\

2022-TIOL-647-ITAT-DEL

TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether penalty notice is valid where the relevant charge against the assessee between concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, has not been specified - NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-646-ITAT-PUNE

Ascendas IT Park (Pune) Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether doctrine res-judicata has no application to I-T proceedings merely because claim came to be in earlier years, it is does not mean that AO should allow it when conscious of non-allowability of the claim in view of well settled position of law in this issue - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-645-ITAT-KOL

Andaman And Nicobar Island Integrated Development Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether when assessment u/s 143(3) was framed, then reopening has to be made in terms of stipulation of 1st Proviso to section 147 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

GST - Vires of s.16(4) challenged - Petitioner also submits that they are deprived of availing remedy u/s 112 as Tribunal has not been constituted - Staying the order would mean staying 16(4) which the Court would restrain from doing: HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Duty not quantified on or before 30th June 2019 - Voluntary disclosure after being subjected to enquiry - Applicant rightly barred from reaping benefits: HC

AP VAT - phrase any order within Section 31 cannot be limited only to assessment orders, where the same has not been specified by Legislature: HC

AP VAT - insistence of pre-deposit of 12.5% of duty demand raised unsustainable where issue at hand does not pertain to imposition of tax, but relates to issuance of H Forms: HC

2022-TIOL-879-HC-PATNA-GST

Manokamna Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner prays for de-freezing of at least the savings bank account - Petitioner challenges the vires of s.16(4) of the Act, 2017 and also submits that they are deprived of availing the remedy available u/s 112 of the Act since the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted. Held: From the tone and tenor of the prayer itself, it is clear that such reliefs are by way of consequential reliefs and unless the petitioner succeeds in challenging the vires of Section 16(4), perhaps he may not get the relief as prayed in paragraph '1'(L) of the writ application - In the opinion of this Court, staying the impugned order in the light of Sub Section (8) of Section 112 of the GST Act would in sum and substance amount to staying the effect of Section 16(4) of the GST Act which this Court would restrain from doing - If the petitioner deposits the liability amount in full subject to result of the writ application, the saving bank account of the proprietor shall be de-attached: High Court

- Petition disposed of: PATNA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-881-HC-AP-VAT

Suncap Commodities Ltd Vs CTO

Whether the phrase any order within Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act can be limited only to assessment orders, where the same has not been specified by the Legislature - NO: HC

Whether insistence of pre-deposit of 12.5% of duty demand raised can be sustained where the issue at hand does not pertain to imposition of tax, but relates to issuance of H Forms - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-880-HC-MAD-ST

SDR Engineering Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - D eclaration filed by the petitioner in Form Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 has been rejected vide communication dated 31.12.2019 on the ground that the tax dues have not been quantified on or before 30.06.2019, therefore, the present challenge - Petitioner submits that the Designated authority has rejected the SVLDRS-1 without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. Held:  Though the petitioner had filed a declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 on 22.10.2019 and later for the second time on 21.12.2019 in Form SVLDRS-1 under category "Voluntary Disclosure", it appears that the case of the petitioner was under investigation and a show cause notice was to be issued - Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for the benefit in view of the exception given in s.125(1)(e) of the Finance Act, 2019 - The application has been rightly rejected - Writ petition is devoid of merits and is hence dismissed: High Court [para 22, 25, 26]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT