Surinder Kaur Vs Pr CIT

Whether PCIT is wrong in exercising power u/s 263 if AO has made necessary enquiry, applied his mind on issue, examined facts properly and has taken a possible view – ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

Whether when survey team mixed two sets of figures on different dates and differences noted by them regarding goods/ornaments is not commensurate with accounting principle, then onus lies on Revenue to prove contrary - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

Proma Industries Ltd Vs ITO

Whether the grounds of appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed if the assessee has failed to discharge its burden of proof- YES: ITAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

A P Knit Fab Vs ADIT

Whether fresh proceedings must be held where there was an inadvertent error by the CA of the assessee with respect to a vital piece of evidence - YES: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2022-TIOL-1335-HC-KERALA-GST

Chakkappan Automobiles Vs State of Kerala

GST - Writ appeal filed against judgment of Single Judge - Writ was filed to call for records and inter alia to issue a writ of certiorari and direct the respondent to release the goods which were intercepted and detained as per notice on production of updated E-way bill - Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant has a statutory remedy available and hence a writ petition is not warranted.

Held: Appellant  is a dealer trading in automobile goods  and had purchased complete set of CNG kit from Jiolat Auto Gas Industries at New Delhi as per invoice dated 26.11.2021 -  The goods were despatched through a parcel agency in Delhi generating Part A of E-way bill on 29.11.2021 - After noticing the parcels of cartons at Ernakulam North Railway station,  Tax Officer,  Intelligence Squad No.VIII, Ernakulam  contacted the appellant and directed production of documents which are necessary for movements of the goods - On verification, it was seen that there were discrepancies in the E-way bill - The consignment was taken into safe custody - One of the defects pointed out by the Sales Tax Officer is that the E-way bill consists of two parts, Part A and Part B as per Rule 138(2) and Part B was not updated on the common portal before or after the movement of the goods; that it was only after interception that the Part B was updated at 5.30 pm, hence notice was issued u/s 129(3) of the Act - A final order was passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 01.02.2022 whereby the proceedings was confirmed - T ax at the rate of Rs,1,64,064/- and penalty at the same rate was also demanded from the appellant and which order was challenged before the Single Judge.

Held:  Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case as a solitary one, Bench is of the opinion that since the tax amount has already been remitted by the consignor and the appellant has already furnished bank guarantee for the balance amount equivalent to the tax demanded, the goods in custody of the respondent can be released to the appellant -  Writ Appeal is allowed, modifying the judgment of the Single Judge to the extent that the first respondent is directed to release the goods if the appellant furnishes the bank guarantee for the penalty amount, if not already done, within a period of two weeks - Interpretation of rule 138 is left open to be decided in an appropriate case: High Court [para 13, 14]

- Appeal allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1334-HC-MUM-GST

Ashoka Buildcon Ltd Vs UoI

GST - In all these matters, the petitioners, either could not file TRAN-1 form because of technical glitches and/or request for amendment/revision/ modification was not allowed - Petitioners rely on the Division Bench decision in Heritage Lifestyles Developers P Ltd. [ 2020-TIOL-1875-HC-MUM-GST ]  where it is held that human errors can be allowed to be corrected and if because of technical glitches TRAN-1 could not be filed, opportunity can be given to file the same - Respondent counsel relies on the decision in Nelco Ltd. [ 2020-TIOL-641-HC-MUM-GST ] and submits that the period prescribed u/s 117 of the Act is mandatory and after the time stipulated is over, the petitioners do not have the right to file TRAN-1 form and/or seek amendment/revision/ modification of the said form.

Held: Bench observes that in a recent decision of the Division Bench, the jurisdictional authority was directed to consider all the issues that would be raised by petitioners including the issue on merits simultaneously; to decide the effects of the judgments of the Court in the case of Heritage Lifestyles (supra) and Nelco Ltd. (supra) - Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in terms of the order dated 13 April 2022 delivered in the case of Ambica Fertilizers [ 2022-TIOL-547-HC-MUM-GST ] - Petitioners are allowed to file and correct TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 form and in case it is not possible to file the same online, to file the same manually, within a period of three weeks - Authority to pass orders within six weeks - Petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6, 8]

- Petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-89-SC-NDPS

State of Manipur Vs Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand

NDPS - appeals were directed against the decision of the High Court setting aside the order of detention passed under the Act 1988 on the premise that the appellants failed to supply the legible copies of documents which were relied upon by the appellants while passing the order of detention. Respondent no. 1, who was released pursuant to the order passed by the High Court and the period of detention of one year also expired - Issue at hand is whether detenu should have all information that enables him to make effective representation and whether the detention order is legal.

Held - The legal position has been settled by this Court that the right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law - The right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished is not, in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from him even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law and once the detenu was able to satisfy while assailing the order of detention before the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution holding that the grounds of detention did not satisfy the rigors of proof as a foundational effect which has enabled him in making effective representation in assailing the order of detention in view of the protection provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the same renders the order of detention illegal and find no error being committed by the High Court in setting aside the order of preventive detention under the impugned judgment: SC

- Appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA