Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2019 2019 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 301 to 320 of 2075 Records

• 2019 (3) TMI 1780
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - bar on the remedy provided for resolution of insolvency - existence of debt and default - HELD THAT:- The RBI Circular dated 12.02.2018 does not create any bar on the remedy provided for resolution of insolvency in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

  The arguments raised by Dr. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the Corporate Debtor would not require any detailed examination. In Jaipur Metals & Electricals Employees Organisation [2018 (12) TMI 674 - SUPREME COURT], the view of Hon 'ble the Supreme Court is crystal clear. In paras 19 and 20 of the judgment it has been categorical held that the proceedings under the IBC is an independent proceeding which has nothing to do with the transfer of pending winding up proceedings before the High Court. It further clarifies that a Financial Creditor is at liberty to apply under Section 7 of the Code to the Tribunal at any time before a winding up order is passed.

  It is patent that all requirements of Section 7 of the Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by a Financial Creditor stand fulfilled. In that regard, the application is complete as per the requirements of Section 7 (2) of the Code and other conditions prescribed by Rule 4 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016. There is overwhelming evidence to prove default and name of the resolution professional has also been clearly specified - petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1779
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor furnished all material documents proving existence of debt. Further, the Corporate Debtor has not pointed out any instances of dispute as they are mandated to do as per Section 8(2) of the I&BC, 2016 and has not filed any written statement except for one occasion where the counsel for the Corporate Debtor appeared before this Bench on 27.02.2019 and sought for an adjournment, as instructed by her senior counsel, expressing her inability to argue the matter.

  Hence, this Bench hereby hold that this Application is fit for admission for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.

  Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1778
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - debt due and payable - existence of default or not - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal observes that there is a debt due and payable by the Corporate Debtor and that a default has occurred for which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay. Therefore, the Applicant Bank has established that the amount in default committed by the Corporate Debtor is a fact and it is supported by the documentary evidence placed before this Adjudicating Authority.

  In the present case, by not replying to the classification of Corporate Debtor's account into an NPA, sent by the Financial Creditor, and by not filing an affidavit in reply to this petition for contesting its liability, the Corporate Debtor has admitted its liability. Moreover, there is an acknowledgement of the Corporate Debtor for admission of its liability on record. The Corporate Debtor has not placed any material to prove the claims made in its reply notice dated 02.06.2018.

  As long as there is a Debt and a Default occurred this Bench hereby holds that it is a fit case for admission - Application admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1777
  

  Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- No resolution plan is received.

  Learned Resolution Professional has also given consent to act as Liquidator has appearing in Pages 55 to 59 attached to the I.A No. 382 of 2018, and he has also competent to swear the present Affidavit dated 15th November, 2018 to act as liquidator in accordance with Section 34(1) of the I&B Code, 2016 and Regulation 3 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The CoC in its meeting dated 15th November, 2018 has proposed the Applicant as a liquidator and agreed to the initiation of liquidation process under Section 33 of the I&B Code.

  The Adjudicating Authority, by exercising powers conferred under Section 33 of the I&B Code, 2016 has to pass order of liquidation - the liquidation order requiring Corporate Debtor i.e., M/s Concur Marketing Private Limited be liquidated.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1776
  

  Granting of deduction u/s 80P(2) - principal business carried out by the society is not according to the objectives of the primary agricultural credit society - AO had also observed that the interest income received by the as sfrom other Banks and Treasury is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80(P)(2) (d) as the interest income was received from other than co-operative society - HELD THAT:- Similar issue was considered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] wherein bye-laws of each of the appellants do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as member, except may be, in accordance with the proviso to sub-clause 2 of section 5(cciv) of the BR Act. The different orders of the Tribunal which are impeached in these appeals do not contain any finding of fact to the effect that the bye-laws of any of the appellant or its classification by the competent authority under the KCS Act is anything different from what we have stated herein above. It cannot but be held that the appellants are entitled to exemption from the provisions of section 80P by virtue of sub-section 4 of that section. In this view of the matter, the appeals succeed.

  We answer substantial question 'A' in favour of the appellants and hold that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding the issue regarding the entitlement of exemption under section 80P against the appellants. We hold that the primary agricultural credit societies, registered as such under the KCS Act; and classified so, under that Act, including the appellants are entitled to such exemption.

  Interest income from other Banks and Treasury - AO held that the interest income received by the assessee from other Banks and Treasury is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80(P)(2) (d) as the interest income was received from other than co-operative society - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue whether the interest income earned by the PACS from other Banks and Treasury is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1405 - ITAT COCHIN]. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we are inclined to dismiss this ground of appeals of the Revenue.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1775
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to liquidate its financial debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- On putting in appearance before this Bench through their advocate Mr. Abhishek Mishra, the Corporate Debtor has admitted its liability, but expressed its inability to pay because of financial constraints - also, The outstanding unpaid debt has been evidenced through their Ledger Accounts duly corroborated by the Bank Statements.

  Given the facts and circumstances that the Corporate Debtor admits its default and inability to repay the Petitioner's prayer merits consideration - petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1774
  

  Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - amount was found credited in the capital account of the proprietary concern of the assessee - CIT-A deleted the addition admitting additional evidence - contention of the AO is that the assessee failed to explain source of the credit of this amount in his books of accounts - only grievance of the Revenue is that the material relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) was in the nature of the additional evidence and the AO should have been provided opportunity to rebut or verify the same - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(A) has nowhere mentioned that documentary evidence supporting this claim of the assessee were forwarded to the AO and any comment was provided by the AO. We feel it appropriate to restore this issue for verification by the Assessing Officer and decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to produce all relevant documentary evidence in support of its claim before the AO. If on verification of the saving bank account of the assessee, the contention of transfer of money from saving account to the current account of proprietary concern is verified, then no addition is required on this account . The ground of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

  Unexplained investment u/s 69 - As alleged assessee during assessment as well as Remand proceedings had failed to furnish complete documentary evidence in support of his claim - CIT-A deleted the addition - AO is claiming that no document in support of purchase agreement of the property was produced before him in remand proceeding - in view of no documents provided in support, the Assessing Officer objected to admission of the additional evidences - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has allowed the issue in dispute without following the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rule and, therefore, we feel it appropriate to restore the “issue-in-dispute” to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh, with the direction to the assessee to produce all the documentary evidence relied in support of its claim, before the Assessing Officer. Though the issue of dealing with Rule 46A should have been in normal course restored to the Ld. CIT(A), but we have already restored the issue in dispute involving Ground No. 1 to the Assessing Officer, thus to avoid proceedings at multiple level, we have restored this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer. The ground of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

  Disallowance of the interest paid on bank borrowings, which according to the AO were not used for the purpose of the business - HELD THAT:- As it is not clear from the submission filed by the assessee before the lower authorities or before us as how the loan fund received from bank and unsecured loan was utilized for the purpose of the business. In the balance sheet, there is no comparison of the earlier years, which could indicate the investment made during the year or money advanced during the year. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer for complete verification of whether the loans have been utilized for the purpose of the business or have been diverted to non-business purposes. The assessee is directed to provide all details of the loan sanction letter, detail of disbursement of the loan and ultimate use towards stock or debtors along with documentary evidences. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

  Disallowance at the rate of 25% out of the expenses claimed on telephone, vehicle repair, interest and car loan, depreciation on car and conveyance - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has not established either from the call details of the telephone or mobile that all the expenses incurred on telephone are for the business purpose. Similarly, the assessee has not produced any logbook of the car to demonstrate that it was used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and no personal use was taken. In case of such disallowance on account of personal use, the onus is on the assessee to produce the desired documents of details of use of the vehicles or telephone, maintained in day-to-day course, otherwise only course left would be to estimate the disallowance on the basis of a small sample for a week or a month and then extrapolate the same for the entire year. Since we have already restored other grounds of the appeal to the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer for ascertaining non-business purposes use of the telephone or car or conveyance on the basis of documentary evidences. The ground of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

  Treating the sale of agricultural land resulting into long-term capital gain - whether the land which was sold by the assessee, was agricultural land in terms of the provisions of the Act? - admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT:- We agree with the observation of the learned DR that the handwritten certificate is not bearing any seal or name of the Patwari or the person who has issued the certificate. The learned counsel has also not produced the original return of income filed for the earlier years to establish that agricultural income was offered for rate purposes in those returns. The Assessing Officer objected admitting of the additional evidences, however, the Ld. CIT(A) admitted the evidences after giving his reasoning. But the Ld. CIT(A) was required to make compliance of the Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut those evidences as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Buildwell Private Limited [2011 (11) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh, with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary documentary evidence in support of its claim. Ground allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1773
  

  CENVAT Credit - common input services for taxable as well as exempt service - non-maintenance of separate records - applicability of Rule 6 (3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or Rule 6(3)(a) of CCR - Valuation of subsidy disbursed - HELD THAT:- The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to extend the benefit of provisions of Rule 6(3AA), under which an appellant is required to reverse only proportionate amount attributable to the exempted services of trading. Accordingly, the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside on this issue and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the proportionate reversal with interest, as prescribed under 6 (3AA) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, for the period of dispute.

  Valuation - inclusion of subsidy granted by the Government of Rajasthan under the ‘Industrial Promotion Scheme of the State’ in the form of vouchers in ‘Form 37 B’ in the assessable value - amount was utilized in discharge of its VAT/Sales tax liability - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in favour of the appellant in the case of SHREE CEMENT LTD. SHREE JAIPUR CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, ALWAR [2018 (1) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that There is no justification for inclusion in the assessable value, the VAT amounts paid by the assessee using VAT 37B Challans.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1772
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(iib) on Surcharge on Sales Tax and Turn over Tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Assessing Officer had not made the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(iib) - Without enquiring, AO accepted the assessee’s claim. The failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous which also resulted in loss to the revenue. CIT had observed in his order that the surcharge on sales tax and turn over tax was not disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act. Hence, the order of the CIT cannot be held as erroneous. The CIT’s approach was correct - CIT exercised his power conferred u/s. 263 in setting aside the assessment. AO has not considered the issue relating to the application of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act and he had accepted the claim without applying his mind - order of the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In our opinion, the CIT is justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 - Decided against assessee.

  Disallowance of gallonage fee expenses u/s. 40(a)(iib) - HELD THAT:- The clause “exclusively” cannot be assessed with respect to the nomenclature of the payment made but the same has to be determined with respect to mode and method of levy of charge. The gallonage fee is paid by the assessee as per the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 under Rule 15A. The gallonage fee referred under Rule 15A is with regard to fee to be paid for FL-9 licensee. The FL-9 license is exclusively granted to the assessee. Therefore, the gallonage fee paid by the assessee is covered by the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) - The fact that a fee in the name of gallonage fee is also levied under clause 14 of Kerala Rectified Spirit Rules, 1972 is not relevant for the purpose of examining the applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act for the fee paid under Foreign Liquour Rules, 1953.. Therefore in view of the above reasons, the disallowance of gallongage fee of ₹ 54,83,87,000/- u/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act is upheld. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

  Disallowance of license fee and shop rental u/s. 40(a)(iib) - AR submitted that the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act are not applicable to license fee and shop rent paid by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Language used by legislature used the sentence is "any fee or charge which is levied exclusively on a State Government undertaking by the State Government" but not the sentence "any fee or charge which is levied exclusively on the assessee by the State Government". Any fee or charge which is exclusively levied only on State Government undertakings by the State Government is covered by the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) - Hence, even considering hypothetically that Shop rental was payable by another state government undertaking also, the nature of the payment remains "exclusive" for the purpose of section 40(a)(iia) - we hold that there is no merit in the grounds raised by the assessee on the issue of disallowance of license fee and Shop rental and therefore, the same are dismissed. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1771
  

  Approval of Resolution Plan - section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The terms and conditions of the resolution plan provide that the management and control of the business of the corporate debtor would remain with duly appointed monitoring committee. The monitoring committee shall submit a detailed report to the National Company Law Tribunal upon completion of implementation of the resolution plan which has been approved with 100 per cent. of voting share by the financial creditors. The expenses incurred by the monitoring committee shall be borne by the resolution applicant on agreed terms. The payments contemplated in the resolution plan shall be the corporate debtor's full and final performance and satisfaction of all its claims. No other payments or settlement (of any kind) will be made to any other person in respect of the claims filed under the resolution process against the corporate debtor. All the guarantees which have not been invoked till the plan approve date shall stand abated/extinguished.

  This authority deems it fit to direct to the ECGC/RBI/DRI/Income-tax/Sales Tax/ESI or any regulatory/ revenue authority to remove the company's name from SAL, defaulters' list/wilful defaulters' list and discharge/write-off any liability levied on, etc. The reason for giving this direction is that the operational creditors, except the provision(s) made in the resolution plan, would not get anything in the event of liquidation of the corporate debtor. Therefore, for successful implement of the resolution plan as approved by the CoC, the resolution applicant and its nominees will take over the management of the company and if the resolution application is saddled with statutory liabilities then the resolution plan will get frustrated and the company has to face the liquidation under the IBC, 2016.

  The "resolution plan" approved by the CoCs with 100 per cent. voting share and placed before this authority appears to be in line with the object and purport of the I and B Code, 2016, as it provides for insolvency resolution in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets, viability of credit and balancing the interest of the stakeholders - thus, the "resolution plan" filed meets the requirements of section 30(2) of the I and B Code, 2016 and regulations 37, 38, 38(1A) and 39 of the IBBI (CIRP) Regulations, 2016. The "resolution plan" is also not in contravention of any of the provisions of section 29A.

  Resolution Plan approved.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1770
  

  Confiscation of goods with conveyance - levy of penalty - section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned notice reveals that in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 thereof, there are various blanks which have not been filled in which makes it manifest that the procedure as required under the provisions of the Act as referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 have not been followed by the competent authority prior to issuance of the said notice.

  Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 3rd April, 2019.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1769
  

  Refund of education cess as well as secondary and higher education cess collected from the petitioner as per N/N. 32/1999 read with 20/2007 - period from July, 2004 to January 2015 - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of Kamakhya Plastics Pvt. Ltd –Vs- Union of India [2018 (8) TMI 1955 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], this Court had directed the respondents to refund the education cess including secondary and higher education cess paid by the petitioner for the period during which those were realised.

  The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are directed to refund the education cess including secondary and higher education cess collected from the petitioner during the said period to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1768
  

  Confiscation of goods and vehicle - sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited tax and penalty under section 129 of the IGST Act, by way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release Truck No.RJ-14-GH-3440 along with the goods contained therein.

  Issue Notice returnable on 10th April, 2019.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1767
  

  Release of confiscated goods alongwith the vehicle - section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited tax and penalty under section 129 of the IGST Act, by way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release Truck No.HR-55-M-3014 along with the goods contained therein. However, the petitioner shall file an undertaking before this court within a week from today to the effect that in case the petitioner, ultimately, does not succeed in the petition, he shall duly cooperate in the further proceedings.

  Issue Notice returnable on 10th April, 2019 - The respondents shall also show cause as to why costs should not be imposed upon the respondents for non-compliance of the relevant statutory provisions.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1766
  

  Filing of FORM GST TRAN-1 -transitional credit - extension of time limit for submission of such form - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner should be considered to enable him to submit declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1. However, in view of the requirement of having the case of the petitioner recommended by the Council, a direction is issued to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to accept/entertain the declaration to be filed by the petitioner in FORM GST TRAN-1 electronically on the portal line, subject to the condition that the same is done on or before 31.03.2019.

  Petition disposed off

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1765
  

  Release of two Mobile Concrete Mixing Units having Chassis - Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The goods detained as above shall be released on furnishing bank guarantee. The petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of one month. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within one month, respondents are at liberty to revoke the bank guarantee.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1764
  

  Disallowance of depreciation u/s 32 - conversion of partnership firm into private limited company - assessee company computed the WDV in Its books of accounts after reducing the depreciation from the cost at which the assets were acquired by ft i.e. revalued prices as per section 43(1) - HELD THAT:- In the present case before us all the conditions of section 43(xiii) of the Act were satisfied in the succession of firm by the company in taking over all the assets and liabilities and therefore exemption as provided in section 43(xiii) is available to the assessee - assessee is entitled to depreciation on the price at which the assets were taken over if the conditions of section 47(xiii) of the Act were fulfilled.

