I-T - HC was obliged to deal with all issues raised before it in appeal & pass reasoned order; absence of reasons to back disinclination in entertaining appeal is unsustainable: SC

2022-TIOL-47-SC-IT

Vishal Ashwin Patel Vs ACIT

Whether a number of issues have been raised through an appeal, the Court is obliged to deal with all such grounds and pass a reasoned order - YES: SC

- Assessee's appeals allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-464-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Olivia Impex Pvt Ltd

Whether loss suffered by assessee on account of exchange difference as on date of balance sheet is item of expenditure u/s 37(1) – YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-463-ITAT-DEL

ITO Vs Alka Jain

Whether when assessee has brought on record all the documents necessary to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction and the AO has not preferred to file any comment then there is no scope of interference into the findings returned by the CIT (A) - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-462-ITAT-AHM

Jaydeep J Patel (HUF) Vs ITO

Whether invoking revisionary jurisdiction without pointing out any infirmity in inquiry conducted by AO, is clearly beyond ourview of section 263 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

Kerala VAT - Personal hearing is to be given if AO disagrees with contentions raised by assessee in reply to SCN: HC

GST - Respondent mischievously created temporary I.D. for depositing sum of Rs.4,70,400/- but did not communicate same to petitioner despite repeated requests - Refund, therefore, could not be filed online - Payment of interest cannot be denied: HC

GST - Faulty portal -Statutory right of appeal is not an illusory remedy given to an aggrieved person - Appeal forum must be seen to exist and be freely available to the person seeking to approach it: HC

GST - Council and tax authorities shall be sensitive enough to address genuine problems of dealers including problems being faced in giving effect to the orders of appellate authority and courts: HC

2022-TIOL-679-HC-KERALA-VAT

Veena Chemicals Vs STO

Whether as per provisions of the Kerala VAT Act, after a reply to SCN has been filed, an opportunity of hearing must be granted to the assessee if the AO is not in agreement with the contentions raised - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-678-HC-ALL-GST

UP Pipe Fitting Supplier Vs GST

GST - Petition filed seeking revocation of the cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner and restore the GST registration; not to levy any late fees/penalty for late filing of returns by the petitioner for the months of August 2021 to March 2022.

Held: Relief no. (i) as sought by the petitioner stands granted and the grievance now stands redressed - In view of the restoration of registration, the authorities shall ensure that the petitioner may not face any hurdle in filing his returns - As per own case of the respondents, a temporary mechanism to restore cancelled registration was created in the back end and an advisory vide e-mail dated 16.06.2021 was issued in this regard to restore registrations cancelled on the request of the dealers or pursuant to the orders passed by appellate authorities/High Court, but a permanent mechanism could not be developed until the aforesaid advisory dated 23.03.2022 -However, now it has developed and deployed a functionality in the name of "Restoration of Cancelled Registration” with effect from 23.03.2022 to facilitate the jurisdictional Range Officers to restore the registration in pursuance of judicial/appellate orders - Bench hope and trust that the GST Council and authorities under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act/States Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 shall be sensitive enough to address genuine problems of the dealers including the problems being faced in giving effect to the orders of appellate authority, Tribunal and courts - Bench also directs that the aforesaid Registration Advisory No.07/2022, dated 23.3.2022 shall be circulated forthwith by the GST Council amongst officers under the Act, 2017 as well as amongst association of traders and industries and amongst Tax Bar Associations at the district level in the state of Uttar Pradesh - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11]

- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-677-HC-ALL-GST

Brij Bihari Singh Vs CCT

GST - Appeal rejected as time barred - Order cancels the petitioner's registration - Hence the present petition.

Held: It is not disputed that there exists clear evidence of admission made by the GSTN authority of difficulty faced by the petitioner in instituting his appeal against the order dated 28.02.2019, within the normal period of limitation, computed from the date of that order - Also, there is clear evidence of the said difficulty having been first resolved on 17.09.2021, well after expiry of the statutory period of limitation and the extended period of limitation - Since the petitioner had been disabled from filing appeal (electronically) through the prescribed mode, against the order dated 28.02.2019, for reasons attributable solely to the GSTN authority and not for reasons attributable to the petitioner, it has to be assumed, for the limited purpose of the dispute at hand that the forum of appeal was first made available to the petitioner on 17.09.2021, and not earlier - Statutory right of appeal is not an illusory remedy given to the assessee or a person aggrieved - It is an effective and real remedy granted within the structure of the statute to allow for redressal of genuine grievances - Therefore, the appeal forum must be seen to exist and be freely available to the person seeking to approach it - There must exist no obstruction to access it within time and opportunity granted by the statute, to institute the appeal, before that authority - In the instant case, for the period 28.02.2019 to 17.09.2021, the period of limitation to file the appeal must always be deemed to have remained suspended for reason of appeal forum being not made available for filing of appeal by the petitioner, through prescribed mode - Appeal filed by assessee on 20.09.2021 is, therefore, to be held as having been within time - Impugned order is quashed and matter is remitted to the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal on merits within three months - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 10, 11, 13, 14]

- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-676-HC-ALL-GST

Alok Traders Vs CCT

GST - An order dated 30.12.2017 under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 was passed demanding tax of Rs.2,35,200/- and penalty of equal amount, total Rs.4,70,400/-, for release of goods - Petitioner paid the same inasmuch as the draft submitted by them was deposited by the Joint Commissioner by making his own temporary ID - Petitioner's appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on 30.06.2018 - Consequently, a refund application was filed, however, since inspite of several reminders the amount was not refunded, the present petition is filed also seeking interest - Respondent no.1 was directed by the Court by its order dated 28.03.2022 to file counter affidavit and show cause as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed - Consequently refund was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner on 04.04.2022.

Held:  Facts of the case leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent No.3 mischievously created temporary I.D. for depositing of the sum of Rs.4,70,400/- made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 , even though he was well aware of the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer of Gujrat State and the provisions of IGST Act are applicable and all details relating to petitioner were available with him and there was no need to create a temporary I.D. - The password of the temporary I.D. created by the respondent No.3 was never communicated to the petitioner despite repeated demands made by him - It was wholly impossible for the petitioner to apply online for refund under Section 54(1) of the Act read with Rule 89 of the Rules - It is well settled that law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform - Under the circumstances, the petitioner admittedly moved a refund application dated 09.07.2018 in physical form for refund - The respondents themselves have forgotten the password of the temporary ID and, therefore, could not provide it to the petitioner as is evident from their own letter dated 16.07.2021 referred in the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by this court - The principal amount deposited was refunded by the respondents to the petitioner only on 04.04.2022. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for interest under Section 56 of the Act, 2017 - Respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong so as to deny the payment of interest to the petitioner on delayed refund - Petitions allowed - Respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner within a period of one month for the period 09.09.2018 to 31.03.2022: High Court  [para 18, 22, 27, 28]

- Petitions allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT