|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 20941 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1800
Maintainability of petition - respondent/Corporate Debtor has not received copy of the petition and other documents relied upon and prayed for time to file counter - HELD THAT:- Counsel for petitioner is directed to provide a copy of the petition and other documents to the respondent. Time is enlarged at request.
Put up on 14.12.2017.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1799
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- The legislative intent is more discernible in the judicial decisions. In Chettinad Logistics (P) Ltd.[2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. In the case of CIT v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 592 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] it has been held that in absence of any tax free income earned by the assessee, disallowance u/s 14A could not be made. In a similar vein, it has been held in Cheminvest Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. We delete the disallowance made by the AO. Thus the 1st ground of appeal is allowed.
Addition of provision for doubtful debts/advances made to the book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- In Yokogawa India Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as held that while computing book profits, provisions made for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation (c) to section 115JB (1) as same is not an ascertain liability.
On the other hand, in the case of Ilpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held that provision for doubtful debts and provision for doubtful advances are nothing but the provisions for diminution in the value of assets, hence the same are to be added back in computing book profit in view of the retrospective amendment introduced in section 115JA by inserting clause (g) in Explanation to section 115JA (2) which specifically mentions the amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset.
Also in the case of CIT vs. Steriplate (P) Ltd. (2011) [2011 (5) TMI 645 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that by virtue of clause (i) of Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of section 115JB, as inserted by the Finance (2) Act, 2009, retrospectively from 1st April 2001, any amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset would not reduce the book profits of an assessee for the assessment year 2002-03. We follow the above judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO. Thus this ground of appeal is dismissed.
Disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- In a recent decision the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘H’ (Special Bench) in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd.[2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] has held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2) is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. We follow the above decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and delete the addition made by the AO u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D while computing book profit u/s 115JB. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1798
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Whether the respondent company was in existence as on the date of filing this petition? If not, whether this petition is maintainable as its name was struck off from the Company Master Data as alleged? - HELD THAT:- A reference of the resolution submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent shows that respondent company was active when the Board of Directors convened meeting on 20/10/2017. It is in that meeting the board of directors authorized the Ld. Counsel to appear before the Tribunal for and on behalf Of the respondent. This petition being filed on 01.08-2017 that is before the date of above referred resolution. legitimate inference is that on the date of filing Of the petition. the respondent company was active and, therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the company was not active on the date of filing of the petition is found devoid of any merit - The contention that this petition is not maintainable because the respondent name was removed from the Company Master Data is therefore, found not at all sustainable.
Exhibit-B is a promissory note or not - debt claimed by the petitioner is a financial debt comes under the purview of section 5(8) of I&B Code or not? - HELD THAT:- Exhibit-B comes under the purview of financial debt. Exhibit-B relied upon by the petitioner does not stipulate liability on the respondent to pay interest as claimed. So, also there are no terms stipulated in it that he is liable to repay after enjoying the amount for four months with interest. (enjoying is shown in bold letter to indicate the word used by the petitioner in Ext.B) - Exhibit-B is neither a promissory note, nor a receipt as alleged in Form I and that Exhibit-d has not acquired the status of a financial debt. So also, it does not have consideration for the time value of money. Thus, nor a receipt as alleged in Form 1 and that Exhibit-B has not acquired the status of a financial debt. So also, it does not have consideration for the time value of money.
Thus, the debt claimed by the petitioner in the instant case is not a financial debt and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the debt claimed by her is a financial debt is also found devoid of any merit.
Existence of default as per Sec. 7 (4) (2) of I&B, Code or not - HELD THAT:- The existence of default is one among the ingredients to be proved on the side of the petitioner for getting admission of a petition of this nature. petitioner failed to prove the existence of a default. The mere contention that there was no reply to the notice repeatedly served on the respondent itself cannot be inferred as an admission of the liability by the respondent in the peculiar nature and circumstances of the case in hand. To complete the petition filed under Sec. 7 1 & B Code, the petitioner shall produce or shall furnish along with the petition the record of default, record of information utility and such other record or evidence of default as may be specified. Truly, till date none specified as to the nature of document proving the existence of default other than referred to in Sec. 7(3) (a) shall be produced in a case of this nature. Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any information utility or bank statement. The only document produced by the petitioner is the copy of demand notice allegedly served on the respondent. In a case of this nature, production of the copy of demand notice and evidence to the effect that there was no reply itself is not satisfactory to hold that the petitioner succeeds in proving the existence of default in this case.
Thus, the issuance of demand notice like the notice sent by the petitioner is not at all a pre-requirement for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by a financial creditor under Sec. 7 (1) of I & B Code. Truly, if it is a petition filed under Sec.9, Sec .8 (I) requires issuing demand notice before the filing of the application - thus, the petitioner failed to prove the existence of default as alleged.
Application disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1797
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- When sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises [2014 (7) TMI 559 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
The facts of the present case indicate that assessee has made purchase from the grey market. Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such situation, in my considered opinion, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. This proposition draws support from the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, direct that disallowance be limited to 12.5% of bogus purchase. Appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1796
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - restriction of addition on account of bogus purchases to the tune of 7.5% - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee undoubtedly has availed hawala entries from the hawala operators. The explanation offered by the assessee did not find favour of the assessing officer and hence the AO added a sum of ₹ 51,49,820/- to the total income u/s 69C as peak credit on the basis of undisclosed cash which were treated as bogus purchase. The CIT(A) partly sustained the addition at 7.5% of the total bogus purchases.
CIT(A) while restricting the addition of 7.5% of the total bogus purchases followed its predecessor’s order. We also find that the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal have been taking a consistent view under same facts that some percentage addition ranging from 5% to 12.50% or a reasonable percentage of the bogus purchase should be made towards savings which the assessee may have made by purchasing the material from gray market thereby saving VAT and other incidental taxes. Therefore we are of the opinion that the ld.CIT(A) has taken a reasoned and cogent view in the assessee’s case by applying 7.50% of the bogus purchases and therefore we find no reason to interfere in the same. Accordingly we affirm the order of CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1795
Grant of Bail - petitioner contended that she was entitled to bail being woman and sick, in view of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act, which envisaged release of the category of persons, as mentioned in the proviso, on bail without satisfying twin conditions as contained in Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the offence alleged against the petitioner, as per the second supplementary charge-sheet, is under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act, which attracts maximum sentence of 7 years. Complaint has already been filed against the petitioner and trial is likely to take time. Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 months. Petitioner is not an accused in the predicate offence. Petitioner’s father and brother are settled in India. It is not advisable to discuss and return any findings on the merits and/or demerits of the allegations and counter allegations of the parties at this stage, as it will affect the proceedings of the complaint on merits.
Keeping in mind totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court - Bail application allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1794
Disallowance u/s.14A to the amount of dividend income claimed by the assessee as exempt - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in restricting the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act, to the exempt income claimed by the assessee. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A) for both the years. See JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2017 (12) TMI 1793
Rectification of mistake - TP Adjustment - comparable selection - margin computational error in respect of two comparables - HELD THAT:- Contentions are raised regarding margin computational error in respect of two comparables i.e. Accentia Technologies Ltd. and e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and for the remaining four comparables, the only contention raised was regarding turnover filter and there is no contention raised regarding the functionality aspect. Hence on this aspect, we find no apparent mistake in the impugned Tribunal order because it appears that no argument was made in respect of this aspect.
ALP Computation - Foreign Exchange fluctuation gain / loss - HELD THAT:- In respect of computation of ALP, profit margin percentage is worked out by dividing the operating profit of the tested party by the turnover of the tested party and therefore, if the foreign exchange gain/loss is not in respect of turnover of the present year, then such gain/loss cannot be considered for computing the profit percentage even after holding the same as operating profit/loss because if the corresponding turnover is not a part of the denominator, the profit in respect of such turnover cannot be included in the numerator because if this is done, it will give an absurd result.
