Shri P Thiaga Rajan, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu

I-T - Assessment order merits being set aside where Revenue completely ignores assessee's response; assessee cannot be expected to produce evidence that it was never asked to submit : HC

I-T - Order passed by Revenue without affording opportunity of personal hearing and not following prescribed procedure as per section 144B for Faceless assessment, merits to be set aside: HC

I-T - PCIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 simply because invoice booked for one A.Y was claimed in subsequent A.Y, if payment for both were crystallised in same A.Y & tax rates for both AYs are same: HC

I-T- In deciding an appeal , ITAT not confined to grounds set forth in memorandum of appeal or even that taken with its leave: ITAT

I-T - In absence of any material to show that cash in respect of which cheque was issued, had traveled back to assessee, it cannot be said that such cash was undisclosed income of assessee: ITAT

I-T - Failure to furnish details of claim of expenditure during assessment, merits examination once submitted before revenue authorities: ITAT

I-T - Bad debts which is reduced from asset side of debts which amounts to actual write off cannot be adjusted for purpose of book profits u/s.115JB: ITAT

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Non-payment of settlement amount due to moratorium under IBC, 2021 - Appellant cannot be rendered remediless and should not be made to suffer due to a legal impediment: SC

GST - It is for the govt. to take a policy decision whether to completely exempt drugs for treatment of  Spinal Muscular Atrophy [SMA]: SC

GST - There may be a reason why drugs are to be cleared by CoEs - No mandamus can be issued directing respondents to permit import of SMA drugs without approaching CoEs: SC

Cus - SCN issued in 1997 and notice calling for personal hearing was sent in 2015 - Dormant SCN cannot be resuscitated: HC

GST - Now that TRAN-1 has been filed basis SC order in Filco Trade Center, SCN issued for availing ITC without filing form TRAN-1 be kept in abeyance: HC

GST - Refund - s.54 - Orders make no reference to which category claims would fall and what would be relevant date i.e. starting point for limitation - Orders quashed and matter remanded: HC

GST - No notice was issued to petitioner requiring his presence at the time of verification of place of business - report also not uploaded - Cancellation of registration improper: HC

2023-TIOL-03-SC-GST

Cure SMA Foundation of India Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has filed a petitioner in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking inter alia the following prayers viz. (a) pass a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent UOI to completely exempt drugs for treatment of rare diseases from the levy of IGST, CGST, SGT and Customs duty; (b) pass a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the import of drugs for treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy [SMA] directly without approaching the Centre of Excellence [CoEs]. Held:  So far as prayer (a) is concerned, ultimately it is for the Government to take a policy decision whether to completely exempt drugs for treatment of rare diseases from the levy of IGST, CGST, SGT and Custom Duty - No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondent/Union of India to exempt the drugs from payment of any tax or custom duty - Insofar as prayer (b) is concerned, no relief can be granted - No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to permit import the drugs for treatment of SMA directly without approaching the Centres of Excellence - There may be number of reasons why the drugs are to be cleared by the Centres of Excellence - Petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for - Writ petition is dismissed - It is open for petitioners to make representation to UOI/Health Ministry: Supreme Court [para 2, 3, 5, 6]

- Petition dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-36-HC-MAD-GST

Priyanka Bullion Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner impugns the  show cause notice dated 09.11.2020 which proposes levy of interest and penalty on the Input Tax Credit that was stated to be erroneously availed without filing form TRAN-1 on the basis of the GSTR 3B - Petitioner submits that the Supreme Court in the case of FILCO Trade Center - 2022-TIOL-57-SC-GST & 2022-TIOL-75-SC-GST has passed an order permitting the assessee to file fresh/revised form TRAN-1/TRAN-2 between the period September 2022 to 31st October 2022 and which has thereafter been extended till 30.11.2022; that consequently the petitioner has submitted form TRAN-1 on 11.10.2022 and the same is pending consideration before respondents; that despite the same, there has been an oral communication requesting the petitioner to appear for hearing for the purpose of adjudicating the SCN. Held:  Court finds that the show cause notice was issued on the premise that the transition of credit is invalid inasmuch as it was not made through form TRAN-1 - However, form TRAN-1 has now been filed on the strength / basis of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (supra) - In the circumstances, it is appropriate that impugned show cause notice be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the claim of transition credit under form TRAN-1 that is now filed - Petition disposed of - This would not preclude the 2nd Respondent after deciding on the transition credit claimed in Form TRAN-1 to proceed with the show cause notice, if circumstances warrant and pass orders in compliance with the procedures contemplated / prescribed in law: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-35-HC-MUM-GST

Priceline.Com Technology India LLP Vs UoI

GST - Refund - Respondents have rejected the claims on the ground that they are time barred. Held: There are various categories in s.54 of the Act, 2017 and which enumerate as to which should be the starting point for the limitation period for each of the category - The impugned orders make no reference to which category the Petitioner's claims would fall and what would be the relevant date i.e. starting point for limitation period for the Petitioner's claim for refund - For the argument of extension of limitation, the basic dates of starting and ending of period of limitation in each case with reference to different categories of the explanation to Section 54 have to be arrived at - No such exercise is carried in the impugned orders on this aspect - Therefore, the law laid down in the decisions [ Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020 = 2021-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB & Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. = 2022-TIOL-48-HC-MUM-GST ] cannot be straightway applied unless the basic facts are established - Therefore, the impugned orders, to the extent of rejection of the refund claims of the Petitioner for the periods from April 2018 to March 2019 and from April 2019 to December 2019, are liable to be quashed and set aside and the applications for these two periods are to be restored to the file of the Assistant Commissioner concerned - Requisite decision is to be taken within a period of six weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8, 10, 12, 13, 15]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-34-HC-DEL-GST

