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 |

Extended Period of Limitation: Understanding and Challenging Sec. 74

editor — Sat, 20 Apr 2024 07:48:40 +0000

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

2. CESTAT Chandigarh Insights

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

5. Precedents from CESTAT Allahabad

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

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

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

Employees get ₹3,731 crore GST penalty demand; Bombay HC strikes it down

editor — Thu, 04 Apr 2024 05:43:47 +0000

Should an employee of a company be held responsible for forking out penalties related to tax demands raised on the company by revenue authorities? Goods and Services Tax (GST) enforcement officials believed so when they slapped a demand last September for a ₹3,731 crore penalty on a taxation manager and other employees of global logistics major Maersk for alleged tax evasion of the same amount by the company.

In a judgment that could bring relief to other employees at firms in the midst of GST disputes, the Bombay High Court last week struck down the demand and show cause notices issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence in the case, terming them bad and illegal.

Terming it “highly unconscionable and disproportionate” for revenue officers to hold employees responsible for liabilities of the company, a division bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla held it would not be incorrect to contend that the purpose of issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner who is merely an employee, was designed to threaten and pressurize them.

GST officials had alleged that a sum of ₹1561 crore was wrongly utilized as Input Tax Credit by Maersk and those credits were wrongfully distributed. While Maersk is a foreign company which does not have any employee or fixed establishment in India, solely for the purpose of representing and acting on its behalf before the Indian tax authorities, the firm had given the power of attorney to some employees of its steamer agent in India, incorporated as Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd.

“This ruling is significant for employees of large-sized businesses, where potentially interpretative GST positions are adopted by employees without any malafide intention. Such imposition of substantial penalties in recent investigations had caused lot of unrest amongst such employees,” an expert said.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/business/employee-gets-3731-crore-gst-penalty-demand-bombay-hc-strikes-it-down/article68025394.ece

category

Bombay HC Invalidates Tax Order Without Personal Hearing

editor — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:35:47 +0000

In the case of Cowtown Software Design Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India, heard in the Bombay High Court under Writ Petition (L) No. 31152 of 2023, the court addressed the crucial issue of whether the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner by tax authorities was in compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Laws.

Facts of the Case & Timelines:

Issue:

Petitioner’s Argument:

Respondent’s Argument:

Held:

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