CoimbatoreCase Number: W.P.(MD)No.28502 of 2022The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: January 27 - February 02, 2025

Kapil Dhyani