Tax Weekly Roundup: November 25 - December 01, 2024

HIGH COURTS Allahabad HC [S.73(10) UPGST] Time Extension Notification Dated 24.04.2023 Valid Only From 31.03.2023, Not Before: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/s A.V. Pharma Thru. Its Prop. Smt. Madhu Vohra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Ors. Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 264 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has held the time extension notification dated 24.04.2023 extending time period for passing orders under Section 73(9) and 73(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 will apply only from 31.03.2023 and not before that. “… the notification dated 24.04.2023 would be applicable retrospectively but only from 31.03.2023 meaning thereby, if the time limit of three years prescribed in sub Section 10 of Section 73 read with sub Section 1 of Section 44 expired prior to 31.03.2023 then the notificaiton dated 24.04.2023 extending the time limit for passing of an order under sub Section 9 of Section 73 would not be applicable, apparently so,” held the Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manish Kumar. [Taxation] Passing Order Without Providing Opportunity Of Hearing, Providing Documents Violates Natural Justice: Allahabad HC Reiterates Case Title: Agmotech Fabrics Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1757 of 2024 While deciding a case relating to Input Tax Credit, the Allahabad High Court has held that a quasi-judicial body must provide an opportunity of hearing to a person before imposing liability on them. The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that as per the doctrine of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well), such orders cannot be passed without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to make present their case. It was held that documents relied upon by the authorities while passing orders must be provided to party who is being held liable. Delhi HC 'Concealment Of Income' & 'Furnishing Inaccurate Income Particulars' Distinct Grounds For Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Of IT Act, Can't Be Clubbed: Delhi HC Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 04 v. M/S Gragerious Projects Pvt. Ltd. Case no.: ITA 90/2020 The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when the Revenue proposes to impose penalty on an assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged 'concealment of particulars of income' or for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'- it must specify which one of the two charges it seeks to press and the Revenue cannot be permitted to club both. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja reasoned that the proceedings for initiating penalty are penal in nature, which may result in imposition of penalty ranging from 100 to 300% of the taxability and therefore, the chargemust be “unequivocal and unambiguous”. Incorrect Classification Is Not By Itself Collusion/ Wilful Misstatement U/S 28AAA Customs Act; Prior Determination By DGFT Must: Delhi HC Case title: Designco v. UoI (and other connected matters) Case no.: W.P.(C) 14477/2022 The Delhi High Court has held that a misclassification or an incorrect classification of goods to be imported or exported would not ipso facto amount to collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts under Section 28AAA Customs Act, 1962. In its 91-page judgment, the Court also pointed out that the MEIS certificate is issued under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and held that the power to cancel or suspend it vests in the Director General of the licensing authority alone. [Direct Tax Vivaad Se Vishwas Act] Review Plea Against SLP Constitutes "Disputed Tax" U/S 2(i)(j): Delhi High Court Case title: NRA Iron And Steel Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Department & Ors. Case no.: W.P.(C) 3537/2021 The Delhi High Court has held that a review petition, against the orders passed in SLP by the Supreme Court, is “Disputed Tax” under Section 2(1)(j) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and the review petitioner would be eligible to take benefit of “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme”. Section 2(1)(j) defines disputed tax in relation to Appeal, Writ Petition or Special Leave Petition pending as on the specified date, in this case January 31, 2020. S.99A Customs Act | Final Report Containing Audit Findings Can Be Drawn Only After Apprising Auditee Of 'Objections': Delhi High Court Case title: Designco v. UoI (and other connected matters) Case no.: W.P.(C) 14477/2022 The Delhi High Court has held that pursuant to an audit in respect of assessment of imported or exported goods under Section 99A of the Cutoms Act, 1962, the proper officer is liable to apprise the auditee of the objections which according to it arise in respect of the assessment. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder ...

Tax Weekly Roundup: November 25 - December 01, 2024

Kapil Dhyani

Tags