2021-TIOL-162-HC-KAR- IT

Biocon Ltd Vs DCIT

On appeal, the High Court finds that the order holding the assessee not being entitled to deduction u/s 35(2AB), is set aside to such extent, in light of findings rendered in ITA No.416/2014 by this very court.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-157-HC-MAD-IT

CIT Vs Shree Ganesh Ventures

Whether ITAT has power to review its order on a Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue Department and pass a fresh order on merits, contrary to earlier order passed u/s 254(2) of IT Act, 1961 – YES: HC.

Whether ITAT's failure to scrutinise documentary evidence while passing order on Appeal can amount to a mistake apparent on face of record u/s 254(2) of IT Act, 1961, entitling ITAT to recall its earlier order – YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-158-ITAT-DEL

Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs ITO

Whether Assessee can be held as 'assessee in default' for failure to deduct tax at source under Section 194H in respect of the discount/commission allowed to the prepaid distributors - NO: ITAT

Whether TDS is required to be deducted u/s 194J on roaming charges paid by the assessee to other telecom operators - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-149-ITAT-BANG

ACIT Vs Manoj Arjun Menda

Whether there is any provision under Income Tax Act that authorises AO to refer the matter for valuation in relation to transfer of shares – NO: ITAT

- Revenue's Appeal dismissed : BANGALORE ITAT

2021-TIOL-146-ITAT-AHM

CIMS Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

2021-TIOL-145-ITAT-DEL

RBJ Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether the assessee has right to seek reasons recorded for the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 148 – YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-167-HC-DEL-GST

Pacific Exports And Imports Vs Addl.CCT

GST - Petitioner submits that though there is a remedy for filing further appeal under the CGST Act, however, since the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal is presently not constituted, he has no other option but to approach this Court - However, Bench notices that the prayer sought in the present petition does not seek any relief in respect of the order passed by the first Appellate Authority and in absence of any such challenge, we are unable to understand as to how the present petition would be maintainable - Petitioner requests for an adjournment to do the needful viz. seek specific relief - Matter re-notified for the 9 th March 2021: High Court [para 2, 3]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-165-HC-AHM- GST

Shree Ambica Auto Sales And Service Vs UoI

GST - Court has taken notice of the fact that the assessees are compelled or rather pressurized to fill up the Form DRC-03 - The Form DRC-03 may be filled up provided the assessee decides to voluntarily make any payment - Even if there is any lapse on the part of the assessee and the department wants to recover a particular amount, it cannot exert pressure or administer threats for the purpose of filling up of the Form DRC-03 - The department is expected to proceed in accordance with law - Bench takes a very serious view of the matter, and therefore, wants a responsible officer of the department to file appropriate reply by the next date of hearing - Notice to be issued to the respondents, returnable on 25th January 2021 - The writ applicant No.2 shall appear in person before the authority concerned in response to the summons received by him under Section 70 of the Act - However, Bench makes it clear that no coercive measures or steps shall be taken by the authority concerned against the writ applicant No.2 - As serious allegations of threats, duress and pressure have been levelled against the team of officers that visited the premises of the writ applicants, Bench directs the respondents to file their reply by the next date of hearing without fail: High Court [para 3, 4]

-Matter posted :GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-164-HC-AHM- GST

Formative Tex Fab Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner had inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned Form DRC 22 dated 24.01.2020 attaching the properties and DRC-22 dated 23.09.2020 attaching the bank accounts and fixed deposits, issued by the respondent no.4 - Two orders were passed by a Coordinate Bench dated 20th August 2020 = 2020-TIOL-1431-HC-AHM-GST and 16th September 2020 = 2020-TIOL-1607-HC-AHM-GST respectively - matter appears to be at the stage of Section 74 of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner submits that the order of provisional attachment is specifically confined to the cash credit account only and not to the other accounts including the fixed deposits referred to in the chart; that as the PAN Card number is common, no sooner the authority concerned instructed the bank to provisionally attached the cash credit account, then the Bank, on its own, froze all other accounts; that even otherwise, the cash credit account cannot be attached provisionally by virtue of power under Section 83 of the Act.

