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 |

A Fresh SCN Should Be Issued to Revise the Demand Raised in the SCN

editor — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:05:37 +0000

Introduction

In the realm of tax disputes, the issuance of Show Cause Notices (SCN) marks a crucial step in determining liabilities. However, a recent ruling by the Hon’ble Madras High Court sheds light on the procedural aspect of revising demands raised in SCNs.

Facts of the Case

M/s. Vela Agencies found themselves contesting a tax demand raised through an SCN. Despite responding to the initial intimation and SCN, the final order passed by the Assistant Commissioner substantially differed from the demand stated in the SCN, leading to legal action.

Issue

The core issue revolves around the necessity of issuing a fresh SCN to revise the demand raised in the original notice, especially when there’s a significant discrepancy between the initial demand and the final order.

Held

The Hon’ble Madras High Court emphasized procedural fairness in tax adjudication. It observed that the final order deviated substantially from the SCN, indicating procedural irregularities. Therefore, the court ruled that a fresh SCN should have been issued if the respondent intended to modify the tax proposal in light of the petitioner’s reply. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, leaving room for fresh proceedings.

category

Pre-deposit is to be paid through Electronic Cash Ledger when Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked due to denial of ITC

editor — Mon, 03 Jun 2024 07:15:17 +0000

Introduction

In a recent ruling by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the issue of pre-deposit payment through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked due to the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was discussed. This article delves into the facts of the case, the issue at hand, and the court’s decision regarding the matter.

Facts of the Case

KOG-KTV Food Products (India) (P.) Limited (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the Appellate Order passed by the Revenue Department. The Petitioner’s appeal was rejected, prompting them to argue against the necessity of pre-deposit due to the blocking of their Input Tax Credit.

Issue

The central question before the court was whether pre-deposit should be made through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is blocked as a result of ITC denial.

Held

The Hon’ble Madras High Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 21581 of 2022, made the following determinations:

Recognized that the dispute stemmed from the denial of Input Tax Credit, rendering the Electronic Credit Ledger unavailable for deposit.
Stated that the Petitioner must pre-deposit 10 percent of the disputed amount through the Electronic Cash Ledger to proceed with the appeal.
Concluded by dismissing the writ petition.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court clarifies the obligation of pre-deposit through the Electronic Cash Ledger when the Electronic Credit Ledger is inaccessible due to the denial of Input Tax Credit. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring clarity and adherence to procedural requirements in tax disputes.

category

The Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the Case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union Territory of J&K: An Analysis

editor — Mon, 27 May 2024 05:43:31 +0000

Introduction

The recent decision by the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union Territory of J&K [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3949 of 2019 dated April 29, 2024] has attracted significant attention. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) as infructuous. This article delves into the intricacies of this case, examining the facts, the legal issues involved, and the court’s reasoning behind its decision.

Facts of the Case

Background of the Petitioner

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., a prominent insurance company, filed a writ of mandamus, a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, court, corporation, or public authority to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do.

Assessment Order in Dispute

The dispute arose from an Assessment Order dated March 31, 2018, for the financial year 2013-14. The Petitioner challenged this order and sought a directive for the Respondent to hear their appeal against it.

Vacancy of the Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-I) Srinagar

At the time of filing the petition, the post of Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-I) Srinagar, was vacant, which complicated the Petitioner’s appeal process.

Subsequent Appointments to the Position

Over time, the Position saw several appointments:

Dr. Zahoor Ahmad Raina was appointed on November 2, 2020, by Government Order No. 1027-JK (GAD) of 2020.
He was transferred on July 24, 2021, by Government Order No. 651-JK (GAD) of 2021, and Ms. Sammer Naik, JKAS, took over as Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-II) Srinagar, with additional charge of the Position.
Eventually, on February 6, 2022, Ms. Tabasum Shafat Kamli, JKAS, was appointed to the Position via Government Order No. 130 (JK) GAD of 2022.

Issue

Core Legal Question

The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner should still be considered given the eventual filling of the Position and the time elapsed.

Held

Court’s Decision

The Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, stating that since the Position had been filled, the appeal must be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Dy. Commissioner, State Taxes (Appeals-I) Srinagar.

