Assessment Based On DVO's Valuation Cannot Be Revised U/S 263 Of Income Tax Act In Absence Of Concrete Material: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that assessment based on DVO's (Department Valuation Officer) valuation cannot be revised under Section 263 of Income Tax Act in absence of concrete material. Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that “as on the date of invoking his power under Section 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner could not have had a 'reason to believe' that...

S.245C Income Tax Act Does Not Require Prior Cut-Off Date, Pending S.153A/153C Notice Sufficient For Settlement Application: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court stated that Section 245C of Income Tax Act does not require prior cut-off date; pending 153A/153C notice sufficient for settlement application. Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Section 245C does not prescribe any prior cut-off date for an assessee to satisfy the requirements for filing an application before the Interim Board...

'Decalcified Fish Scale' Import Covered Under Advance Authorisation Scheme; Customs Cannot Deny Benefit: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that 'decalcified fish scale' import covered under advance authorization scheme; customs cannot deny benefit. The advance authorization scheme enables duty free import of inputs/raw materials required for manufacture of export goods. Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj observed that during the period subsequent to the period covered by...

S.75(5) Of CGST Act Contemplates A Maximum Of Three Adjournments, Cannot Be Construed As A Minimum Of Three Hearings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“A perusal of Section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Service...

Assessee Can Seek Refund Of Unutilised ITC In Personal Bank Account If Business Is Shut Down: Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court recently directed the proper officer under the GST Act to consider ordering refund of the unutilised ITC of an Assessee to his personal bank account, as his business was closed and its GST registration stood cancelled.The Petitioner was aggrieved by a direction of the proper officer, though allowing the refund sanction to the tune of Rs. 68,66,238/- but, directing the...

Taxpayers Must Be Vigilant About Communications On GST Portal, Department Can't Be Blamed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if an assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Department cannot be blamed for passing an order raising demand, without hearing the assessee.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no...

Assessee Cannot Be Penalised U/S 271(1)(c) Of Income Tax Act For Merely Raising A Plausible Claim: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that the assessee cannot be penalised under Section 271(1) (c) of income tax act for merely raising a plausible claim. The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne opined that “the claim raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised liability towards additional bonus was a...

Restoration Of Cancelled GST Registration Permissible If Taxpayer Clears Dues And Files Returns: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that the restoration of cancelled GST registration is permissible if the taxpayer clears dues and files returns. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that “proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 provides that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready...

If SCN Is Issued Without GST Authority's Signature, Demand Order Can't Be Saved Even If It Is Signed: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that an order raising GST demand cannot be saved even if it is properly authenticated by the issuing authority, if the show cause notice preceding it was not signed.A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar was dealing with a Petitioner's grievance that Form GST DRC-01A issued to him under section 73(1) of...

Benefit Of Cash Compensatory Scheme Cannot Be Denied On Castor Oil Exports Based On Subsequent Test Change: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that benefit of cash compensatory scheme benefit cannot be denied on castor oil exports based on subsequent test change. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain has observed that contracts executed prior to the cutoff day would not be governed by the subsequent change in the scheme granting the benefit. There is no dispute that...

Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings. The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the...

Profit Earned In GTA Service Through Sub-Contractor Not Taxable As Business Auxiliary Service: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that profit earned in GTA service (Goods Transport Agency Service) through sub-contractor not taxable as business auxiliary service.The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “revenue's attempt to charge service tax on the profit calling...