Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 05 - May 11, 2025

HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCSale Of Liquid Carbon Dioxide Is Liable To Be Taxed At 5%: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and OthersCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 12529/2024The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the sale of liquid carbon dioxide is liable to be taxed at 5%.The Bench consists of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao were addressing the issue of whether purified liquid Carbon Dioxide gas falls in the unclassified category of goods i.e., Schedule-V to the VAT Act, and is liable to be taxed @ 14.5% instead of 5%.Calcutta HCCalcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUFCase title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)Case no.: ITAT/274/2024The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family. A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio. The Top Court had in CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited held that notice and/or consequent order issued in the name of a non-existent person renders the entire proceedings and all consequent actions to be a nullity in the eye of law.Chhattisgarh HCIncome Tax Act | Bona Fide Belief With Genuineness Of Transaction Constitutes Reasonable Cause U/S 273B; No Penalty Imposable U/S 271E: Chhattisgarh HCCase Title: Sandeep Kaur Gill v. Union of IndiaCase Number: TAXC No. 98 of 2023The Chhattisgarh High Court held that bona fide belief coupled with genuineness of transactions constitutes a reasonable cause under section 273B of the Income Tax Act for not invoking Section 271E of the Act. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari referring to Section 273B of the Income Tax Act stated that the word 'reasonable cause' has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in the context of the penalty provisions, the words 'reasonable cause' would mean a cause which is beyond the control of the assessee.Delhi HCPenalty U/S 122(1A) Of CGST Act Can Be Imposed On Both Taxable And Non-Taxable Person: Delhi High CourtCase title: Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.Case no.: W.P.(C) 5083/2025The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus differed from the Bombay High Court's decision in Amit Manilal Haria V. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE & Ors. (2025) which held that Section 122(1A) cannot be invoked against an employee as he is not a 'taxable' person.Dept Cannot Be Blamed If Assessee Is Not Diligent In Checking GST Portal For Show Cause Notice: Delhi High CourtCase title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 DelhiCase no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”Patna HCOnce Input Tax Credit Is Wrongfully Availed Due To Fraud Or Suppression, State Officer Can Issue Notice Even Without Central Action: Patna HCCase Title: CTS Industries Limited vs. Directorate General of GST IntelligenceCase No. Case No.1898 of 2023The Patna High Court has upheld a tax assessment order passed by the State GST Authority, clarifying that once a Proper Officer determines that input tax credit has been wrongfully availed or utilized due to fraud or suppression of facts, they are empowered to issue a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey held, “According to sub-section (1), wherever it appears to the Proper Officer that there is any wrongful availment of input tax credit or where the input tax credit has been utilized by reason of fraud or any willful statement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made or who has wrongly availed or utilized input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with the interest payable thereon under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice.”Patna High Court Upholds ...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: May 05 - May 11, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags