2021-TIOL-139-HC-MUM-IT

CVO Chartered And Cost Accountants' Association, Mumbai Vs UoI

Whether due dates for filing of audit reports and income tax returns cannot be extended indefinitely on whims & fancies of taxpayers - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-127-ITAT-DEL

Deloitte Haskins & Sells Vs ACIT

Whether disallowance of TDS payable can be made when deduction of tax liability towards payee is discharged - NO: ITAT

Whether disallowance of payments to Retiring Partners can be made even when payment to partner would amount to diversion of income at source by overriding title - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed:DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-138-HC-DEL-GST

RCI Industries And Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner DGST Delhi  

GST - Petition impugns the action of search carried out at the Petitioner's business premises on 30th September, 2020, u/s 67 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 139 of the DGST Rules, 2017 - Petitioner complains that they have been subjected to harassment at the hands of CGST Authorities i.e. DGGI Gurugram who have searched them numerous times; that in fact Petitioner has responded to the summons issued in this regard, pursuant whereto statement of Petitioner company's director was also recorded; that the last search was conducted by the CGST authorities on 7th March, 2020 at the director's residence and this search action was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 7145/2020 = 2020-TIOL-903-HC-P&H-GST before the Punjab and Haryana High Court; that the said challenge was successful and consequently the search action and the panchnama dated 7th March, 2020 were quashed - Petitioner's grievance is that now the State GST Authority i.e. DGST has subjected the Petitioner to yet another search action in relation to the same period, despite the Petitioner being earlier subjected to search action at the hands of the Central Authorities, which was impugned before the Punjab and Haryana High Court - It is argued that the action of the State authorities under the DGST Act is illegal and unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the CGST/DGST Act - Petitioner urges that no parallel enquiries on the same issues by the two authorities can take place under Sections 5 and 6 of DGST Act, 2017 .

Held:

+ In the event the notice issued by the DGST authorities pertains to a period which is covered by the investigation carried out by the Central GST authorities, the Petitioner can take recourse to the appropriate remedies in that regard.

+ Since contentions have been raised with respect to the cross-empowerment of the Central and the State authorities and it is asserted that there are no guidelines prescribed under the Act or the Rules, it would be profitable to throw some light on the issue - Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs letter dated 5th October, 2018 has clarified on the issue - Further clarity on the issue of cross-empowerment of State GST and Central GST officers is also visible in a recent letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs being No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22th June, 2020 [para 15]

+ It is thus apparent that if an officer of the Central GST initiates intelligence-based enforcement action against a taxpayer administratively assigned to State GST, the officers of the former would not transfer the said case to their counterparts in the latter department and they would themselves take the case to its logical conclusion.

+ Respondents would be bound by the aforenoted circulars and in case, the action of the State and Central Authorities is overlapping, the Petitioner would be at liberty to take action to impugn the same in accordance with law.

+ There is no panchnama on record. The only relevant section is Section 70, which does not entail signatures of witnesses. Be that as it may, determination of tax liability, has to be in accordance within the confines of statutory provisions of the GST laws.

+ There is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that absence of the signature of the authorised person on Form GST INS-01 would render the search action to be non-est . Petitioner does not dispute that the persons who carried out the search were indeed those whose names has been mentioned in the said authorisation, and they had displayed their identity cards at the time of search.

+ It is also not the case of the Petitioner that the officers who carried out the search did not properly discharge their official duty or otherwise acted in furtherance of some extraneous purpose. The absence of signatures does not manifest an absence of delegation of power in favour of the team which conducted the search action. Further, the provisions of DVAT Act quoted in the documents also cannot render the proceedings as illegal. The erstwhile Act is saved by the repeal and saving provisions of the DGST Act, 2017 ( Vianaar Homes Private Limited = 2020-TIOL-520-HC-DEL-ST refers]

+ While exercising writ jurisdiction, Bench cannot adjudge or test the adequacy and sufficiency of the grounds. Bench can only go into the question and examine the formation of the belief to satisfy if the conditions specified under the statutory provision invoked are met.

