2022-TIOL-768-ITAT-DEL

Jai Parkash Garg Vs Pr.CIT

Whether if two views possible and AO has accepted one, PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction u/ s 263 - YES : ITAT

Whether observation of PCIT that no enquiry is done by AO is absolutely not sustainable as a proper enquiry has been done - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-767-ITAT-MUM

DCIT Vs Sanjana Cryogenics Storages Ltd

Whether shares purchased by assessee can be held to be depreciable intangible asset - NO : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-766-ITAT-KOL

Pricewater House Coopers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether allowance of any claim of assessee by way of incomplete enquiry by AO renders such assessment as erroneous, warranting revisionary interference - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: KOLKATA ITAT

2022-TIOL-987-HC-MAD-GST

BCVM Traders Vs Supdt. of CGST

GST - Petitioner seeks quashing of the order rejecting his application for registration - The main ground upon which the order is assailed is that it is cryptic and entirely non-speaking.

Held: The impugned order has come to be passed rejecting the application by way of a monosyllabic order dated 13.05.2022 - simply 'rejected' without assigning any reasons or explanation for rejection thereof - An order of this nature is in-defensive insofar as it is non-speaking, arbitrary and evidently has not taken into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner - Reliance by the counsel for the Revenue on the word 'may' in rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2017 to emphasise that the same grants discretion to the authority to assign reasons is rejected since the word 'may' only refers to the discretion to reject and not to blatantly violate the principles of natural justice - If the assessing authority is inclined to reject the application, which he is entitled to, he must assign reasons for such objection and adhere to the proper procedure, including due process - Impugned order is set aside - Petitioner is to be heard on the objection raised and orders be passed within a period of four weeks - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-986-HC-KOL-GST

Hemraj Jain

GST - Petitioner No. 1 claims to have engaged the petitioner No. 2 on hire basis for transportation of the goods from the Consignors place of business in Assam to the place of business of the petitioner No. 1 in West Bengal - Respondent No. 2 issued an order of detention of the vehicle in question -SCN was issued and, thereafter, order of demand dated March 19, 2022 was served upon the petitioners confirming the penalty of Rs.14,26,732/- - Petitioners submit that the petitioner No. 1 being the owner of the goods in question is liable to pay penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on the goods in order to get the vehicle released; that a direction may be passed upon the respondent authority to release the vehicle including the goods in question upon accepting the said penalty as and by way of interim relief -Respondent raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition in view of existence of alternative efficacious appellate remedy available under the Statute -It is submitted that the petitioner has to approach the appellate authority and to claim release of the vehicle and the goods in question from such authority in accordance with law. Held : Order passed by the respondent No. 2 is an appealable order under the WBGST 2017 Act - Though the time limit prescribed for preferring appeal has expired in the meantime, it is not in dispute that this writ petition was filed on March 22, 2022, that is, well within the prescribed time limit for preferring such appeal -As the writ petition was also pending before this Court for some time, the petitioners cannot be faulted with - Court is of the considered view that the petitioners will be entitled to the benefit of the period during which this writ petition was pending - In the event, the appeal is preferred by the petitioners, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, but positively within a period of fortnight -Petition is disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-29-AAAR-GST

Golden Tobie Pvt Ltd

GST - Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the AAR - Facts of the case are that respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of cigarettes - The goods are manufactured outside the state and later on transferred, on stock transfer basis, after payment of 28% GST and Compensation Cess - In order to grow the business, the respondent launched a new sale scheme wherein they will be supplying extra packs of cigarettes along with regular supply quantity but without receiving any extra consideration for that additional supply. - In order to ascertain the tax liability on the additional quantity of cigarettes, the respondent had filed an application seeking an advance ruling as to whether the extra packs of cigarettes would 'again' be liable to GST; and if yes, the taxable value that can be attributed to such extra packs; whether the extra packs would be considered as 'exempt supply' or 'free samples' and attract provisions of s.17(2) r/w rule 42 of the Rules, or clause (h) of s.17(5) of the Act, 2017 -  AAR had answered the first and the last question in the negative. Held:  Appellate Authority is of the opinion that the application for advance ruling can only be rejected if the issue raised in the application has already been pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of the Act - Objection of the Appellant that the respondent did not inform the Authority that there are several alerts issued against the said firm by department and that they had indulged in claiming refund of accumulated ITC through fraudulent means and many search operations have been conducted against the party is no cause for rejecting an application seeking an Advance ruling -  Advance Ruling Authority has righty admitted and decided the application for advance ruling filed by the respondent - Appeal by Revenue is dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2022-TIOL-977-HC-MUM-CUS

Jaspal Singh Chandok Vs UoI

Cus - Counsel for respondent Revenue requested for some time to take instructions and also to file Vakalatnama since the counsel whose name appears in the cause list is not on the panel anymore. Held: Bench expresses its anguish that there are many matters in which the Customs department is involved and nobody appears for them and, therefore, the Court is unable to proceed further in the matter; that there are old matters where substantial revenue is involved and the government would be the loser - Therefore, the Bench directs that all Principal Chief Commissioners, who are posted within the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court are put to notice that whenever any matter pertaining to their Commissionerates is listed, either they shall personally remain present in Court or ensure that a duly authorised advocate is instructed to appear in the matter; that if due to absence of any representative the matter is adjourned, the Court would impose costs to be recovered from the Principal Chief Commissioner from his salary under whose jurisdiction the subject matter is covered - A copy of this order is also sent to the Ministry for Law and Justice, GOI, Finance Minister, the PMO and the Attorney General, for information and necessary action - Matter posted: High Court [para 3, 6]

- Matter posted: BOMBAY HIGH COURT