  Since the issue has been decided by the ITAT in earlier year in assessee’s favour the disallowance of depreciation by the AO for this year is not sustainable as the same is consequential to the depreciation allowed and W.D.V of assets in earlier year. All the issues raised by the AO has been elaborately decided by the ITAT is assessee’s favour - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1763
  

  Validity of audit objection raised - re-assessment order not made - Section 33 of the Bihar Value Added Taxation Act, 2005 - substantial compliance of the obligation cast under the provisions by the assessing authority - HELD THAT:- The entire decision making process leading to reassessment orders dated 2.8.2018 and the demand notice dated 31.8.2018 for the assessment orders 2012-13 and 2011-12 respectively as impugned at Annexures 3/1 and 3/2 to the respective writ petition, are clothed with illegality for neither the audit objection in absence of assessment or reassessment or scrutiny had a legal sanction and even if such lapse is ignored and waived for a moment, then the failure of the prescribed authority to record his satisfaction as to the lawfulness and correctness of the audit objection before he proceeded to mechanically issue notice to the petitioner, is held dehors the statutory obligation, rendering the entire proceedings culminating in reassessment order(s) and the demand notice(s) bad in law.

  Where the proceeding itself is contrary to the statutory prescriptions, a participation by the petitioner in the same, would not provide it with lawful sanction.

  The entire reassessment proceedings founded on the audit note impugned at Annexure 2/1 of the respective writ petitions, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2011-12 respectively culminating in the order of reassessment dated 2.8.2018 and the demand notice dated 31.8.2018 impugned at Annxures 3/1 and 3/2 to the respective writ petition, cannot be upheld - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1762
  

  Deemed assessment - audit objection by the ‘CAG’ - Levy of penalty u/s 31(2) of VAT Act - excess amount claimed by the petitioner towards Input Tax Credit - whether this assessment of tax for the financial year 2017-18 by deeming fiction as per section 26 of the ‘VAT Act’ invites an audit objection by the ‘CAG’ and even if it does whether the Assessing Authority has proceeded for re-assessment in the manner prescribed?

  HELD THAT:- The detail procedure prescribed under rule 22 of ‘the Rules’ for proceeding on a departmental audit objection under the orders of the Commissioner under section 26(3) leading to assessment under section 31 of the ‘VAT Act’ is clearly distinct to the procedure based on a audit objection by the ‘CAG’ for even though the legislature has empowered the Commissioner to hold audit on deemed assessment and initiate an exercise for the purpose of assessment under section 31, no such privilege is given to the ‘CAG’ to exercise jurisdiction on a deemed assessment.

  The complete non-application of mind with which the issue has been handled is manifest from the audit report itself available at Annexure 5 which after recording the alleged excess Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner relegates him to a proceeding under section 31(2) of the ‘VAT Act’ completely oblivious of the fact that while it is under the statutory prescriptions of section 33 that the power was being exercised by the ‘CAG’, section 31(2) of the ‘VAT Act’ is a penalty exercise in circumstances where an assessment/re-assessment is conducted on the basis of an audit conducted under the orders of the Commissioner under section 26(3) of the ‘VAT Act’ and not on the basis of audit objection by the ‘CAG’ under section 33 of the ‘VAT Act’.

  Thus, neither the discharge by the ‘CAG’ to record their audit objection at Annexure 5 is in tune with the statutory prescriptions because the provision underlying the ‘VAT Act’ does not vest jurisdiction in the ‘CAG’ to hold audit on the basis of deemed assessment and thus the audit report is held illegal and without statutory support and consequentially the assessment proceeding based thereon are rendered illegal because not only the prescribed authority has proceeded on an illegal audit objection rather he has also failed to record his satisfaction as to the lawfulness of the audit objection and has mechanically proceeded to draw the proceeding under section 33 of the ‘VAT Act’ completely unmindful of the obligation cast on him under rule 25(1) and (2) of ‘the Rules’.

  The entire proceeding culminating in the assessment order impugned at Annexure 8 together with the demand notice impugned at Annexure 8/1 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (3) TMI 1761
  

  Validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1, AND OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where The petitioner's plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act, 2017.

  The writ petition need to be remitted for a fresh consideration on the question of bar of limitation provided under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - Appeal allowed.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920........ 104