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 | https://www.nyca.in 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 Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:57:03 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 https://www.nyca.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/9060CA_logo_icai-1.jpg 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 | https://www.nyca.in 32 32 Extended Period of Limitation: Understanding and Challenging Sec. 74 https://www.nyca.in/extended-period-of-limitation-understanding-and-challenging-sec-74/ https://www.nyca.in/extended-period-of-limitation-understanding-and-challenging-sec-74/#respond Sat, 20 Apr 2024 07:48:40 +0000 https://www.nyca.in/?p=8871 In the realm of taxation, navigating through various sections and provisions can be daunting.

The post Extended Period of Limitation: Understanding and Challenging Sec. 74 appeared first on 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.

]]>

In the realm of taxation, navigating through various sections and provisions can be daunting. One such area of concern for taxpayers is the extended period of limitation, particularly concerning the issuance of notices and the implications under Section 74. Understanding the nuances of this provision and the scope for challenging it is crucial for taxpayers and professionals alike.

1. Supreme Court Precedents

  • Krishnaraj Shipping Co. Ltd: The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Krishnaraj Shipping Co. Ltd. sheds light on the invocability of the extended period of limitation. It emphasized that demanding service tax involving interpretational disputes does not warrant the invocation of the extended period.

2. CESTAT Chandigarh Insights

  • Antares Services Pvt. Ltd: CESTAT Chandigarh's stance, as seen in the case of Antares Services Pvt. Ltd., underscores the necessity of providing evidence of suppression, misstatement, fraud, or collusion for the proper invocation of the extended period of limitation.

3. Precedents from CESTAT Ahmedabad

  • Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd: The case of Dinesh Chandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. highlighted the importance of proof of intentional revenue suppression or misdeclaration for the validity of orders under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
  • Arya Logistics: In line with the above, Arya Logistics emphasized that in the absence of suppression of fact, a show cause notice issued after the prescribed limit of one year is not sustainable.

4. Insights from CESTAT Delhi

  • State Bank of Patiala: CESTAT Delhi, in the case of State Bank of Patiala, clarified that activities not constituting suppression cannot warrant the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

5. Precedents from CESTAT Allahabad

  • Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd: Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd. case highlighted that when the department is aware of facts from audits and regular filing of returns, invoking the extended limitation period based on alleged misclassification becomes untenable.

6. Perspectives from Delhi High Court

  • ITD-ITD CEM JV: Delhi High Court's stance, as seen in the case of ITD-ITD CEM JV, emphasized the necessity of recording reasons to believe in writing for assessment orders passed within the extended period.
  • H.M. Industries: H.M. Industries reiterated that the absence of assertions regarding concealment or failure to disclose full particulars negates the applicability of the extended period of limitation.

7. Insights from Mumbai CESTAT

  • Bajaj Health & Nutrition Pvt. Ltd.: The case of Bajaj Health & Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. highlighted that failure by customs cannot be attributed to the taxpayer, absolving them from charges of misdeclaration and evasion.

Understanding these precedents is pivotal for taxpayers and professionals aiming to navigate through the intricacies of tax laws effectively.

category

The post Extended Period of Limitation: Understanding and Challenging Sec. 74 appeared first on 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.

]]> https://www.nyca.in/extended-period-of-limitation-understanding-and-challenging-sec-74/feed/ 0 Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST https://www.nyca.in/revenue-department-is-not-empowered-to-seize-cash-under-gst/ https://www.nyca.in/revenue-department-is-not-empowered-to-seize-cash-under-gst/#respond Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:09:45 +0000 https://www.nyca.in/?p=8112 The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024], granted relief to the petitioner by allowing the writ petition

The post Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST appeared first on 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.

]]>

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Jagdish Bansal v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 16677 of 2023 dated February 26, 2024], granted relief to the petitioner by allowing the writ petition. The court instructed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest. The judgment emphasized that the Revenue Department lacks authority to seize cash under the applicable GST laws.

Facts of the case:

Search and seizure procedures were conducted at the premises of Jagdish Bansal, resulting in the confiscation of cash by the Revenue Department.

Displeased by this action, Jagdish Bansal filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the lawfulness of the cash seizure.

Issue:

The central issue at hand was whether the Revenue Department possessed the legal authority to seize cash under the GST framework.

Held:

In its ruling on W.P. (C) NO. 16677 OF 2023, the Delhi High Court made the following determinations:

  • Referencing the decision of the Delhi High Court in K.M Food Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor Vs Director General DGGI Headquarters [W.P. (C) 328/2024 dated February 13, 2024], the court construed Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
  • It observed that cash does not fall under the definition of goods but rather under the definition of money as outlined in Section 2(75) of the CGST Act.
  • The court reiterated that cash cannot be categorized as goods and therefore cannot be subject to seizure.
  • It concluded that there was no valid reason for the Revenue Department to retain the seized cash.
  • Consequently, the court deemed the impugned order as null and directed the Revenue Department to return the seized cash along with interest.

category

The post Revenue Department is not empowered to seize Cash under GST appeared first on 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.

]]> https://www.nyca.in/revenue-department-is-not-empowered-to-seize-cash-under-gst/feed/ 0