TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
By creating an account you can:
of 45
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
Summary order. Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
Summary order. Application for exemption (CM Appl. 2492/2022) allowed; notice issued in W.P.(C) 871/2022 challenging Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and paragraph 12 of the Circular dated 18.11.2019 and the order dated 13.04.2021; matters listed on 17.01.2022.
Treatment of receipts for annual return reconciliation and timing of realization - finalisation of annual return under proviso to Section 37(9) - remedy under Section 112 via GST Tribunal where tribunal not constituted - interim protection from coercive measures - furnishing security as condition for interim protection
Interim protection from coercive measures - furnishing security as condition for interim protection - Interim protection from coercive measures was granted on specified conditions. - HELD THAT: - The Court admitted the writ petition and, as an interim measure, restrained the State from taking any coercive action against the petitioner provided the petitioner furnishes a valuable security of the specified amount with the Assessing Officer within two weeks. The order conditions the grant of interim relief on deposit of security and records that the petition has been admitted for consideration, while directing the State to file a counter affidavit and listing the matter for further hearing. No determination on the substantive merits was made in this interim direction.
No coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner if the petitioner furnishes the directed security within the stipulated time; the petition is admitted and the matter is posted for further hearing.
Treatment of receipts for annual return reconciliation and timing of realization - finalisation of annual return under proviso to Section 37(9) - remedy under Section 112 via GST Tribunal where tribunal not constituted - Substantive dispute regarding whether payments received in June 2019 relate to Financial year 2017-18 and the effect of reconciliation under the proviso to Section 37(9) was not adjudicated and remains for consideration. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner contended that certain payments received in June 2019 related to Financial year 2017-18 and could be accounted for in the annual return filed pursuant to the proviso to Section 37(9), and that non-acceptance of this explanation would amount to double taxation. The Court noted that the petitioner has an appellate remedy under Section 112 before the GST Tribunal but recorded that the Tribunal has not been constituted in the State, which constrained the petitioner to approach the Court. The Court did not decide the merits of the classification or the tax consequence of the receipts; instead the petition was admitted and the State directed to file a counter affidavit, leaving the substantive issue to be considered on merits at the next hearing.
Substantive question on timing and attribution of receipts and reconciliation under the proviso to Section 37(9) was not decided and stands for further consideration on admission of the petition.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was admitted; the State directed to file a counter affidavit and the petitioner to file a rejoinder; interim protection from coercive measures granted subject to the petitioner furnishing the specified security within two weeks; matter listed for further hearing.
Issues: Whether the Electronic Credit Ledger could remain blocked after expiry of the one-year period prescribed under Rule 86A(3) of the GST Rules.
Analysis: Rule 86A(3) permits blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger only for the prescribed period of one year. On expiry of that period, the blockage ceases to have effect automatically and the assessee must be allowed to utilise the available input tax credit unless a fresh order is passed. Continued restraint beyond the statutory period is without discretion and is inconsistent with the rule.
Conclusion: The Electronic Credit Ledger had to be unblocked after expiry of one year, and the writ-applicant was entitled to use the available credit.
Ratio Decidendi: A blocking order under Rule 86A is strictly time-bound, and upon expiry of the prescribed period it lapses automatically unless renewed by a fresh order.
Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger - automatic unblocking on expiry of one year under sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A - duty of the authority to permit availment of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger - no discretion to continue blocking after statutory period unless a fresh order is passed - personal liability of the authority for loss caused by wrongful continuation of blocking
Automatic unblocking on expiry of one year under sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A - duty of the authority to permit availment of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger - no discretion to continue blocking after statutory period unless a fresh order is passed - Entitlement of the writ-applicant to have the Electronic Credit Ledger unblocked upon expiry of the one-year period specified in sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A prescribes a statutory life of one year for an order blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger and that on expiry of that period the ledger ought to be automatically unblocked. It held that it was the duty of the authority to permit the assessee to avail the input credit available in the ledger once the statutory period ended and that, absent a fresh order validly extending or renewing the block, the authority has no further discretion to continue the block. The Court recorded that, in the present case, the one-year period had elapsed and yet the authority failed to permit availment of credit for more than two and a half months thereafter, despite representations from the writ-applicant. The factual finding and legal conclusion were applied to dispose of the writ by directing unblocking in view of the elapsed statutory period. [Paras 3, 4, 5]
The Electronic Credit Ledger must be unblocked as the one-year period under sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A had expired and the authority was bound to permit availment of input credit in the absence of any fresh order.
Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger - personal liability of the authority for loss caused by wrongful continuation of blocking - Consequences for the authority's wrongful failure to unblock the Electronic Credit Ledger after expiry of the statutory period. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted with concern the authority's failure to act promptly after the statutory period lapsed and observed that such conduct may cause loss to the assessee. While disposing of the writ by directing compliance with the statutory mandate, the Court warned that in future cases where a blocking order is wrongfully continued beyond its statutory life and causes loss, the concerned authority may be held personally liable for such loss. This pronouncement operates as a cautionary directive to authorities to comply with the statutory time-limit and to act on representations without undue delay. [Paras 6]
A warning was issued that authorities who wrongfully continue blocking beyond the statutory period may be held personally liable for consequential loss in future cases.
Final Conclusion: Writ disposed of by directing unblocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger since the one-year period under sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A had expired; authorities were directed to permit availment of input credit and warned of potential personal liability for wrongful continuation of blocking in future cases.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a case alleging creation and operation of fictitious firms and wrongful availment of bogus input tax credit under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The petitioner was accused of facilitating GST fraud through alleged creation of bogus business entities and use of forged identity documents, while the defence maintained that he acted only as a Chartered Accountant and had no role in the business operations or availing of fake input tax credit. Bail was considered on the settled principles governing personal liberty, the nature and seriousness of the accusation, the maximum punishment prescribed, the stage of investigation, the extent of collected material, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The materials were treated as sufficient to indicate a prima facie role for the petitioner, but the Court also noted that the prosecution case largely rested on documentation and related evidence, making interference with evidence less likely if strict safeguards were imposed.
Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing bail bond and sureties, non-interference with witnesses, non-tampering with evidence, surrender of passport, and restriction on leaving jurisdiction without permission.
Final Conclusion: The application for bail was allowed and the petitioner was released on conditions designed to secure the fairness of investigation and trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail in a serious economic offence may be granted where custody is no longer necessary for investigation and adequate conditions can sufficiently guard against witness influence and evidence tampering.
Grant of bail in economic offences - Allegations of creation and operation of fictitious GST firms and bogus ITC - Applicability of Section 132 OGST Act (offences relating to GST fraud) - Risk of tampering with evidence - Conditions for bail including surrender of passport and sureties
Grant of bail in economic offences - Allegations of creation and operation of fictitious GST firms and bogus ITC - Risk of tampering with evidence - Conditions for bail including surrender of passport and sureties - Whether the petitioner, accused of facilitating creation and operation of fictitious GST entities and enabling bogus input tax credit, is entitled to bail pending trial. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the nature and gravity of the accusations that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, allegedly assisted in obtaining GST registrations for fictitious concerns and thereby facilitated bogus ITC, with alleged joint and several liability under Section 132 of the OGST Act. The Court noted the substantial material collected during investigation, the asserted role of the petitioner in creating and operating fake firms and misuse of identity documents, and the potential societal harm from economic offences. Balance was struck between these factors and the realities of pre-trial detention: the petitioner had been in custody for four months, the prosecution's case primarily relied on documentary evidence, and the possibility of tampering with evidence was considered remote. Given the legal principles governing bail in economic offences and having regard to the facts, the Court concluded that release on bail was permissible but only subject to stringent conditions to safeguard the enquiry and trial, prevent witness tampering and ensure attendance. The conditions imposed include furnishing a bail bond with two solvent sureties, prohibition on inducing or intimidating witnesses, prohibition on influencing prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence, surrender of passport and restriction on leaving the court's jurisdiction without permission. The Court warned that violation of any condition would entail immediate cancellation of bail. [Paras 8, 10, 11]
Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed; petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond and two solvent sureties, subject to stringent conditions including surrender of passport, prohibition on influencing or intimidating witnesses, non-tampering with evidence, and prior permission to leave jurisdiction, with cancellation of bail on violation.
Final Conclusion: The High Court allowed the petition for bail in an economic offence prosecution under the OGST Act, releasing the petitioner on stringent conditions and providing that breach of those conditions will result in cancellation of bail.
Summary order. Proceeding adjourned to 25.01.2022; Revenue directed to obtain instructions on whether the Bombay High Court decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2021 (11) TMI 157) continues to hold the field or has been challenged, so that the court may decide the question of availability of the alternative statutory remedy.
Provisional attachment ceasing on expiry of one year under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - power of the Commissioner to order provisional attachment during pendency of proceedings under specified assessment or recovery provisions - binding effect of precedent in determining validity of continued provisional attachment
Provisional attachment ceasing on expiry of one year under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - power of the Commissioner to order provisional attachment during pendency of proceedings under specified assessment or recovery provisions - Provisional attachment effected on 11 October 2019 under Section 83(2) ceased to have effect after one year and the continued attachment was not sustainable. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted that the provisional attachment was effected on 11 October 2019 under the authority of the Commissioner during the pendency of proceedings under the specified assessment/recovery provisions. Relying on the binding exposition in the reported Supreme Court decision which approved the reasoning in Valerius Industries, it was held that a provisional attachment under sub section (2) of Section 83 is temporary and automatically ceases upon the expiry of one year from the date of the order made under sub section (1). The principles laid down in that precedent apply to the present facts and, since the attachment continued beyond the one year period, it ceased to have effect and could not be sustained. The Court, being bound by that precedent, quashed the continued attachment. [Paras 10, 11]
Writ petition allowed; the provisional attachment dated 11 October 2019 is set aside; rule made absolute; no order as to costs; parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
Final Conclusion: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the provisional attachment effected on 11 October 2019, holding that such attachment ceases to have effect after the statutory one year period and cannot be continued beyond that period in view of binding precedent.
Filing of appeal on wrong forum/portal - condonation of delay - duty of authority to notify misfiling - quashing of administrative orders to enable fresh filing - accessibility of online appeals by jurisdictional authority
Filing of appeal on wrong forum/portal - accessibility of online appeals by jurisdictional authority - condonation of delay - Petitioner's appeal uploaded on the Central GST portal instead of the State GST portal and consequences thereof. - HELD THAT: - The Court found on the record that the petitioner had in fact uploaded an appeal on the Central portal which was not visible on the State GST Back Office Portal. The appellate authority therefore did not issue final acknowledgement and returned the hard copy filed before the State Appellate Authority. Rather than enter into detailed legal niceties, the Court proceeded on the factual position that the appeal was filed before the wrong portal. In view of this misfiling and the appellant's apparent lack of notice of the error, the Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to file a fresh appeal on the appropriate State portal. Because the initial filing was before a wrong forum, the Court held that the delay in filing the fresh appeal shall be condoned.
Petitioner permitted to file a fresh appeal on the State GST portal; delay in filing the appeal condoned.
Quashing of administrative orders to enable fresh filing - Validity of the Appellate Authority's refusal to accept the hard copy of the appeal and attendant orders. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority refused to accept the hard copy on the ground that no corresponding online appeal was found on the State Back Office Portal. Given the factual finding that the online appeal existed on the Central portal and not on the State portal, the Court quashed the orders recorded as Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition to enable the petitioner to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate authority.
Orders at Annexures-6 and 7 quashed to enable fresh filing of the appeal.
Duty of authority to notify misfiling - Obligation of Central and State appellate authorities to inform appellants who file appeals before the wrong forum. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that when an appellant files an appeal before an incorrect portal or forum, it is incumbent upon the authorities to notify the appellant of the error so that corrective action may be taken. The Court, noting that the electronic facilities are relatively new and users may err, advised both Central and State Appellate Authorities to inform appellants by email when appeals are filed before the wrong forum.
Both Central and State Appellate Authorities advised to notify appellants by email where appeals are filed before the wrong forum.
Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed of; petitioner allowed to file a fresh appeal on the State GST portal with delay condoned and Annexures-6 and 7 quashed; appellate authorities advised to inform appellants by email in cases of misfiling.
Refund of tax under Section 54 - relevant date for limitation - reversal of input tax credit as tax - mistake of fact or mutual mistake and commencement of limitation - intimation in Electronic Credit Ledger (Form PMT-04) not a refund application - condonation of delay in filing appeal
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Whether delay in filing the appeals was to be condoned - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority found the appeals were filed beyond the three months prescribed under Section 107(1). Having considered the reasons advanced (disruption due to COVID-19 and illness of a partner) and the appellant's explanation, the Authority exercised discretion under Section 107(4) to condone the delay and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. [Paras 6]
Delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard on merits.
