Certified Copy Not Necessary To File GST Appeal, Order Downloaded From Site Enough: Gujarat High Court

Quashing an order of the tax authority which rejected a GST Appeal due to non-submission of a certified copy, the Gujarat High Court said that when an appealed order is available on a common portal and can be directly accessed by the Appellate Authority, there should be no need to submit a “certified copy” to confirm its authenticity.The court further underscored that in today's age insistence on certified copy of orders which can be obtained directly from the website of judicial and...

[GST] Penalty Can't Be Imposed On Goods In Transit With Tax Invoice & E-Way Bill, Citing Subsequent Suspension Of Registration: Allahabad HC

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...

SCN, Penalty Order For TDS Violations Issued In Previous Name Of Company Is Clerical Error, Can Be Rectified U/S 292-B Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that incorrect mention of assessee's name in a notice issued to it for default in deduction of tax at source is a mere clerical error. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja thus held that show cause notice and penalty order passed under the previous name of a company cannot be rendered void. “In the light of the fact that there was no change of entity, there being only change of name of the company, Show Cause Notice ...

Only Service Recipient, Not Service Provider, Can Claim Credit For Service Tax Paid Under Reverse Charge Mechanism: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that even if service tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism by service recipient, it is the service recipient who can take credit of tax so paid and not service provider. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “……so long as the service tax is paid on a taxable service and such taxable service is an input service, the service ...

Punjab Roadways Cannot Deprive Himachal Pradesh Govt Of Passenger Tax, Interest On Delayed Payment When Its Buses Are Plying On Territory: HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently directed the Punjab Roadways to clear the interest due upon it for delayed payment of passenger tax and surcharge to the HP government. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed that the body first failed to deposit any tax with the authorities of Himachal Pradesh despite the fact that it had been running its buses within its territory, and then disputed liability of interest. “Thus, in...

Order Passed U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Is Not Appealable, Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is not an appealable order, therefore, the only remedy with an aggrieved party is to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Proceedings under Section 148A are initiated when Income Tax officers suspect that a taxpayer may have concealed income during any assessment year. Section 148(1)(b) contemplates issue of show cause to provide an opportunity of hearing to the...

When Is Action For Imposition Of Penalty 'Initiated' U/S 271C Of Income Tax Act For Failure To Deduct Tax At Source: Delhi HC Explains

The Delhi High Court recently explained when an action for imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be said to have been “initiated”. Section 217 states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax at source (TDS), he shall be liable to pay a penalty equal to the amount of the tax which he failed to deduct as aforesaid. The date of “initiation of action” for such failure is necessary to be determined since, Section 275(1)(c)...

Tax Monthly Digest: October 2024

1. Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules Retrospectively, Finds Them Ultra Vires To CGST Act The Kerala High Court struck down Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules holding that it was ultra vires to the Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act and was manifestly arbitrary. Justice P. Gopinath noted that Section 16 has not imposed any restriction in availing refund of taxes paid on input goods and input services or claiming refund of...

Recovery Action Against Company Directors Cannot Be Initiated If Status Of Assessee Is Non-Existent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that recovery actions against the directors of a company cannot be initiated if the status of the assessee is non-existent. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “while in the case of amalgamation, it is only the apparent and outer shell of the company which is destroyed…. However, in the case of dissolution, the entity wholly ceases to exist.” In this case, the assessee company was ordered to be wound up, and an...

[S.263 IT Act] Revisionary Power Can Be Invoked When Order Meets Twin Conditions Of Being Erroneous, Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that in order to invoke Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Principal Commissioner must satisfy “twin conditions”, i.e. form an opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is “erroneous” and “prejudicial” to the interests of the Revenue. The provision confers power of revision upon the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be. It stipulates that the Commissioner may call for and examine the records if he considers...

Cross-Examination Requests In Show Cause Proceedings Cannot Be Allowed Without A Reply From Noticee: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that a request for cross-examination of a witness in a Show Cause proceeding cannot be allowed if no reply on merits has been provided by the noticee. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “………the question of entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.” Under Section 28(9) of the...

Hotel Replacing Damaged Furniture, Carpets Is Current Expenditure Allowable U/S 37 Income Tax Act: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that the expenditure incurred by a hotel on replacement of damaged items is a current expenditure, allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 37 of Income Tax Act states that any business expenditure, excluding capital expenditure and the individual's personal expenses, that is spent for the business's operations shall be applicable for deduction from business income. A division bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Namavarapu ...