Bimal Kothari Vs Asstt.Commissioner (DSGST)

GST - Writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by respondent no.1 cancelling the petitioner's GST registration - It is the petitioner's case that cancellation of registration has been brought about on account of the fact that the petitioner was not found to be in existence at the address available with respondent no.1 - Writ petitioner, though, avers that in and about June 2018, an application had been filed with the authority concerned indicating the fact that the petitioner had relocated its principal place of business. Held: In the instant case, the officer concerned deemed it necessary to carry out physical verification of the petitioner's place of business before proceeding to pass the impugned order, which resulted in, as noticed above, in the cancellation of the petitioner's registration - Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification - Furthermore, it appears that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in FORM GST REG-30 on the common portal - Period stipulated for the same is 15 days commencing from the date when physical verification is carried out - Given this position, the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration cannot be sustained - Resultantly, the petitioner's GST registration shall stand restored: High Court [para 11, 11.1, 11.2, 13.1, 15]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-04-SC-ST

Shekhar Resorts Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Allahabad High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking direction to the respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioner under the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme, hence the present appeal - Vide communication dated 09.10.2020 to the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant explained that the settlement amount under the Scheme, 2019 could not be paid by the appellant before 30.06.2020 due to the legal moratorium [under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2021] imposed upon the company and sought permission to pay the due amount - Joint Commissioner, Agra vide letter dated 19.10.2020 intimated the appellant that the last date for payment under the Scheme was 30.06.2020, which could not be extended - By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition on the grounds that ( i ) the High Court shall not issue a direction contrary to the Scheme; (ii) the relief sought cannot be granted as the Designated Committee under the Scheme is not existing. Held: There was statutory disability on the part of the appellant in making the payment during the moratorium - If the appellant had made any payment during the period of moratorium, the appellant would have committed breach of the provisions of the IBC - Therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to make any payment during the period of moratorium - Immediately on the moratorium coming to an end, the appellant - Resolution Professional / the successful Resolution applicant approached the authority requesting them to accept the settlement amount under the Scheme, 2019 as per the Form No.3 - In a given case, can the appellant be made to suffer for no fault of its own, and be rendered remediless and denied the benefit/relief though it was impossible for the appellant to carry out certain acts, namely to deposit the settlement amount during the moratorium - As per the settled position of law, no party shall be left remediless - appellant cannot be punished for not doing something which was impossible for it to do - There was a legal impediment in the way of the appellant to make any payment during the moratorium - Even if the appellant wanted to deposit settlement amount within the stipulated period, it could not do so in view of the bar under the IBC as, during the moratorium, no payment could have been made - In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot be rendered remediless and should not be made to suffer due to a legal impediment which was the reason for it and/or not doing the act within the prescribed time - High Court has erred in refusing to grant any relief to the appellant as prayed -The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside - It is directed that the payment of Rs.1,24,28,500/- already deposited by the appellant be appropriated towards settlement dues under " Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019" and the appellant be issued a discharge certificate - No order as to costs - Appeal is allowed accordingly: Supreme Court [para 6, 7, 7.1, 8, 8.1, 9, 10]

- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-40-HC-MUM-CUS

Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd Vs UoI

Cus -   Petitioner received a Show Cause notice dated 7 July 1997 u/s  124 of the Customs Act, 1962 calling upon them to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 13,69,60,000/- should not be recovered from the Petitioner u/s 12 r/w s. 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No.13/81 dated 9 February 1981 for non-fulfilment of conditions of the notification dated 9 February 1981 and 3 June 1997 - Petitioner replied to the SCN on 6th August 1997 and, thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any communication in the matter - Petitioner received a notice calling them for personal hearing vide letters dated 8th April 2015 and 7th July 2015 - Petitioner, therefore, filed a petition challenging the notices contending that the SCN issued 18 years ago was being effect to - Division Bench passed an interim order restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the SCN dated 7th July 1997 - Question as of today is when the petition has come for hearing in 2022, whether the petitioner can be subjected to further proceedings based on the SCN which is issued 25 years ago. Held:  Assertion of the Petitioner that they were not informed that the SCN file was transferred to the call book has not been controverted - The position continued for 18 years - The fact situation where show cause notice has been transferred to the Call book and the noticee is not informed about the pendency for an unreasonable period of time has been considered in various decisions - It has been held that not only it is necessary that the show cause notice should be taken to its logical end at the earliest as a matter of administrative discipline, but keeping the show cause in Call book without informing the noticee  for a long period of time causes severe prejudice, as the notice may act on the premise that the proceedings have been dropped and it is also likely that the record and proceedings are not available - In the present case, the show cause notice of July 1997 was kept dormant and the notice for personal appearance was issued 18 years later - This position has continued for 25 years - The dicta as laid down [in Eastern Agencies Aromatics -  2022-TIOL-1520-HC-MUM-CUS is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case - Writ Petition is accordingly allowed - Notice dated 8 April 2015 and 7 July 2015 calling the petitioner for personal hearing in consequence of show cause notice dated 7 July 1997 are quashed and set aside - The Respondents are restrained from enforcing the impugned show cause notice dated 7 July 1997: High Court [para 10, 11]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT