Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 11 To November 17, 2024

HIGH COURTS Allahabad HC 1. GST | Assessee Entitled To Fresh Notice If Initial Notice U/S 73 Was Missed Due To Being Uploaded Under 'Additional Notices' Tab: Allahabad HC Case title: M/S Ashish Traders v. State of U.P. Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1882 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has held that an assessee is entitled to fresh notices demanding unpaid tax or short tax under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, if the initial notices were not duly communicated to the assessee. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP (2024) whereby “benefit of doubt” was given to the assessee since notices issued to it did not show up on the assessee's portal under the tab "view notices and orders". 2. Owner Of Electric Vehicle Purchased Prior To October 14, 2022 Can't Seek Refund Of Tax Citing Subsequent Exemption Notification: Allahabad HC Case title: Ankur Vikram Singh Respondent v. State of UP Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1869 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of an electric vehicle which was purchased prior to October 14, 2022 cannot seek refund of tax citing a subsequent notification exempting the payment of One Time Tax. Petitioner had sought refund of One Time Tax paid in respect of his Hybrid Vehicle purchased on October 13, 2022. The relief was sought on the strength of a notification issued by the State providing tax exemption for electric vehicles purchased and registered from the date of notification of the Uttar Pradesh Electric Vehicle Manufacturing and Mobility Policy, 2022 i.e. October 14, 2022. 3. [GST] Penalty Can't Be Imposed On Goods In Transit With Tax Invoice & E-Way Bill, Citing Subsequent Suspension Of Registration: Allahabad HC Case title: M/S Lakhdatar Traders v. State Of Up And 2 Others Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1852 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has set aside the demand and penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 against a trader whose GST registration came to be suspended, after it found that the goods in transit were accompanied with proper tax invoice and e-way bill. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar relied on M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. and another, 2023 wherein a coordinate bench had held that once the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill, the consignee will be deemed owner and goods will have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. Bombay HC 4. Refund Rejection Order Passed Without Hearing Opportunity Violates Rule 92(3) Of CGST Rules, Principles Of Natural Justice: Bombay High Court Case Title: Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors Case Number: WPL.No.23325 of 2024 The Bombay High Court stated that refund rejection order passed without hearing opportunity violates rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 and principles of natural justice. The Bench of Justices M. S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “……in any event, proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, contemplates reasonable opportunity to be heard, implying that such hearing should be after the assessee files the reply within the time prescribed in the show cause notice.” Calcutta HC 5. Factual Examination Of Dispute Regarding 'Addition' Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of IT Act Is Beyond Scope Of Appeal U/S 260A: Calcutta HC Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited Case no.: ITAT/148/2024 The Calcutta High Court has held that it cannot indulge in factual examination of the material produced or not produced by an assessee-company to explain the share capital and premium received by it, in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya thus refused to interfere with an ITAT order which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer towards “unexplained” share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- under Section 68. 6. Scrutiny Notice Was Issued In Amalgamating Company's Name Despite Dept Knowing Of Amalgamation: Calcutta HC Declines To Apply S.292B Of Income Tax Act Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd Case no.: ITAT/195/2024 The Calcutta High Court has refused to apply Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a scrutiny notice issued in an amalgamating company's name, despite the Assessing Officer being aware about the company's amalgamation. Department claimed that neither the assessee nor the amalgamating company informed the Assessing Officer about the scheme of amalgamation being approved by the High Court. However, the Court noted that in the reasons to believe which was...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: November 11 To November 17, 2024

Kapil Dhyani

Tags