+ The Courts can interfere and hold the exercise of power to be bad in law only if the grounds on which reason to believe is founded have no rational connection between the information or material recorded; or are non-existent; or are such on which no reasonable person can come to that belief.

+ The reasons to believe shown to the Bench demonstrate that the Appropriate authority had the reasons, as per mandate of Section 67(2) of the DGST Act along with relevant Rules, for formation of belief to carry out the search.

+ It cannot be said that there is no application of mind while issuing search warrant. Thus, Bench would not like to countermand the action taken against the Petitioner.  

- Petition disposed of : DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-132-HC-DEL-CUS

Rain Cii Carbon Vizag Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Petitions have been filed challenging the Minutes of Meeting dated 03.06.2020 of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to the extent that it allocates additional Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) in favour of M/s Sanvira Industries for production capacity in excess of 2,00,000 Metric Tonnes (MT).

Held: As rightly contended by the Additional Solicitor General and the senior counsel for M/s Sanvira Industries, in the present petitions, no challenge to the Public Notice dated 17.04.2020 is made by the petitioners - In absence of such a challenge, it is not for this Court to adjudicate on whether a certificate issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) certifying the production capacity of M/s Sanvira Industries in absence of the Consent to Operate as on 09.10.2018 would suffice for making allocation of RPC in its favour – In absence of challenge to the certificate issued by the APPCB and refusal of the petitioners to implead APPCB as a party respondent in the present petition, it would not be appropriate for this Court to opine on such submission - The petitioners have taken a chance and they now cannot obtain an order in absence of the relevant party, that is, APPCB based on the above submission - Though, Petitioners may be correct in their submission as far as the Minutes of Meeting are concerned (that they do not reflect application of minds and do not give any reason for allocation of RPC in favour of M/s Sanvira Industries), the Additional Solicitor General has produced the office file containing deliberation of the Committee in the decision making process and the same duly reflect that reliance has been placed by the Committee on the certificate issued by the APPCB in favour of M/s Sanvira Industries for making allocation - It cannot, therefore, be said that there is no application of mind by the Committee and no reasons recorded while making such allocation in favour of M/s Sanvira Industries - no merit in the present petitions, hence same are dismissed: High Court [para 53, 55, 56, 57]

- Petitions dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-131-HC-ALL-ST

Beenu Gupta Vs UoI

ST - Petitioner submits that they had deposited the amount along with returns belatedly and, therefore, arose some interest liability which the petitioner could not deposit and, therefore, the petitioner has filed a declaration under the SVLDRS, 2019 but the declaration has been allegedly wrongly rejected by the impugned orders - Aggrieved, petitioner prays for quashing the said orders.

Held: Bench observes that the designated authority has rejected declaration on the ground that "as per report of the division vide letter dated 13.01.2020, no duty amount has been declared in return as payable but not paid. Hence not covered under the category of arrears" - definition of the words "tax dues" as provided in Section 123 of the SVLDR Scheme shows that it is not expansive in nature inasmuch as it starts with the word "means" - admitted facts of the present case are that the petitioner has filed return under the service tax law prior to 30th June, 2019 and deposited the amount of duty along with the returns which was filed belatedly, therefore, clause (e) of Section 123 read with clause (c) of Section 121 of the SVLDR Scheme is not applicable on the facts of the present case - Perusal of the provisions of the Scheme shows that the Scheme is a complete Code in itself - In substance, it is a scheme for recovery of duty/indirect tax to unlock the frozen assets and to recover the tax arrears at a discounted amount - Thus, " Sabka Vishwas Scheme", although a beneficial scheme for a declarant, is statutory in nature, which has been enacted with the object and purpose to minimise the litigation and to realise the arrears of tax by way of settlement at discounted amount in an expeditious manner - In other words, the scheme is a step towards the settlement of outstanding disputed tax liability - No merit in this writ petition, hence dismissed: High Court [para 9, 13, 15, 17]

- Petition dismissed : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT