CASE LAWS
2016-TIOL-473-HC-ALL-VAT
FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD Vs STATE OF UP: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Dated: February 29, 2016)
UPVAT Act, 2008 - Sections 17(14)(a), 75, Rule 6, 72 - ex-parte assessment order - principal place of business - proper service of summons - recall application
Whether provisions of Section 17 (14) (a) of the VAT Act, makes it obligatory upon the registering authority to carry out the amendment irrespective of the fact that the application was not furnished within the prescribed period as provided under Section 75 - YES: HC
Whether the application for change of place of business was rightly filed by the assessee under Section 75 - YES: HC
Whether the rule of alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the writ petition, especially when there is a total abdication by the Department in adhering to the process of service of summons under Rule 72 of the Rules - YES: HC
Whether there is no proper service of the summons, when the Assessing Authority has not adopted the procedure as per clause (j) and (k) of Rule 72 of the Rules - YES: HC
Whether limitation could not start from the date, when there was no valid service of the assessment orders upon the assessee, as the assessment orders were served by affixation at the old principal place of business - YES: HC
Whether the recall application is to be filed within 30 days of the order on the application for setting aside the ex-parte assessment order, which could only be entertained if it is supported by proof of deposit of the admitted tax by the dealer - YES: HC
Assessee's petition allowed
2016-TIOL-472-HC-DEL-IT
CIT Vs HARJEEV AGGARWAL: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: March 10, 2016)
Income tax - Sections 158B, 158BA & 158BB.
Whether when the assessee himself accepted that the amount paid in cash was from unaccounted money and the Assessee has been unable to show that the transactions in question were recorded in the books of accounts and records maintained in the normal course prior to the date of the search, the addition is correctly made for such unaccounted money.
Revenue's appeal is allowed
2016-TIOL-471-HC-MUM-CX
JAGAT ALLOYS PVT LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 1, 2016)
CX - Difference of opinion on facts noted should be referred specifically and a question or questions arising on that difference of opinion alone should be referred to the Third Member - if the entire appeal is to be heard afresh, then, that would not be conducive for effective and proper adjudication - order where the Members disagreed with each other set aside – instead of appeal going to a third Member for being heard in its entirety, be reheard by the Tribunal's West Zonal Bench afresh –Writ petition allowed accordingly - HIGH COURT [para 7, 8]
Writ Petition allowed
2016-TIOL-470-HC-MUM-CX
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 22, 2016)
CX – AC, CEX appropriated part of the rebate sanctioned against the demand which is stayed by the Tribunal - Petitioner before High Court.
HELD - Revenue had passed an original order confirming a certain demand -on appeal before the Tribunal, to the extent the petitioner disputed the demand, there was a stay in favour of the petitioner - revenue could not have got over a binding stay order and by indirect or oblique process seek to recover the very sum and amount which it could not recover because of the prohibitory order of the Tribunal - this is a clear case where the principle of matter being sub-judice would apply - the writ petition succeeds -the impugned order is quashed and set aside : HIGH COURT [para 20, 23]
Writ Petition allowed
CIRCULAR
it16cir08
Clarification on applicability of Circular 21 of 2015 -reg.