Hence we feel it proper to restore back this matter to the file of AO / TPO for fresh decision after examining this aspect and we hold that if the foreign exchange gain / loss is in respect of the present year turnover then the same should be considered as profit/loss of the current year for working out the profit percentage of the tested party but if such foreign exchange gain / loss is not in respect of current year turnover then the same should not be considered in the case of tested party.
In the case of comparable companies also, if there is any foreign exchange gain / loss and this information is available in the annual report of the concerned company as to whether the fluctuation gain / loss is in respect of current year turnover or earlier year turnover then the same treatment should be given to foreign exchange gain / loss in case of comparable company also but if such information is not available in the annual report of such company then it should be taken as foreign exchange gain / loss in respect of earlier year’s turnover because in most of the cases, such foreign exchange gain / loss is in respect of turnover of the earlier year because any gain / loss on account of foreign exchange difference for current year turnover is generally included in sale proceeds and is not shown separately in the final accounts. AO / TPO should decide this issue afresh as per above discussion after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee
-
2017 (12) TMI 1792
Addition u/s 57(iv) - interest received on delayed payment of enhanced compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land - A.R submitted that interest received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is nothing but enhanced compensation on the land acquired by the Authorities and it is to be exempted u/s.10(37) - HELD THAT:- The argument of the ld.A.R is having no merit. Interest on delayed payment of enhanced compensation in respect of acquisition of immovable property is a revenue receipt and it is to be taxed and cannot be exempted u/s.10(37) of the Act and it cannot be considered as a part of consideration received in respect of agricultural land specified us.2(14)(iv) .
Assessee argument stating that spreading of interest received to different assessment years - The assessee in this case had not demonstrated that it is following mercantile system of accounting. Hence, it is to be taxed on cash system basis i.e. receipt basis. This ground of appeal is also rejected.
A.R submitted that proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee by the lower authorities was not offered during proceedings - There is a violation of principles of natural justice. Before me, the ld.A.R is not able to demonstrate how the opportunity is not given by the lower authorities in prosecuting the case before them. In the absence of any material to show that the lower authorities failed to give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, this ground of appeal is also dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1791
Maintainability of appeal by revenue - low tax effect - addition u/s 40A assessee purchased agricultural land and payments towards such purchases were made in cash - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The CIT's have to record their decision issue-wise and also notice tax effect and forward relevant authorisation letter and grounds of appeal to the concerned.
Since the grounds have to be specified by the Commissioner, if the tax effect is low, reasons as to why an appeal is to be preferred even on matters concerning appreciation of facts, such as the present matter, needs to be recorded. The AO relied upon CBDT Instruction 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, whereas in the subsequent circulars i.e. Circular No.5/2017 dated 23.01.2017, the Board clarified that filing of appeals in cases where there is revenue audit objection should not be a matter of routine.
No evidence whatsoever is placed even before us to prove that the facts determined by Ld.CIT(A) are perverse. AO is bound by the Circular issued by CBDT and he could not have preferred appeal in a case whether the tax effect is less than the specified limit and that too in the routine manner. It is also doubtful as to whether the Commissioner concerned has directed the AO to raise this ground. It does not emanate from the authorisation issued by the Commissioner.
