CA in Jaipur | CA. Yogesh Jangid |ITR Filing 2023 | Company Registration | NGO Registration | Income Tax Raid Cases | Audit | Inc Incroporation | CPA in India | Subsidy | Project Funding | GST | GST Raid Cases | Income Tax Notice Faceless | DRI Cases |

Bombay High Court Invalidates Registration Amendment Rejection: Lack of Reasons Criticized

editor — Sat, 13 Apr 2024 09:17:23 +0000

Introduction:

The Bombay High Court has invalidated the rejection of an application for registration amendment due to the lack of reasons provided for the rejection.

Facts of the case:

Issue:

Argument by the Petitioner:

Court Judgment:

category

Delhi High Court Orders Refund of ₹35 Lakh to GST Petitioner, Emphasizing Voluntary Compliance and Due Process

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:45:30 +0000

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court’s decision mandates a refund of ₹35 lakh to a GST petitioner, underscoring the significance of voluntary compliance and adherence to due process.

Facts of the Case:

Issue:

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: Citing precedent cases, the petitioner argued that the deposit was made involuntarily under coercion, warranting a refund with interest.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the deposit was voluntary and proceeded with recovery under Section 73 of the GST Act through a Show Cause Notice.
Court Judgment: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the refund of ₹35,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of deposit. The court deemed the deposit as non-voluntary and contrary to guidelines issued by the CBIC.

category

GST Penalty Overturned by Calcutta High Court Due to Emergency Vehicle Substitution, Showcasing Compliance Flexibility

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 06:23:41 +0000

Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to quash a GST penalty related to an emergency vehicle change highlights the court’s recognition of flexibility in enforcing compliance.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner lodged an appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the Calcutta HC, which was filed 20 months following an adverse order on June 14, 2022. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of the original order and the demise of the petitioner's first lawyer.
The controversy arose from a tax and penalty imposition concerning the transportation of goods without a valid e-way bill on November 20, 2021. This was due to an emergency vehicle change, preventing the timely amendment of the e-way bill.

Issue:

The central issue revolved around the justification for imposing tax and penalty for the absence of a valid e-way bill during the transportation of goods.

Held:

Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the writ was genuine and challenged the penalty, citing an emergency vehicle change that hindered the timely amendment of the e-way bill.
Respondent's Argument: The respondent upheld the penalty, highlighting the lack of a valid e-way bill as a compliance failure.
Court Judgment: The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging the absence of intent to evade tax and the genuine circumstances causing the appeal's delay. Consequently, the tax and penalty were ordered to be revoked.
Non-resident taxpayers
Persons subject to TDS under section 51 of the CGST Act.

category

High Court of Madras sets aside GST penalty, emphasizes fair hearing and pre-assessment payments in tax disputes.

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 07:10:27 +0000

Introduction

The High Court of Madras recently ruled on a case involving a works contractor for government departments, addressing penalties imposed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court emphasized the importance of fair hearings and pre-assessment payments in tax disputes.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a works contractor, received an assessment order on April 19, 2023, due to discrepancies in their GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns.
A show cause notice was issued in February 2023.
On April 12, 2023, before the assessment order was issued, the petitioner paid Rs. 3,00,000/- towards their tax liability, citing delayed payments from government departments as the reason for the discrepancies and delayed payment.
The petitioner contested the imposition of a 100% penalty on the dues under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue

The core issue revolves around the justification of imposing a 100% penalty on the petitioner, considering the pre-order payment and the circumstances leading to the discrepancies.

Petitioner’s Argument

Held

The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to remit an additional Rs. 3,00,000/-. Moreover:

category

High Court of Gujarat Rules on GST Case

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 04:44:00 +0000

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Gujarat has recently issued a noteworthy ruling in the case of OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD versus UNION OF INDIA. This ruling addresses a crucial aspect pertaining to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, particularly focusing on the retrospective application of amendments to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The case, denoted as R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13209/210/212/213/215 of 2023, reached its culmination on 27th March 2024.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL INDIA PVT LTD, contested against the UNION OF INDIA, asserting that Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules should not be applicable in their situation. They contended that their online appeals were based on the Order-in-Original made available by the adjudicating authority.
The crux of the issue revolved around the requirement for the petitioner to submit the decision or order being appealed against within seven days of filing the appeal under sub-rule (1) of Rule 108, and the subsequent issuance of a final acknowledgment by the appellate authority indicating the appeal number.

