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 |

Extension of Appeal Filing Time by the Appellate Authority

editor — Fri, 12 Apr 2024 05:00:41 +0000

Introduction:

The authority of the Appellate Authority to extend the period for filing an appeal was deliberated upon in the case of Jyanata Ghosh v. State of West Bengal by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

Facts of the Case:

Mr. Jyanata Ghosh, referred to as the Petitioner, received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) which lacked essential details regarding personal hearing.
Following the SCN, an Order was issued on August 11, 2023, under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, demanding a significant sum from the Petitioner for a specified period.
The issuance of this order violated principles of natural justice as it did not grant the Petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing.
Challenging this order, the Petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, only to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Issue:

Whether the Appellate Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the period for filing an appeal.

Held:

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court directed that the Appellate Authority should have granted the Petitioner a personal hearing and decided the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the violation of the principle of natural justice.
The court cited precedents such as Murtaza B Kaukawala v. State of West Bengal and S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India, highlighting that delay can be condoned if the principles of natural justice are violated.
It was further noted that the prescribed period for filing an appeal, initially set at 30 days, can be extended by the Appellate Authority, as mandated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Consequently, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated January 17, 2024. Additionally, it ordered a stay on the recovery proceedings pending the disposal of the appeal case, upon the Petitioner’s deposit of the pre-deposit amount, thereby disposing of the writ petition in favor of the Petitioner.

category

High Court Advocates Direct Communication, Urges Tax Department to Inform Taxpayers Prior to Action

editor — Wed, 10 Apr 2024 05:01:01 +0000

Introduction:

Certain demographics, including senior citizens, technologically hesitant individuals, Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), and those prone to forgetfulness, might be unaware of the Income Tax Department’s actions against them. The department initiates proceedings by uploading show-cause notices or summons to its online portal, without directly notifying these taxpayers via email or letter. Consequently, individuals who infrequently check the tax portal, as is common, may face unforeseen penalties and complications. This operational method by the tax authorities has raised concerns about its fairness.

High Court’s Critique:

Recently, the High Court criticized the tax authorities’ approach, highlighting the unreasonableness of expecting taxpayers to constantly monitor the e-portal for updates. In a case concerning the Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a show-cause notice from November 2022. The court emphasized that legal provisions dictate the manner in which notices and orders must be served, rejecting the notion of notices being “presumed” received solely by placement on the e-portal.

Importance of Natural Justice:

An expert underscored the significance of natural justice in legal proceedings, emphasizing the principle of “audi alteram partem,” which requires both parties to be heard. Lack of communication regarding assessments, penalties, or other actions could result in hardships for taxpayers, missed deadlines, and ignorance of their right to respond, thereby increasing burdens for all parties involved.

Case Example: Munjal BCU:

Munjal BCU, dedicated to fostering innovation and startups in Ludhiana, received initial notices and reminders solely through the online tax portal. The court deemed this insufficient opportunity for the organization to present its case.

Historical Context:

Before 2009, the tax department primarily relied on physical mail for communication, transitioning to electronic means later. Placing communications solely on the income tax portal can pose tracking challenges, especially for certain demographics uncomfortable with technology. While portal accessibility is convenient, supplementary notifications via email and/or physical mail are necessary.

Expected Changes:

The court’s decision is expected to prompt the department to communicate through emails for various matters, including notices and summons.

Practitioners’ Concerns:

Tax practitioners have noted issues with recent proceedings, including notices not being visible on the portal and unreasonable response timeframes.

category

Merely uploading SCN under the category “Additional Notices” instead of “Notices” on the GST portal does not constitute sufficient intimation to the taxpayer

editor — Tue, 09 Apr 2024 05:43:22 +0000

Introduction:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner, addressed the issue of whether the misplacement of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the “Additional Notices” category instead of “Notices” on the GST portal constitutes sufficient intimation to the taxpayer. This analysis examines the court’s findings and the implications for similar cases.

Facts of the Case:

Introduction:

Facts of the Case:

M/s. Anhad Impex ("the Petitioner") received an Impugned Order dated November 29, 2023, from the Assistant Commissioner ("the Respondent"), creating a demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
The Petitioner asserted that they never received the SCN, which formed the basis of the Impugned Order, thus depriving them of the opportunity to respond or participate in adjudication proceedings.
SCNs are typically uploaded under the "Notices" section on the GST portal, but in this instance, it was placed in the less accessible "Additional Notices" category, leading the Petitioner to miss it.
The Respondent contended that uploading the notice on the GST portal suffices as per Section 169 of the CGST Act.

Issue:

Whether the misplacement of the SCN in “Additional Notices” rather than “Notices” warrants the invalidation of the demand order?

Held:

The court noted that the Petitioner's lack of response to the SCN indicated a lack of proper and timely intimation.
Placing the SCN under "Additional Notices" instead of "Notices" made it less accessible, infringing upon principles of natural justice and provisions of the CGST Act.
Referring to precedents such as East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner and Murugesan Jayalakshmi v. State Tax Officer, the court emphasized the importance of proper categorization on the portal.
Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, with directions for the Petitioner to respond to the SCN, and the Respondent to re-adjudicate the matter with a personal hearing within four weeks.

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

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

Registration not to be cancelled retrospectively when vague SCN is issued and no reasonable opportunity granted to file reply

editor — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:25:25 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the case of M/s. Friends Media Add Company vs. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax [W.P.(C) No. 1260 of 2024 dated February 12, 2024], altered the GST cancellation ruling to apply prospectively from the date of the show cause notice (SCN). The court held that GST registration should not be revoked retroactively if the SCN lacks clarity and no opportunity was given to contest the retrospective cancellation.

Facts of the case:

The Revenue Department (referred to as “the Respondent”) issued an SCN on August 25, 2023, to M/s. Friends Media Add Company (referred to as “the Petitioner”), alleging issuance of invoices or bills without actual supply of goods or services, resulting in improper claim of input tax credit or tax refund. Subsequently, the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled retroactively via an order dated December 12, 2023 (referred to as “the Impugned Order”).

The Petitioner challenged the Impugned Order through a writ petition before the High Court, arguing that the SCN lacked specificity as it did not cite any instances of invoices or bills issued without actual supply of goods or services, which formed the basis of the SCN issuance.

Issue:

Whether GST registration should be cancelled retrospectively when the SCN issued is vague in nature and no opportunity was granted to file objection against retrospective cancellation?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1260 of 2024 held as under:

Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, empowers the Proper Officer to cancel GST registration retrospectively, but this should not be done mechanically and must be based on objective criteria.
The mere failure to file returns for a certain period should not automatically lead to retrospective cancellation, especially if returns have been filed and taxes paid for other periods.
The Proper Officer must consider that retrospective cancellation could deny credit to the petitioner's customers for supplies made during the affected period.
The SCN did not adequately notify the petitioner of the possibility of retrospective cancellation.
The petitioner was not given an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration.
Therefore, the court ordered that the cancellation be modified to operate prospectively from the date of issuance of the SCN.

category