Even on merits we do not find any infirmity in the finding of CIT(A) that the disallowance is not permissible in this year. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as unadmitted.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1790
Revision u/s 263 - scope and powers under Section 263 of CIT - No enquiries during the course of the assessment proceedings. In the present case the tribunal found as a fact that the “Principle of Mutuality” - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (2) TMI 1475 - DELHI HIGH COURT] order would be erroneous only when the assessing officer makes no enquiries during the course of the assessment proceedings. In the present case the tribunal found as a fact that the “Principle of Mutuality” had been examined threadbare by the assessing officer itself and therefore it was not a case where the Commissioner could have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the said Act. In these circumstances, we do not feel that there is any substantial question of law which arises for the consideration, of this Court. - no substantial question of law.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1789
Seeking direction to the respondent to Adjudicate and to pass Final Order/order in original pursuant to the SCN, after due opportunity to the petitioner within a reasonable time that may be fixed by this Court - The respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that after adjudication of the matter, pursuant to the show cause notice issued, final order has been passed by Order-in-Original after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is open to the petitioner to apply to the respondent to issue to him a fresh copy of the Order-in-Original and on receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioner to take further action in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1788
No notice for hearing was communicated to the assessee - Penalty u/s 271C - assessee has failed to deposit the tax to the credit of Central Government and has also failed to deduct tax at source correctly causing short deduction of tax on the eligible amount - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) noted that the case was fixed for hearing on 28.05.2015, 08.01.2016 and 01.02.2016 but nowhere he stated that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1787
Grant of Bail - Allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted money - allegation on the basis of few entries made in the measurement books - HELD THAT:- Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant and the evidence found during investigation against him in the supplementary charge-sheet filed against him reflects the nexus between the accused persons which is an organized crime that resulted in a multi crore scam in the NOIDA Authority in which the applicant also actively participated along with the coaccused persons, hence the prayer of the applicant to release him on bail is hereby refused.
There are no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant Ompal Singh - Bail application dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1786
Grant of interim bail/anticipatory bail - concealment and suppression of material facts - private respondents cannot be held guilty of any suppression, concealment or fraud in this matter for the simple reason that the petitions were prepared on 15.09.2017 and accepted by the Registry of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 17.09.2017 - HELD THAT:- The fact relating to the withdrawal of the Resolution passed by the District Bar Associations, Gurugram and Sohna cannot be said to be in the knowledge of the private respondents. Moreover, this plea had been dealt with by learned single Judge in the order dated 07.10.2017 and had been negated.
Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this incident had received wide coverage in the media, both electronic and print. In fact, it can be said that there was a trial by media, therefore, when the private respondents have directly approached the High Court for grant of anticipatory/interim bail under Section 438 of the Code, that too when the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, we cannot find any fault with the action of the private respondents.
Coming to the merits of the case, on going through the FIR registered by the Police Station, Bhondsi dated 08.09.2017 which admittedly has been re-registered by the CBI, we find that no allegation has been made against the private respondents herein - thus, as on date, the CBI is yet to examine and analyse the role of the private respondents in this case and there is no evidence of their complicity in the crime and there is not even a pointer of involvement of respondents herein in the alleged crime. Their involvement cannot be established until and unless, there is some substantial evidence against them.
Without expressing anything on the merits of the case as the investigation is still under progress and the CBI is yet to come to a conclusion regarding the involvement of the private respondents in the crime, the private respondents herein have made out a case for grant of protection by way of interim bail till the presentation of Challan by the CBI as has been passed by learned single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by learned single Judge granting interim bail to the answering respondents till the presentation of Challan cannot be faulted with - Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1785
TP Adjustment - applicability of the other method for bench marking international transactions under Section 92C for which the assessee claimed applicability of Rule 10B (brought into force w.e.f. 2012-13) - HELD THAT:- TP’s report in the present instance clearly claims that the other method is the most appropriate method and proceeds to outline why the revisions for its adoptions in certain transactions even while using the TNMM for others. This aspect has not been examined by the ITAT - and also apparently by the DRP - which had at the same time rejected the AO’s remand report. Given these facts and the circumstances that the other method was introduced for the first time, and also given the fact that there does not appear to be much judicial thinking on the application of the other method as most appropriate method and all the considerations should weigh to the tax administrators in this regard vis-a-vis revenue and cost allocation, this Court is of the opinion that the ITAT should have proceed with the matter afresh instead of having remanded the matter totally to the TPO, as it did in the circumstances.