Held: Bench is of the view that the provisional attachment of the cash credit account maintained with the Kotak Bank is not sustainable in law - The law in this regard is no longer res integra - In such circumstances, Bench quashes and sets aside the order of provisional attachment dated 23rd September 2020 passed in the Form GST DRC - 22 - Writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

-Petition disposed of :GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-02-AAAR-GST

Arg Electricals Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR had held that the work undertaken by the applicant as per Contract entered between applicant and Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) along with two Work Orders viz. supply of materials/equipments and erection, testing and commissioning of materials/equipments in building of rural electricity infrastructure is a Composite supply of Works Contract; that such supply is not covered under Entry no. 3(vi)(a) of 11/2017-CTR and not eligible to be taxed @12% GST because to enjoy the exemption, the activity should be predominantly used for other than commerce, industry or any other business or profession; that since in the present case AVVNL is involved in the business of supplying electricity (goods) and is receiving consideration for the same, the supply is rightly chargeable @18% GST - Aggrieved, the applicant is before the AAAR.

Held:   M/s AVVNL is involved in supply of electricity to the consumers and are collecting consideration in lieu of the said supply - The 'Electricity' as per GST is classified under the category of 'goods' and thus M/s AVVNL is supplying goods to consumers and is receiving consideration against the same, hence they are involved in the business of supplying goods - They also receive consideration for the supply of electricity - The predominant activity of M/s. AVVNL is to supply electricity and the civil structure or original work being under taken by the Appellant shall be used for transmission of electricity which is predominant activity of AVVNL and is chargeable - Hence, it is held  that the work undertaken is an original work which is incidental or meant predominantly for use for commerce, industry, or any other business or profession - AVVNL, though a Government Entity, is engaged in the business activity i.e. purchase and sale of electricity - As per the Memorandum of Association of AVVNL, one of the main objective of formation of AVVNL is to carry on the business of purchasing, selling, importing, exporting, wheeling, system operation, trading of power, including formulation of tariff, billing and collection thereof - Hence, the work being undertaken by the Appellant is predominantly used for or incidental to the main activity of AVVNL i.e. transmission (sale) of electricity - AAR order is upheld and the appeal is rejected: AAAR

- Appeal rejected : AAAR

2021-TIOL-168-HC-MAD-CT

Karpaga Vinayaga Blue Mettal Vs Principal Commissioner and Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Concessional benefit of tax - Purchase of High Speed Diesel - Assessee have expressed their difficulty in obtaining 'C' forms under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in order to avail concessional benefit of tax for purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - Issue in regard to entitlement to 'C' Forms for purchase of High Speed Diesel from supplies outside Tamil Nadu, to enable the dealers to seek a concessional rate of tax, is covered in favour of the assessee by a decision of this Court in M/s Ramco Cements Ltd. - The State has, after the date of the above order, filed a Writ Appeal challenging the decision in the case of Ramco Cements that has been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court wherein it was held that " if a Dealer has a right to sell as well the restricted six items under CST Act, one fails to understand as to how their right to purchase those goods at present time under the existing Registration Certificates can be taken away merely because they are not selling those goods. If sale of the goods was the only criteria of registration under the CST Act, the consequent amendments would not have allowed concessional rate of tax for purchase of those six commodities for user in activities like Mining or Telecommunication Networks, where no such resale or use in manufacturing is involved. Therefore, such a right is equally available to other industries like Cement Industries and the same cannot be denied to them. That would result in an invidious classification in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is neither envisaged nor is called for. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue are not sustainable at all. ... The Appellant State and the Revenue Authorities are directed not to restrict the use of 'C' Forms for the inter-State purchases of six commodities by the Respondent/Assessees and other registered Dealers at concessional rate of tax and they are further directed to permit Online downloading of such Declaration in 'C' Forms to such Dealers. The Circular letter of the Commissioner dated 31.5.2018 stands quashed and set aside along with the consequential Notices and Proceedings initiated against all the Assessees throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. "

- Assessee's Appeal allowed :MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-166-HC-KERALA-ST

Dodla International Ltd Vs CCT & CE

ST - There cannot be any doubt that the impugned order is an appealable order and statutory appeal under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 lies before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore - In the wake of availability of alternate remedy, this Court can entertain the writ petition in a very limited arena - For entertaining writ petition in the wake of alternate remedy, the petitioner has to demonstrate that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or in utter violation of principles of judicial justice - Perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessing authority has considered the contentions regarding lack of jurisdiction in para 7.5 of the impugned order and has recorded a finding against the petitioner - It is also seen that the judgments cited by the petitioner were taken note of while passing the impugned order, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is passed violating the principles of natural justice or that the same is contrary to the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, warranting entertainment thereof despite availability of alternate statutory remedy - The writ petition as such is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy - If the petitioner chooses to file statutory appeal, the appellate authority may consider pendency of this writ petition for condonation of delay, if that provision is available in law: High Court [para 9, 10]

-Petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT