Tax Law : Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024

As the year 2024 nears its end, LiveLaw brings to you a summary of important Supreme Court judgments of the year rendered in connection with Tax Law. The same are as follows:1. Hiring Of Motor Vehicle Or Cranes Is Not 'Sale Of Goods' If Control Over Equipment Is Retained By Contractor, VAT Can't Be Levied: Supreme CourtCase: M/s. K.P. Mozika v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 26]In this case, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that hiring of motor vehicles/cranes from a contractor is a service and would not attract Sales Tax or Value Added Tax assuming the transaction to be sale of goods. The Court clarified that transfer of right to use the goods not only includes possession but also control over goods by the user. If the control over the goods remains with the contractor during the hire period, then it cannot be termed as sale of goods and only service tax can be levied.2. Tax Return Filed Without Regular Books Of Account Not Invalid, Burden To Call For Curing Of Defects On Assessing Officer: Supreme CourtCase: M/s Mangalam Publications, Kottayam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 55]In this case, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that for the purposes of tax assessment, an assessee's obligation is limited to making a "full and true" disclosure of all "material" or primary facts, and thereafter, the burden shifts on the assessing officer. If a return is defective, it is upto the officer that he intimate the assessee in order that defects may be cured. But if the officer fails to do so, the return cannot be called defective.3. Customs Act | Claimant Entitled To Interest On Delayed Return Of The 'Duty Drawback' : Supreme Court Case: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. B. T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 90]In this case, a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that if there is a delay in refund of the 'duty drawback' to the claimant under Customs Act, 1962, then the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback at the rate of interest which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time.4. 'Enemy Property' Not Exempt From Municipal Taxes As It Is Not Vested With Union Govt : Supreme Court Case: Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Others v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & Others [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 156]In this case, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that 'enemy property' vested in the possession of Union Government-appointed 'custodian', as per the Enemy Property Act, 1968, cannot be considered a property of the Union Government to claim exemption from municipal taxes under Article 285(1) of the Constitution of India. It was opined that the custodian acts merely as a trustee of the enemy property and not as the owner.5. TDS Under S.194-H Income Tax Act Won't Apply To Business Transactions Where Assessee Is Not Responsible For Paying Income : Supreme Court Case: Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 176]In this case, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna (now CJI) and SVN Bhatti held that under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cellular mobile service providers are not liable to deduct tax at source on income/profit component in payments received by their franchisees/distributors from third parties/customers. It was observed that the obligation to deduct tax at source in terms of Section 194-H arises when the legal relationship of principal-agent is established. To answer whether relationship between parties is that of principal-agent, Section 182 of the Contract Act, 1872 is to be applied.6. Customs Act | Importer's Subsequent Import Bill Be Discarded If Undervalued To Previously Imported Identical Or Similar Goods: Supreme Court Case: M/s Global Technologies and Research v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import) [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 239]In this case, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal held that under the Customs Act, Importer's Bill of Entry of subsequent imported goods can be discarded if the subsequent imported goods are undervalued to the previously imported identical or similar goods. It was opined that the transaction value in the bills of entry of the subsequent goods can be discarded if it is found that the importer has earlier brought/imported an identical goods or similar goods at a higher price from the same seller/exporter.7. Customs Act | S. 71 Inapplicable If Imported Goods Were Stocked Outside Notified Public Bonded Warehouse With Permission : Supreme Court Case: M/s Bisco Limited v. Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 257]In this case, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that Section 71 of the Customs Act would be inapplicable to cases where imported goods were stocked outside the notified public bonded warehouse with ...

Tax Law : Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024

Debby Jain

Tags