I-T- LTCG is manipulated and bogus and is recorded to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of Act : ITAT

I-T - Disclosure of actual income only during course of survey amounts to concealment and calls for penalty: ITAT

I-T- Quantum of deduction eligible under Section 80G is restricted to 10% of the total income in accordance with law : ITAT

I-T - Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is invalid where allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has not been properly established : ITAT

I-T - Where due to erroneous order of AO, Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by person, it will certainly be prejudicial to interests of Revenue so as to attract revision u/s 263: ITAT

ST - There is no satisfactory explanation as to why between October, 2014 [when reply was filed] till now no adjudication has taken place - SCN dated October 2012 quashed - A mounts paid during investigation to be refunded: HC

GST - Electronic cash ledger (ECL) is just an e-wallet where cash can be deposited at any time by creating requisite Challans - Deposit in ECL, therefore, does not amount to payment of tax liability: HC

GST - Tax liability gets discharged only upon filing of GSTR-3B return - Since petitioner filed return after some delay, Revenue has rightly computed interest on such delayed payment: HC

GST - An incomprehensible SCN and an order, a cut and paste job, which shows no application of mind - flaws so fundamental that none can be maintained: HC

GST - It is in the interest of revenue to keep taxpayers within GST regime - Ordinarily, orders cancelling registration do not serve the purpose of the Act, which is, to collect as much legit revenue as is possible: HC

2022-TIOL-1426-HC-JHARKHAND-GST

RSB Transmissions India Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The question posed for adjudication in the instant writ petition is, whether under the provisions of GST Act, the amount deposited as tax through valid challans by a registered person in the Government Exchequer prior to the filing of the GSTR-3B returns could be treated as discharge of the tax liability due against such person for the period in question in respect of which the GSTR- 3B return is being filed later, and whether interest could be levied on delayed filing of GSTR-3B in such circumstances under Section 50 of the Act

.Held:   Any deposit made in the modes prescribed under Section 49(1) are mere deposits towards tax, interest, penalty, fee or any other amount by such person which can be credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger - As per Rule 87 (6), such payment is to be made in the mandatory form along with Challan on the common portal and submitted in the Bank from where the payment is to be made and on successful credit of the amount to the Government account concerned maintained in the authorised Bank, a Challan identification number is generated by the collecting Bank and is indicated in the Challan - On receipt of such Challan identification number from the collecting Bank, the said amount shall be credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger of the person on whose behalf the deposit has been made and the common portal shall make available a receipt to this effect - A combined reading of Section 49(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 87 (6) and (7) of CGST Rules, 2017 both go to show that such deposit does not mean that the amount is appropriated towards the Government exchequer - As per sub- section (4) to s.49, the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger may be used for making any payment towards output tax under this Act or IGST Act - Explanation to sub-section (11) of Section 49 also makes it clear that the date of credit to the account of Government in the authorised Bank shall be deemed to be the date of deposit in the Electronic Cash Ledger - The deposit in the Electronic Cash Ledger, therefore, does not amount to payment of the tax liability - Tax liability gets discharged only upon filing of GSTR-3B return, the last date of which is 20th of the succeeding month on which the tax is due and even though GSTR-3B return can be filed prior to the last date and such tax liability can be discharged on its filing, but mere deposit of amount in the Electronic Cash Ledger on any date prior to filing of GSTR-3B return, does not amount to payment of tax due to its State exchequer - Further, a bare reading of the proviso to Section 50 again goes to show that only on filing of GSTR-3B return, the debit of the tax dues is made from Electronic Cash Ledger and any amount lying in deposit in the Electronic Cash Ledger prior to that date does not amount to discharge of tax liability - Therefore, discharge of tax liability is simultaneous with the filing of GSTR 3B return - The contention of the petitioner of having discharged the tax liability by mere deposit in the Electronic Cash Ledger prior to the due date of filing of GSTR-3B return would be against the scheme of GST Act and would make the working of GST regime unworkable - There is no time prescribed for deposit of cash in the Cash Ledger - It, in fact, is just an e-wallet where cash can be deposited at any time by creating the requisite Challans - Since, the amount lies deposited in the Electronic Cash Ledger, a registered assessee can claim its refund any time - Liability to pay interest arises on delayed filing of GSTR-3B return and debit of tax due from the Electronic Cash Ledger - Any deposit in the Electronic Cash Ledger prior to the due date of filing of GSTR-3B return does not amount to discharge of tax liability on the part of the registered person - Since the petitioner filed its return after some delay for the period July, 2017, October, 2017, November, 2017 and March, 2018 i.e. GSTR-3B return were filed after 20th day of the succeeding month for which the tax was due, the Revenue has rightly computed the interest on such delayed payment and requested the petitioner to pay the differential amount of Rs.13,23,782.99 - Since the petitioner has duly discharged his liability towards interest by making payment of total amount and filing Form DRC-03, no case of refund of such amount arises: High Court [para 13, 14, 15, 17]

- Petition dismissed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1425-HC-DEL-GST