Held:

The High Court determined that the petitioner was indeed obligated to adhere to the stipulated timeline for submitting the decision or order appealed against, as outlined in Rule 108.
While acknowledging the justifiability of the appellate authority's rejection of appeals due to delays, the Court referenced the Minutes of the 48th Meeting of the GST Council. This documented the Council's acceptance of recommendations put forth by the Law Committee.
According to these recommendations, when an order subject to appeal is issued or uploaded on the common portal and is accessible to the appellate authority, the necessity for the appellant to furnish a certified copy of such an uploaded order becomes inconsequential due to its online availability.
Consequently, the retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 108, effective from 26th December 2022, was affirmed by the Court as being clarificatory in nature.
In light of this clarification, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal on grounds of delay was deemed untenable. Therefore, the High Court proceeded to quash and set aside the impugned order.

category

Delhi High Court Facilitates Refund Requests for Overpaid Taxes, Streamlining Procedural Deadlines for Taxpayers!

editor — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:38:03 +0000

If the Tax Department has demanded payment for taxes from you because your supplier failed to remit them, and later it is discovered that your supplier did, indeed, pay the taxes, you should apply for a refund.

Facts of the Case & Timelines:

The petitioner was compelled to pay taxes on certain invoices for the fiscal year 2019-2020, due to the delayed filing of returns by Respondent No. 3.

Subsequently, it was revealed that Respondent No. 3 had filed returns and claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the same invoices, resulting in double payment. Consequently, the petitioner sought a refund for the excess payment.

Issue:

The main issue revolved around whether the petitioner is eligible for a refund of the tax paid under the assumption of non-compliance by Respondent No. 3, leading to double payment.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contended that they were compelled to make the tax payment due to the initial non-compliance by Respondent No. 3. With the subsequent filing of returns, they asserted their right to a refund of the tax paid for the mentioned invoices.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondent argued against the petitioner’s refund claim, stating that it was not entertained because the petitioner had not filed a proper refund application as required by Section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held:

The Delhi High Court permitted the petitioner to submit an appropriate refund application in accordance with Section 54 of the Act. Furthermore, it decreed that the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2023, as well as the period from the filing of the petition (19.01.2024) until the present date, should be excluded when calculating the limitation period for submitting a refund application.

The court refrained from discussing the merits of the case and reserved the right to adjudicate the refund claim according to the law.

category

Implications of Non-Compliance with GST Return Filing under Section 62 of CGST Act

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:02:30 +0000

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, implemented in India in 2017, mandates registered taxpayers to regularly file returns to declare their taxable supplies and corresponding tax liabilities. However, failure to comply with this obligation can lead to significant consequences under Section 62 of the CGST Act.

Understanding Section 62 of CGST Act:

Subsection (1):

Non-Filing Obligations: This subsection comes into effect when a registered taxpayer fails to file the prescribed return under Section 39 (monthly return) or Section 45 (annual return), even after receiving notice under Section 46.
Authority of Proper Officer: The designated official empowered by the government can assess the tax liability in the absence of a return by estimating it to the best of their judgment, based on available or gathered information.
Assessment Order Issuance: The officer issues a formal assessment order (Form GST-ASMT 13) determining the estimated tax liability, interest, and any applicable penalties.
Time Limit: The assessment order must be issued within five years from the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year.

Subsection (2):

Rectification Opportunity: Taxpayers have a chance to rectify non-filing by submitting a valid return within 30 days of receiving the assessment order, leading to the withdrawal of the order.
Continued Liabilities: Even if the assessment order is withdrawn, the taxpayer remains liable to pay interest and late fees as per Section 50(1) and Section 47 of the CGST Act, respectively.

Additional Provisions:

Penalties under Section 62 of CGST Act:

Interest: Interest is levied on the assessed tax liability as per Section 50(1) of the CGST Act.
Late Fees: Additional late fees are charged under Section 47 for each day of delay in filing the return.
Potential Prosecution: Severe cases of non-compliance may lead to criminal prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act.

Consequences of Non-Compliance under Section 62:

Key Points of Section 62:

Applicability: Applies to registered persons failing to file returns under Section 39 or Section 45.
Assessment by Proper Officer: The officer estimates tax liability based on available information within a specified time frame.
Time Limit for Assessment: Assessment can be initiated within five years from the due date for furnishing the annual return.

Relief for Non-Filers:

Conclusion:

Section 62 of the CGST Act serves as a deterrent against non-filing of GST returns, empowering authorities to assess tax liability and impose penalties. However, it also provides an opportunity for rectification within a stipulated time frame, albeit with certain consequences. Taxpayers are strongly advised to adhere to prescribed deadlines to avoid unnecessary assessments, penalties, and legal complications.

category

Discretion of Appellate Authority in Admitting Appeals Beyond Limitation Period

editor — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:48:21 +0000

In the case of Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], the esteemed Calcutta High Court determined that the Appellate Authority possesses the discretion to permit the submission of an appeal within one month after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period from the date of order communication, provided sufficient cause is demonstrated, as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

Facts of the case:

The Appellate Authority retains discretion to accept appeals submitted after the limitation period.
The Calcutta High Court, in Arvind Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes [Writ Petition Application No. 2904 of 2023 dated January 04, 2024], affirmed that the Appellate Authority possesses discretion to entertain appeals within one month after the expiration of the limitation period as per Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act").
Arvind Gupta, the petitioner, appealed before the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, mentioned in the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 the period of delay and reasons for the delay:

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority may exercise discretion to admit appeals submitted within one month after the limitation period?

