Lawgics – Judgment No. 194
Synopsis: Delhi High Court allowed petitioners to pursue appellate remedies though Court noted petitioners had sufficient information to respond to SCN but failed to do so in a timely manner and had not been diligent.
Tag: Delhi HC
ITC cannot be denied due to wrong address and GSTN on invoices
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of B Braun Medical India (P.) Ltd. set aside the order wherein a demand order was passed on the Assessee was claiming excess ITC, where invoices were raid by the supplier for purchase of products inadvertently a different address and GSTN.
High Court denies widow’s tax exemption claim for buying two flats
The Delhi High Court recently denied a widow’s claim for capital gains tax exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act because she had purchased two non-adjacent flats in Noida using the proceeds from the sale of a plot she had inherited from her husband.
No GST provision renders assessee ineligible from applying for GST registration afresh after cancellation
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kirpal Singh, dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration, held that no provision under the CGST Act prohibits the Assessee from applying for fresh registration and the Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST dated March 28, 2019 (“the Circular”) was binding on the Assessee. Hence, granted liberty to the Assessee to seek new registration under the CGST Act.
CBIC is not obligated to issue clarifications on issues raised by way of representation or otherwise
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Association of Power Producers dismissed the writ petition seeking clarification from CBIC on GST applicability to Battery Energy Storage Systems thereby holding that, the CBIC is not required to issue clarifications on taxpayer queries and that taxpayer must determine GST liability by referring to statutory provisions.
Delhi High Court grants GST relief to Electricity Regulatory Commissions
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment granting goods and services tax (GST) relief to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).
Accused/Taxpayer cannot be kept in custody beyond the period of sixty days if complaint has not been filed pursuant to investigation for offences specified under GST Laws
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Tax, GST dismissed the writ petition filed by the Department and held that, Accused/Taxpayer cannot be kept in custody beyond a period of more than sixty days when the complaint, pursuant to the investigation, relating to offences specified under GST Laws has not been filed. The said relief has been granted by invoking the powers under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) [Now Section 187(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita].
Department shall provide the copies of documents/data derived from seized items during search and seizure proceedings
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aimay (P) Ltd. directed the Department to comply with the provisions of Section 67 of the CGST Act by ensuring that the copies of the documents and data seized be provided to the Petitioner, and the documents, records, laptops, CPUS and Mobile Phones are seized only till the time they are required but the time period in any case shall not exceed the time period later than 30 days after issuance of notice.
Telecom towers are moveable property which are eligible for ITC
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited held that telecommunication towers do not qualify test of permanency, they are not ‘attached to earth’, they can be dismantled and moved and are never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome vagaries of nature. Hence, they can be considered as moveable property which is eligible for Input Tax Credit (“ITC”).
SCN and Order uploaded under Heading “View Additional Notices and Orders” not proper service
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bablu Rana allowed the writ petition and set aside the Impugned Order wherein the SCN issued was uploaded under the Heading “View Additional Notices and Orders” stating that the same would not be considered as proper service of the notice.