Bansal Surinder And Company Vs Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes/GST (State)

GST - Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order cancelling its GST Registration was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred, therefore, the present writ petition. Held: Show-cause notice dated 01.10.2021, to say the very least, in parts, is incomprehensible - Similarly, a perusal of the order dated 28.12.2021 shows that there is no application of mind - A plain reading of the show-cause notice shows that it actually does not crystallize the reason for cancelling the registration - In the very same show-cause notice, above the heading observations, what is sought to be projected as reasons are hardly reasons, as these are mere statements of fact rather than prima facie reasons for issuance of the show-cause notice -  Besides this, the show-cause notice dated 01.10.2021 appears to give the petitioner 30 days, commencing from the date of service of the notice, to submit a reply, whereas the petitioner was asked to appear before the officer concerned on 05.10.2021 at 11:00 AM - Likewise, the order dated 28.12.2021, it appears, has been passed without due application of mind - Order cancelling the registration i.e., the order dated 28.12.2021 is a cut and paste job - There has been no application of mind either while framing the show- cause notice or while passing the order of cancellation of registration - Furthermore, the order of cancellation is made effective retrospectively i.e., from 11.07.2017, whereas, the aforementioned show-cause notice, contains no such proposal, therefore, clearly, the order cancelling the registration is beyond what was proposed in the show-cause notice  - Flaws noticed in the above mentioned show-cause notice and order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration are so fundamental that they cannot be sustained - It is in the interest of revenue to keep taxpayers within the GST regime and, therefore, ordinarily, orders cancelling registration do not serve the purpose of the Act, which is, to collect as much legit revenue as is possible - A counter-affidavit is required to be filed by the Revenue before the next date of hearing indicating as to whether the order cancelling the registration can be recalled on terms and conditions deemed fit by respondent revenue - Matter to be listed on 05.12.2022: High Court [para 9, 10, 11, 11.2, 12, 14, 14.2, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1428-HC-MUM-ST

Shreenathji Logistics Vs UoI

ST -  Petitioner is seeking an order quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 19th October, 2012 primarily on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay in its adjudication - It is Petitioner's case that after the reply was filed to the SCN between 2018 and 2019, Petitioner wrote numerable letters to Respondent No.3-the adjudicating authority, to which there was not even an acknowledgment - Since there was total silence on the part of Respondent No.3, Petitioner approached the High Court in January 2020 -  Respondent has stated that since there was a matter where identical issue [in  Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. ] was held against Respondents by the CESTAT, an appeal was preferred there against in the High Court and the impugned SCN was transferred to the call book; that  the High Court  by an order dated 6th September, 2018  held that remedy would lie to the Apex Court, thereafter, Respondent filed an Appeal before the Apex Court but on 1st April, 2019, the Appeal  was dismissed - Respondent has also alleged that Petitioner took repeated extensions to file reply to the SCN and finally filed the reply only on 15th October, 2014.  Held: Bench fails to understand as to why Respondent was so indulgent with Petitioner - Inasmuch as nothing prevented Respondent to have gone ahead and adjudicated the matter - However,  there is no satisfactory explanation as to why between October, 2014 till now no adjudication has taken place - Court has, time and again, held that if the show cause notice is being transferred to the call book, the party should be informed about the same -  Only on 22nd November, 2019, the show cause notice was taken out of the call book, but still Respondents did nothing - There has been a delay and the case will be squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in   Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.  =   2022-TIOL-1165-HC-MUM-CX  where in paragraph No.11 it is held that  adjudication of SCN after a period of thirteen years from the date of issuance thereof and after submission of reply  was clearly bad in law; that the Bench has  no hesitation in holding that Petitioner was entirely justified in concluding that Respondents had abandoned the impugned show notices  and consequently the impugned order is also void -  Moreover, since in the Affidavit-in-Reply, Respondents accept that the order of CESTAT covers the issue in this matter as well, it would, serve no purpose in adjudicating the show cause notice as it would be a futile exercise - S how cause notice dated 19th October, 2012 is quashed - It is directed that the amounts paid during investigation should be refunded within eight weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 7]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1427-HC-AHM-CUS

Santosh A D V Tyres Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioners are engaged in trading of old and reusable tyres - It appears that Commissioner took a stand that import of kind of tyres handled by petitioners is not permissible as they are goods in nature of hazardous waste - Competent authority of respondents was required to visit the site and inspect tyres to submit report as per directions - The developments that have taken place during pendency of petition are reflected in impugned order - It was submitted and stated that pursuant to interim orders, authorities have released the goods and all goods involved in each of present petitions have already been released by authorities in view of directions in orders of Court - Thus, directions issued in present petitions have worked out for themselves - Interim order and directions stand consumed by petitioners as goods involved in all petitions have been indisputably released - Court is not required to delve into further merits to consider the petitions any further as only surviving prayer regarding release of goods has been satisfied - Fresh order if passed in future by authorities in subject-matter controversy shall give rise to fresh cause of action on such new bundle of facts: HC

- Special civil applications disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT