Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

2021-TIOL-2090-HC-DEL-SERVICE

Arvind Kumar Vs UoI

Service Matter - The present petition was filed to contest the vires of an order passed by the CAT - The petitioner, who served as Commissioner of Income Tax, had approached the CAT to challenge a charge memo issued to the petitioner by the authorities concerned, in exercise of powers u/r 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The assessee had allowed deduction of Rs 98.50 lakhs u/s 80-IB(10) of the I-T Act, which the assessee claimed to have availed in respect of flats built by it - The petitioner further stated that the assessee's claims for deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of earlier AYs was disallowed, and keeping the same in mind, the AO had disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of the relevant AY & that the petitioner had sustained such disallowance for the same reason - The petitioner claimed that the subject assessment order was passed in good faith and in exercise of adjudicatory powers conferred upon him by the Act and that it was passed neither on account of corrupt motive or recklessly - Hence the petitioner asserted that the chargesheet should not have been issued to him.

Held - The Tribunal did not consider any of these aspects in its order - Hence the manner in which the matter has been dealt with by the Tribunal, is less than satisfactory - The action of the respondent which was impugned by the petitioner before Tribunal has serious ramifications for petitioner, and thus, could not have dealt with the matter so nonchalantly - Hence the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and the Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh order: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2089-HC-MAD-VAT

Muthu Electricals Vs Addl.Chief Secretary/CCT

In writ, the High Court directs that the AO consider the representations submitted by the assessee and that the re-assessment order be passed after affording opportunity of personal hearing.

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2088-HC-MAD-GST

Manisha Arunraj Vs CCT (GST)

GST - Main writ petition has been filed assailing impugned order which is a sequel to a surprise inspection and the impugned order has been made on the basis that taxable person has committed the offence of issuing invoice without supply of goods in violation of TN-GST, C-GST Acts and rules thereunder - Penalty has also been levied inter alia under Section 122(1)(ii) of TN-GST and C-GST Acts - The petitioner submits that this has been their consistent case that someone has misused their Aadhar and PAN cards and got fake registration saying business has been carried on in the name and style of MMM Enterprises - Owing to the nature of stand taken by petitioner and owing to this Court noticing that a criminal complaint has been lodged by petitioner and investigation is under-way, it would only be appropriate to set aside the impugned order without expressing any view or opinion on the merits of matter, leaving it open to respondents to proceed afresh either against petitioner or any other entity or person depending on outcome of investigation that is under-way qua alleged misuse of writ petitioner's Aadhar and PAN cards to obtain a fake registration - Impugned orders are set aside solely on the ground that alleged misuse of petitioner's Aadhar and PAN Cards and obtaining of fraudulent registration is under investigation - No opinion or view on the merits of the matter has been expressed in this order and rights of Revenue are preserved to proceed against the petitioner or any other person or entity being natural person or juristic entity, subject to progress in investigation - The outcome of investigation or updation shall be given by petitioner to respondent within three months: HC

- Writ Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2087-HC-DEL-GST

Shree Anjaney Traders LLP Vs Pr.Commissioner

GST - The petitioner-company filed the present petition seeking that directions be issued to the Revenue authorities concerned to release the seized consignment of Areca Nuts and also lift the attachment over the bank account of the petitioner - The petitioner challenged the duty demand raised as well as penalty imposed, both of which were payable as a pre-condition for release of the goods.

Held - The Revenue is directed to release the entire seized quantity of 48.36 lakhs kgs of Areca Nuts, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee without prejudice to its rights for 31.24 lakhs kgs (being 48.36 lakhs kgs - 17.12 lakhs kgs) @ Rs.274/- per kg - The Revenue will be entitled to carry on investigation and issue show cause notice, if the facts of the case so warrant: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT