GST | Separate Demands For Reversal Of Availed ITC & Utilisation Of ITC Is Prima Facie Duplication Of Demand: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that demand raised against an assessee qua reversal of availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to approach the Appellate Authority against such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand...

[Income Tax] Breach Of Article 265 Cannot Be Alleged Based On Inconclusive Opinion By Assessing Officer: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that a breach of Article 265 of the constitution cannot be alleged or sustained based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion formed by assessing officer. The Division Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory...

Does Payment For Transponder Services Constitute 'Royalty' U/S 9(1)(vi) Of Income Tax Act? Bombay High Court Asks CIT To Decide

The Bombay High Court has asked the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide whether payment for transponder services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(Vi) of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “the authorities have held the payment to constitute 'royalty' under the domestic law as well as under the Treaty, but by holding...

State Tax Authorities Not Mandated To Issue DIN With Orders Or Summons: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court stated that state tax authorities not mandated to issue din with orders or summons. The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia andP.M. Ravalobserved that “there is no mechanism of issuance of DIN on any of the communication, notice, summons, orders issued by the State Tax Authorities. In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the...

Omission Of Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rules Operates Prospectively But Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court stated that omission of Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rules, 2017 operates prospectively but applies to all pending proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray was addressing the issue where a group of petitions have challenged the vires of Rule 96(10) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as substituted by the Central...

Transferor Not Liable U/S 56(2) Of Income Tax Act For Undervalued Property Sale To Spouse: ITAT

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai stated that transferor not liable under Section 56(2) Of Income Tax Act for undervalued property sale to spouse. The Bench of SS Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that “the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported by the statutory stipulations governing the matter. It...

Treaty Provisions Don't Override Customs Law: Bombay High Court Upholds SCN Issued For Alleged Misuse Of Import Exemptions

The Bombay High Court stated that treaty provisions don't override customs law and upheld the show cause notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions. The Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that based on a treaty provision that is not transformed or incorporated into the national law or statute, the provisions of the existing Customs Act...

Cash Credit Account Cannot Be Treated As Property Of Account Holder Which Can Be Considered U/S 83 Of GST Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that cash credit account cannot be treated as property of account holder which can be consider under Section 83 of GST Act. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the phrase 'including bank account' following the phrase, “any property” would mean a non-cash-credit bank account. Therefore, a “cash credit...

Assessing Officer Can't Act As Prosecutor, Judge And Executor At The Same Time: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Assessing officer must provide the university a fair opportunity to present its case and can't take law in his own hand by acting as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the same time.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “The Assessing officer took the law into his own hand and played as a Prosecutor, Judge and Executor at the...

Amount Of Subsidy Received By Assessee From RBI Cannot Be Treated As 'Interest' Chargeable U/S 4 Of Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee from RBI cannot be treated as 'interest' chargeable under Section 4 of Income Tax Act. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that “the amount of subsidy received by the Assessee is not relatable in loan or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: June 09 - June 15, 2025

HIGH COURTSKerala HCKerala High Court Directs Customs To Dispose Of Seized Buffalo Meat Consignments Within One Month Due To PerishabilityCase Title: M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025The Kerala High Court has directed the customs department to dispose of seized buffalo meat consignments within one...

Assessee Liable To Pay Redemption Fine For Seized Goods Missing From Their Custody: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay redemption fine for seized goods missing from their custody. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether when the goods were seized handed over the assessee for safe custody and they...