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 Bombay HC Invalidates Tax Order Without Personal Hearing https://www.nyca.in/bombay-hc-invalidates-tax-order-without-personal-hearing/ https://www.nyca.in/bombay-hc-invalidates-tax-order-without-personal-hearing/#respond Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:35:47 +0000 https://www.nyca.in/?p=8197 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 post Bombay HC Invalidates Tax Order Without Personal Hearing 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 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:

  • The petitioner contested an Order issued by the tax authorities, alleging a violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Laws and principles of natural justice.
  • The petitioner raised concerns over the issuance of an adverse Order without affording them a personal hearing.

Issue:

  • The central issue pertained to the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner before the issuance of an adverse Order, a right claimed under the CGST Act.

Petitioner’s Argument:

  • The petitioner asserted that the Order was invalid due to its failure to adhere to the provisions of the CGST/MGST Act, which mandate a personal hearing before making adverse decisions. They emphasized the breach of principles of natural justice.

Respondent’s Argument:

  • The respondent contended that no personal hearing was necessary as the petitioner did not explicitly opt for one in the system, and their written response was deemed sufficient to address their contentions.

Held:

  • The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the impugned Order invalid. The court emphasized that a personal hearing is mandatory under the CGST Act, both upon request and when an adverse decision is anticipated. Consequently, the respondent was directed to provide a hearing and reconsider the case in light of the principles of natural justice.

category

The post Bombay HC Invalidates Tax Order Without Personal Hearing 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/bombay-hc-invalidates-tax-order-without-personal-hearing/feed/ 0