I-T - Interest income shall be taxable under head 'income from other sources' and not as 'business income', and hence should be excluded from computation of deduction u/s 80HHC: SC

PC Act - If Court after considering evidences gathered by Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than mere suspicion against accused, it cannot jeopardise investigation if allegations are grave in nature: SC

ST - SCN of February 2009 cannot be taken up for adjudication in August 2022 since proceedings are inordinately delayed: HC

GST - Auditor has already reviewed petitioner's case and has directed refund for sum of Rs. 38,786/-, revenue is directed to reconsider petitioner's request for lifting of block placed on petitioner's bank account: HC

GST - As petitioner had sought for availing alternate remedy and has, in fact, availed it, court is not inclined to admit appeal and hear the contentions of petitioner on merits: HC

2023-TIOL-454-HC-DEL-GST

Eunike General Trading Vs CGST

GST - Petitioner sought a direction be issued to unblock bank account in respect of amount of Rs. 34,48,080/-, which relates to refund sanctioned and credited in petitioner's bank account - Petitioner states that said refund has been granted by an order dated 05.08.2022 - Thereafter, said order was subject to an audit and a review, pursuant to which petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 38,786/- as an amount erroneously refunded - Clearly, if revenue is of the view that refund has been erroneously granted, they would be required to take appropriate action under Section 73 or 74 of the Act - Recourse to Section 107(2) may be necessary only if Adjudicating Authority has adjudicated any contentious issue, which in opinion of Commissioner requires to be reviewed - Insofar as blocking of bank account is concerned, said action is taken under Section 83 of the Act - By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, said order of attachment ceases to be operative on expiry of a period of one year from date of the order - Revenue is required to adhere to said discipline - Considering the averment that auditor has already reviewed petitioner's case and has directed refund for the sum of Rs. 38,786/-, it considered apposite to direct revenue to reconsider petitioner's request for lifting of block placed on petitioner's bank account and continue the same only if it is satisfied that conditions as specified in Section 83 of the Act continue to exist: HC

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-453-HC-KERALA-GST

Pappachan Chakkiath Vs Asstt. Commissioner

GST - The petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of petition filed challenging impugned order under Section 73 of CGST/SGST Act imposing a liability for period from July 2017 to March 2018 - Appellant submits that entire proceedings culminating in impugned order are without jurisdiction and that period for which liability was imposed is in respect of financial year 2017-2018 and time period for completion of proceedings is three years from due date for furnishing annual return for financial year to which tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, relates - Pursuant to permission granted by single Judge, petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal - As petitioner had sought for availing alternate remedy and has, in fact, availed it, court is not inclined to admit appeal and hear the contentions of petitioner on merits - Petitioner raises an apprehension that since the petition was dismissed, he would be prejudiced in appeal before statutory authority as it will be taken that his contentions were rejected by this Court - Said apprehension found to be without any basis as Single Judge has only considered the contentions and had entered findings only for purpose of declining jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India for entertaining the petition and nothing more - Petitioner will be free to urge all contentions available to him under law before appellate authority: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-38-SC-MISC

CBI Vs Santosh Karnani

Whether when Court, on consideration of material information gathered by Investigating Agency, is prima facie satisfied that there is something more than mere needle of suspicion against the accused, it cannot jeopardise the investigation, more so when the allegations are grave in nature - YES: SC

- In favour of Appellant/ CBI: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-455-HC-DEL-ST

Nanu Ram Goyal Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Petitioner prays that the respondents be restrained from pursuing the proceedings or taking any further action in respect of SCN dated 27.02.2009 issued by respondent no.1 - Petitioner also impugns a letter dated 02.08.2022 calling them for a personal hearing and prays that the respondents be restrained from proceeding in any manner pursuant to the impugned letter - Petitioner claims that such proceedings are barred by limitation as the respondents had failed to conclude the proceedings within a reasonable period from the date of issuance of the impugned SCN - Respondents claim that the proceedings pursuant to the SCN were kept in abeyance as the matter was placed in ‘Call Book' in terms of the Circulars issued by the Board.

Held: Question that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents can continue the proceedings for adjudication of impugned SCN after a lapse of almost thirteen years - It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's case was placed in the ‘Call Book' as the Revenue had preferred an appeal in the case of  M/s Sobha Developers Limited -   The said appeal was disposed of on 17.01.2017 - 2 017-TIOL-29-SC-ST and the respondents had not taken any steps for concluding the proceedings for more than four and a half years thereafter - Impugned letter seeking to recommence the proceedings was issued on 02.08.2022 - There are no justifiable reasons to condone the said delay after the reason for placing the matter in abeyance – viz. pendency of the appeal in the case of  M/s Sobha Developers Limited  had ceased to exist - Court finds it difficult to accept that it was not possible to adjudicate the impugned show cause notice as the controversy involved in the impugned show cause notice was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in  M/s Sobha Developers Limited - E ven if it is assumed that it was permissible for the respondents to keep the adjudication of the impugned show cause notice in abeyance, pending the decision of the Supreme Court in  M/s Sobha Developers Limited , the inordinate delay after the decision was rendered by the Supreme Court cannot be countenanced - It is also relevant to note that the petitioner was provided no information that the impugned show cause notice has been placed in the ‘Call Book' - Even if it is accepted that it is permissible for the respondents to place the matter in the ‘Call Book', which this Court does not, it was necessary for the respondents to have communicated the said fact to the petitioner - Proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice are inordinately delayed and it is now impermissible for the respondents to continue the same - The respondents are, accordingly, interdicted from taking any action or continuing any proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice - Petition allowed: High Court [para 29, 32, 33, 34, 38]

- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT