Income Tax Act | Draft Assessment Order Not Permissible U/S 144C(1) When TPO Makes No Variation: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a draft assessment order is not permissible under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act when the TPO (transfer pricing officer) makes no variation. Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that the Assessing Officer should forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation of the income or...

Rajasthan High Court Partly Quashes CBIC Circular Restricting ITC Refund For Inverted Duty Structure Up To 18.07.2022

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed Point No. 2 of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, restricting ITC claims on the inverted duty structure prior to 18.07.2022. The bench, consisting of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Sangeeta Sharma, stated that if the impugned clarification is tested on the anvil of reasonableness, it falls foul to Article 14 of the Constitution of...

Failure To Mention Correct Value In GSTR-5A Filing Is Not Suppression U/S 74 CGST Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST). Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns...

Rajasthan GST Act | HC Calls For 'Purposive' Interpretation Of S.107, Asks Why Assessment Orders Cannot Be Sent On Assessee's Email

The Rajasthan High Court has questioned why the tax department can send attachment orders via email, but not assessment orders, to ward off any communication gap or confusion about the date of communication.The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, State Tax, that had rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107(1) of the...

S. 67 CGST Act | Officer Below Rank Of Joint Commissioner Cannot Inspect Assessee's Premises Without Authorisation: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax. The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the...

S.11 A&C Act | Respondent's Letter Seeking Petitioner To Give Up Interest On Outstanding Amount Indicates Ongoing Dispute: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh, while hearing a Section 11 petition under the Arbitration Act, observed that the letter of the Respondent addressed to the Petitioner, requiring them to give up their interest claim on the outstanding amount, showed that the claims were still under consideration. Therefore, the Claims cannot be termed dead, and the Section...

S. 149 Income Tax Act | Reassessment Beyond Limitation Period Is Valid Where 'Bogus' Royalty Payments Exceed ₹50 Lakh: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has stated that reassessment beyond 3 years is valid where bogus royalty expenses exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years, in the present case, where the alleged bogus royalty expenses exceeded 50 Lakhs. The bench opined that Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act is...

Gujarat High Court Stays IBBI Disciplinary Committee's Order Suspending Resolution Professional For 6 Months

The Gujarat High Court last week stayed an order issued by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) which had suspended the registration of an insolvency resolution professional for six months pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. The court passed the order after the petitioner questioned the procedure by which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. Justice Mauna M Bhatt...

Closure Of Partnership Activities Till Dissolution Of Firm Cannot Be Granted As Interim Relief U/S 9 Of A&C Act: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has observed that an interim relief petition under Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) claiming closure of business and manufacturing activities of the partnership business cannot be granted when the principal dispute pertains to the business activities of that partnership. Granting such a...

[GST Rate-Cuts] Karnataka High Court Refuses Ex-Parte Stay On Guideline Mandating Revised MRP Stickers On Existing Stock

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to pass an ex-parte order staying the guideline dated September 9 issued by the Union of India mandating the declaration of revised retail sale price (MRP), on unsold stock manufactured/packed/imported, which would be effective from September 22, in addition to the existing retail sale price (MRP).Justice B M Shyam Prasad refused the ex parte...

Once Actual Movement Of Goods Proved By Assessee Remains Unrebutted, Proceedings U/S 74 GST Act Are Unjustified: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified. Proceedings under Section 74 of GST Act can be initiated if an assesee has not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax...

Usage Of Disputed Trademark Even After Filing Of Challenge Would Cause Serious Confusion To Public: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, while hearing a Section 37(1)(b) appeal under the Arbitration Act, observed that using the subject brand names after a dispute between the parties can cause enormous confusion to the public. People may associate the Respondent's outlets with the Appellants. Factual Matrix: The parties...