In these circumstances, the impugned order is modified. The ITAT is directed to go into the matter afresh and return the findings both on the question of law and the facts afresh.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1784
Nature of expenditure - acquiring mining rights - capital or revenue expenditure - assessee made lump sum payment for the purpose of acquiring mining rights from the Government of Karnataka - HELD THAT:- In the light of the judgment of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [1999 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the impugned payment made for acquiring mining rights is capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. The reliance placed by the ld.CIT(A) on the coordinate bench decision of Tribunal in the case of P.Abubakar [2010 (1) TMI 1235 - ITAT BANGALORE] and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case M/s.Ramgad Minerals & Minings Pvt. Ltd.,[2012 (1) TMI 313 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is misplaced in the light of the decision of the larger bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt. Ltd [1998 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT]
Then an issue may arise as to whether this expenditure can be allowed on a staggering basis spread over lease period as revenue expenditure in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Corporation [1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] Needless to mention that if the payment is capital in nature, expenditure cannot be allowed on staggered basis. Even for the purpose of spreading over period of lease, it is essential that the expenditure should be in the nature of revenue expenditure. Thus, grounds of appeal of the revenue are allowed.
Premium paid for Keyman Insurance disallowed - HELD THAT: - It is held to be allowable by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.N.Exports[2010 (3) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]and also by the CBDT circular No.726 dated 18/2/1998, but the same is allowable only in the year in which premium was paid. In the present case, admittedly, premium was paid in the earlier years and the question of allowing it as deduction in the subsequent year does not arise as the liability of the expenditure had not crystallized during the year under consideration. Therefore, grounds of cross objections of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1783
Stay of recovery - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Without going into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the issue is in respect of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee has paid ₹ 10 lakhs out of the demand of ₹ 50 lakhs and the appeal is posted for hearing on 02.01.2018, the assessee is granted stay of recovery of the balance of the disputed penalty for a period of two months from today. In the event that the assessee seeks an adjournment on 02.01.2018 being the date of hearing of the appeal, this stay granted to the assessee shall stand vacated.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1782
Restoration of view taken by the Assessing Authority - addition of turnover and re-assessment - estimation of turnover based solely on surmises and conjectures - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the solitary bill was numbered 114 and dated 14 February 1999. On this basis the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have incorrectly proceeded to assume that 113 additional transactions were presumably undertaken by the assessee. They have also further and for reasons which cannot possibly be countenanced or accepted proceeded to hold that all these 113 transactions would have been valued at ₹ 60,770/-. The Court is constrained to observe that this line of reasoning is totally arbitrary and cannot possibly ever appeal to logic let alone acceptance in judicial proceedings. Both the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have proceeded in the matter without being educated by the principles which must necessarily govern a best judgment assessment. While it is true that in the course of estimation of turnover a certain degree of guess work must necessarily be recognized as vesting and inhering in the hands of the Assessing Authority, the same cannot possibly be construed as conferring a power to estimate turnover in a wholly whimsical manner as has been done in the facts of the present case.
The estimation of turnover of ₹ 10,00,000/- is based solely on surmises and conjectures. The mere fact that the bill in question bore the number 114, cannot automatically lead one to conclude or hold that it was preceded by 113 prior transactions and that too of identical value. Such a process of determination and assessment in the case of a taxing statute cannot be accorded approval by this Court.
The order of the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Authority dated 9 February 2007 and 24 December 2004 respectively, shall stand set aside and the decision of the First Appellate Authority dated 25 August 2006 shall stand restored - Revision allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1781
Seizure of goods along with vehicles - goods were not accompanied by an e-way bill generated by the recipient trader of Andhra Pradesh State/Telangana State - validity of G.O. Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017/G.O. Ms. No. 180, dated 9-8-2017 - HELD THAT:- As the State Legislature is competent to make laws only with reference to the intra-State movement of goods or services, Rule 138 has to be construed as being applicable only to such goods or services. This being the position, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017, as extended by G.O. Ms. No. 446, dated 3-10-2017, upto 31-12-2017, issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, and G.O. Ms. No.180, dated 9-8-2017, issued by the State of Telangana, are not enforceable insofar as the inter-State movement of goods and services is concerned.
In view of the prima facie findings arrived at by this Court hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the detention of goods along with vehicles by the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana only on the ground of non-generation of e-waybill by the traders of their respective States receiving the goods, is not permissible.
The goods along with the vehicles belonging to the petitioners shall be released on their executing a bond to the effect that in the event of determination of tax liability, they will pay the tax along with the penalty, if any - Petition allowed.
........
|