Reasoning Behind the Decision

The court highlighted that the administrative changes and subsequent filling of the Position rendered the appeal process viable under the Appellate Authority. Thus, there was no need for judicial intervention at this point.

Implications of the Judgment

This decision underscores the importance of administrative efficiency and the timely filling of key positions within the tax administration framework. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that administrative remedies are exhausted before judicial remedies are sought.

Conclusion

The case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union Territory of J&K serves as a crucial reminder of the procedural intricacies involved in tax disputes and the importance of administrative positions being filled promptly. The dismissal of the appeal as infructuous was a logical step, given the circumstances, and it ensures that the matter is addressed by the appropriate administrative authority.

category

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

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

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

Madras High Court Invalidates GST Assessment Over ITC Disparity

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:58:07 +0000

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court addressed the validity of a GST assessment order in the case of Sri Lakshmi Silvers versus The State Tax Officer, Gugai Circle, Salem. The case centered on the adherence to procedural guidelines and principles of natural justice in GST assessments, particularly concerning disparities between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, engaged in the supply of base metals, faced a GST assessment order pertaining to the tax demand arising from differences between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR-3B returns and that reflected in the auto-populated GSTR-2A returns for the year 2019-20.
Despite receiving a notice and show cause notice, the petitioner, relying on their accountant, remained unaware, resulting in no response from their side.
The central issue revolved around the validity of the assessment order, particularly concerning principles of natural justice and adherence to specific circulars regarding GST return discrepancies.

Petitioner’s Argument:

Department’s Argument:

Held:

category

Decision by High Court Allows Refund of Reversed ITC When Supplier Pays Tax

editor — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 04:23:57 +0000

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], resolved the writ petition, permitting registered entities to submit refund applications for reversed Input Tax Credit (ITC) when the supplier has subsequently filed returns and paid taxes.

Facts of the case:

In the matter of Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P. (C) 1039/2024 dated March 19, 2024], the petitioner, Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition. The petition sought direction for granting Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits on invoices where the recipient had filed subsequent returns and paid taxes.
The petitioner argued that they were compelled by the Revenue Department to pay taxes on invoices where the supplier hadn't filed returns on time. However, the supplier later filed returns and paid taxes, potentially leading to double taxation. Hence, the petitioner sought a refund for the taxes paid on such invoices.
Responding to objections, the petitioner proposed filing a refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, they cited Notification No. 13/2022 dated July 05, 2022, advocating the exclusion of the period between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2023, from the limitation for filing refund applications. The petitioner also requested exclusion of the period between filing the writ petition and the court's order.

Held:

The Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C) 1039/2024, dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondent to adjudicate the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law. Notably, the court recognized the petitioner's eligibility under the Notification, excluding the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing the limitation period for filing refund applications.

category

Madras High Court Strikes Down Excessive GST Demand on Trade Payables

editor — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 04:41:27 +0000

Introduction:

The Madras High Court invalidated the order demanding payment concerning all trade payables, asserting that it exceeded the boundaries outlined in the original show cause notice. This ruling is significant in the realm of audit cases and is poised to have widespread benefits.

Facts of the case:

The petitioner contested an order dated 31.12.2023, arguing its overreach beyond the purview of a preceding show cause notice by subjecting all trade payables to GST.
Following an audit report on 26.09.2023, the petitioner received a notice on 30.09.2023 proposing a tax of Rs. 43,66,708.14. However, the final order imposed a tax exceeding Rs. 90 crores, markedly surpassing the initial estimate.
Despite compliance with statutory Input Tax Credit (ITC) requirements, the petitioner faced penalties.
The crux of the matter lies in the imposition of GST on the entirety of the petitioner's trade payables, a move perceived by the petitioner as beyond the notice's scope and contrary to legal provisions.

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner contends that the order unjustly expanded the taxable amount well beyond the initial estimation, unfairly taxing trade payables as a taxable supply despite adhering to ITC regulations.

Held:

The Madras High Court deemed the imposition of GST on trade payables, as reflected in financial statements, prima facie unsustainable.

The court nullified the order, instructing the petitioner to remit 10% of the disputed amount, excluding trade payables, and mandated a fresh review with adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

category