Held:

Relied on, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of S.K. Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors. (MAT 82 of 2022) where the Bench held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the CGST Act under Section 29(2) of the CGST Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands attracted. Hence, the Respondent has the discretion to allow an appeal to be presented within one month after the expiry of the period of limitation stipulated from the date of communication of the order upon sufficient cause being shown as per Section 107 (4) of the CGST Act. Paraphrase
Observed that, it was well within the power of the Respondent to consider the prayer of the Petitioner for condonation of delay. The Impugned Order passed by the Respondent that there is no scope to condone the delay beyond four months suffers from infirmity.
Noted that, the delay was evident from the annexure to FORM GST APL-01 and the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the statutory period.
Held that, the Respondent failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The delay in presenting the appeal before the Respondent was condoned. The Respondent was directed to consider the appeal on merit and decide the same in accordance with law upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

category

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

editor — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:40:03 +0000

Formation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:

Introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 21, 2015, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015 underwent scrutiny by the Joint Committee. The Committee presented its recommendations, leading to the passage of the modified Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by both Houses of Parliament in May 2016. The primary aim of this economic reform is to focus on creditor-driven insolvency resolution.

Shifting Existing Regime from ‘Debtor in Possession’ to ‘Creditor in Control’:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 represents a significant advancement in resolving legal complexities surrounding financial failures and insolvency in India. This code holds substantial value for stakeholders and various government regulators by providing a smoother exit mechanism for insolvent individuals and companies. It consolidates and replaces overlapping provisions found in laws such as the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and The Companies Act, 2013. Prior to its enactment, multiple agencies handling debt-related matters led to delays, complexities, and higher costs. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 aims to expedite pending cases, resolving them within 180 days, with a further extension of 90 days.

Applicability of the Code:

The Code applies to insolvency, liquidation, voluntary liquidation, or bankruptcy of various entities, including companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, Limited Liability Partnerships under the LLP Act 2008, partnership firms, and individuals. The minimum default amount for the Code’s application is Rs. 1 lakh, with exceptions for regulated financial service providers like banks, financial institutions, and insurance companies.

Objectives of the Code:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 aims to achieve several objectives:

Improving conflict resolution between creditors and debtors.
Providing procedural certainty for negotiation processes, reducing problems of common property, and minimizing information asymmetry.
Distinguishing between malfeasance and business failure.
Offering flexibility for parties to maximize value during negotiations.
Allocating losses effectively during macroeconomic downturns.
Balancing stakeholders' interests, promoting entrepreneurship, and increasing credit availability.
Establishing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India as a regulatory body.
Facilitating higher levels of debt financing and providing a painless revival mechanism for entities.
Addressing cross-border insolvency and resolving India's bad debt problem through a database of defaulters.

category

Understanding the SARFAESI Act, 2002: Scope, Aims, Procedures, and Documentation

editor — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:18:20 +0000

India’s financial sector plays a crucial role in the country’s economic development. However, outdated legal frameworks hindered the efficient recovery of defaulted loans and contributed to rising nonperforming assets (NPAs). In response, various committees, including the Narasimham Committee I and II and the Andhyarujina Committee, were formed to examine banking sector reforms and propose changes in the legal system.

What is the SARFAESI Act, 2002?

The SARFAESI Act, short for the “Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,” empowers banks and financial institutions to auction commercial or residential properties to recover loans when borrowers default. It allows for the reduction of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) through recovery methods and reconstruction.

Applicability and Objectives

The SARFAESI Act applies to secured loans, enabling banks to seize properties without court intervention, except for agricultural land. Its objectives include facilitating the recovery of NPAs, enabling banks to auction properties, and streamlining the recovery process.

Key Provisions and Processes

The Act regulates Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) and facilitates the securitization of financial assets. It empowers banks to take possession of securities and manage them, appoint managers, or lease/sell the assets. Borrowers are given a 60-day notice period to discharge liabilities before action is taken.

Role and Amendments

The SARFAESI Act allows banks and ARCs to convert debt into equity, adjust debt with property value, and sell properties with deferred payments. Borrowers have rights to remit dues, receive officer default compensation, and approach Debt Recovery Tribunals for grievances.

Methods of Recovery

Recovery under the SARFAESI Act includes securitization, asset reconstruction, and enforcement of security without court intervention. These methods enable financial institutions to efficiently recover NPAs.

Assets Not Covered

Assets not covered by the SARFAESI Act include those under the Sale of Goods Act or Indian Contract Act, properties not liable for attachment under civil procedure laws, and conditional contracts without security interests.

Conclusion

The SARFAESI Act, 2002, strengthens India’s financial sector by providing effective mechanisms for loan recovery. Its provisions empower banks and financial institutions to streamline the recovery process, reduce NPAs, and foster economic stability.

category