2022-TIOL-631-ITAT-DEL

Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs Pr.CIT

Whether action of Pr. CIT can be faulted per se, simply because assessee may possibly explain its stance with factual corroboration in proceedings before AO arising from revisional proceedings u/s 263 - NO: ITAT

-Assessee's appeals partly allowed : DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-630-ITAT-DEL

Azad Singh Vs ITO

Whether gain resulting from agricultural land was not liable to be considered as income u/s 45 - YES: ITAT

2022-TIOL-629-ITAT-DEL

ITO Vs Anil Kumar Kanodia

Whether any income in current account need not be assessed as undisclosed income, once genuineness of claims was found to be true after verification - YES: ITAT

Cus - Settlement - A person, who may not be an Importer or Exporter, can still file an application u/s 127-B of the Act if he is served with a SCN charging him with duty: HC

GST - Grant of interim anticipatory bail cannot be a ground to allow anticipatory bail finally: HC

Sanjiv Kumar Vs State of UP

GST - Search operations were conducted at the premises of three manufacturing entities by the CGST Department, Noida - Physical stock of finished goods and raw materials was conducted by the applicant, who is the General Manager and by his colleague, who was the Account Manager - Finished goods in excess of record were found - Duty was found payable on the shortage detected in the factory premises of one of the entities - The total amount of duty in respect of all three entities was computed - Summons were issued to the applicant amongst others - Apparently, the applicant herein did not comply with the summons - During the search incriminating records/documents were recovered from the premises - Total tax evaded by all three entities was computed - The applicant too filed the present application for anticipatory bail.

Held - The sole proprietor of the entity in which the applicant is General Manager, is the proprietor on paper only - At time of search, the proprietor was not found at the premises and only the applicant was there - On further search involvement of tax evasion through clandestine supply goods without invoices were found at the premises of other entities - The bail application filed by the proprietor was dismissed not only by the Trial Court byt also by the Sessions Judge - Later, the Supreme Court allowed bail to the proprietor, on grounds that the applicant herein who is the proprietor's sibling, was managing the affairs of the firm and that the proprietor was not involved in management - Thus it is apparent that the applicant herein opened a firm in the name of his sibling and indulged in tax evasion by supplying goods without invoices and that the actual tax amount may be multi-fold, as observed during Search - Further, there may be involvement of many other persons in supplying of raw material, packaging material without invoices and various purchasers purchasing the goods without invoices and financially gains by the applicant needs to be probed - Considering large evasion of the tax, if the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will definitely tamper with and destroy evidence and may create false record, evidence and other afterthought excuses to get himself exonerated - The provision of the anticipatory bail is to help genuine persons and not the criminals who are running their business in clandestine manner by taking benefit of loopholes in the law/procedure - Grant of interim anticipatory bail also cannot be a ground to allow the anticipatory bail finally - Application liable to be dismissed: HC

2022-TIOL-860-HC-DEL-VAT

Vortex Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner VAT

Whether it is fit case for remand where an assessment order has been passed without considering the submissions of the assessee - YES: HC

- Case remanded :DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-861-HC-MUM-CUS

Halliburton Offshore Services INC Vs UoI

Cus - Settlement Commission - Rejection of application [by order dated 11.10.2001] filed for settlement was not on merits but on eligibility of petitioner to file the application - According to respondent no.3, only the person who has filed a bill of entry could have filed this application and since in the bill of entry, importer was shown to be Hardy, this application could have been filed by Hardy and not petitioner - It is this finding which is challenged by petitioner in this petition.

Held: Plain reading of Section 127-B of the Act would indicate that the term "any other person" appearing in the said Section would mean any other person to whom show cause notice has been issued charging him with duty and such any other person can file an application - Use of the words "filed bill of entry" would not mean that a bill of entry in the case has to be necessarily filed by him - Only requirement is that there must be a case properly relating to applicant with reference to a bill of entry filed and in this case, case relating to petitioner has been pending before proper Officer - Indisputably, a show cause notice had been issued to petitioner and, therefore, a proceeding under this Act for the levy, assessment and collection of customs duty was pending before an adjudicating authority when the application under Section 127B was made - Term "any other person" appearing in Section 127-B of the Act has to be interpreted to mean in its literal sense and proviso to the said Section should be interpreted to mean that a bill of entry must be filed in a case, not necessarily by the person who approaches the settlement commission, provided such person is served with a show cause notice charging him with duty - Therefore, a person who may not be an Importer or Exporter, can still file such an application u/s 127-B of the Act before the Settlement Commission if he is served with a show cause notice charging him with duty - Order impugned in this petition is set aside and Settlement Commission is directed to examine the application of petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and dispose the application on merits within 12 weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 10, 11]

- Petition allowed :BOMBAY HIGH COURT