Reversal of input tax credit as tax - refund of tax under Section 54 - Whether the amounts reversed by the appellant are deposits/pre-deposits or constitute tax such that refund must be claimed under Section 54 - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the facts and noted the amounts related to transitional credit availed under Section 140 and reflected in GSTR-3B. The appellant themselves reversed those credits in subsequent returns and treated the amounts as tax liabilities. The Authority held that input tax credit is tax in nature and eligible credit reversed and reflected in returns amounts to tax paid/reversed under the GST law. Consequently, the contention that the reversed sums are mere deposits not subject to Section 54 was rejected as an afterthought. [Paras 6]
The reversal of input tax credit constitutes tax (not a mere deposit), and refund procedure under Section 54 is the applicable remedy.
Relevant date for limitation - refund of tax under Section 54 - Whether the date of reversal/payment of credit (1-2-2018 / 2-2-2018) or the date of discovery of mistake (departmental audit completion) is the relevant date for computing the two-year limitation under Section 54 - HELD THAT: - The Authority found no evidence of a mutual mistake or that the reversal was caused by an order or direction amounting to a refund-triggering event. The appellant had reversed the credit themselves and did not timely object. The Authority held that where refund is claimed under the category 'Any Other', clause (h) of sub-section (14)(2) applies and the relevant date is the date of payment. Accordingly, the relevant date for limitation was the date of reversal (1-2-2018 / 2-2-2018), not the later departmental audit date relied upon by the appellant. Reliance on decisions under earlier Central Excise jurisprudence was held inapposite to change the relevant date in the facts of this case. [Paras 6, 7]
The relevant date for limitation is the date of payment/reversal; the refund applications filed on 29-7-2020 were beyond two years and time-barred.
Intimation in Electronic Credit Ledger (Form PMT-04) not a refund application - relevant date for limitation - Whether the appellant's earlier intimation by Form PMT-04 could be treated as the refund claim date or interrupt the limitation period under Section 54 - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the appellant's contention that a PMT-04 intimation dated 7-12-2019 constituted an earlier refund claim or relevant initiating act. It observed that PMT-04 is an intimation mechanism under the CGST Rules for discrepancy in electronic ledgers and is not a statutory refund application under the refund provisions. Therefore the date of PMT-04 cannot be treated as the relevant date for computation of limitation under Section 54. [Paras 6, 7]
Form PMT-04 intimation is not a refund application and cannot be treated as the relevant date for limitation; it does not cure the delay.
Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing the appeals but upheld the impugned orders: the amounts reversed are treated as tax, the refund claims fall to be governed by Section 54 with the date of reversal as the relevant date, the refund applications filed on 29-7-2020 are time-barred, and both appeals are dismissed.
Limitation for refund under Section 54 - two years from the relevant date - relevant date for refund of exported goods - date on which ship or aircraft in which goods are loaded leaves India - extension of due date by Notification No. 35/2020 and amendment substituting dates to 31-8-2020 - requirement to rectify deficiencies and file a fresh refund application under Rule 90(3) - consequence of resubmission after deficiency - treated as a fresh application for limitation
Limitation for refund under Section 54 - two years from the relevant date - relevant date for refund of exported goods - date on which ship or aircraft in which goods are loaded leaves India - requirement to rectify deficiencies and file a fresh refund application under Rule 90(3) - consequence of resubmission after deficiency - treated as a fresh application for limitation - Refund claims filed by the appellant in respect of inputs used in exported goods were time barred. - HELD THAT: - The appeals concern refund claims for shipments in April 2018 to August 2018. Section 54(1) requires a refund application to be made within two years from the relevant date; Section 54(14)(2) defines relevant date for goods exported by sea as the date the ship in which the goods are loaded leaves India. The notified extension moved the due date to 31-08-2020 for compliances falling between 20-03-2020 and 30-08-2020. The appellant initially filed refund applications on 27-08-2020 but, on receipt of FORM GST RFD-03 pointing out deficiencies, submitted fresh applications on 08-09-2020. The export documents (EGMs) establish that the shipments left India on or before 31-08-2018, so the two-year limitation expired on or before 31-08-2020 as extended. Rule 90(3) mandates that where deficiencies are communicated the proper officer shall require filing of a fresh refund application after rectification; a rectified/resubmitted application is accordingly to be treated as a fresh application for the purposes of limitation. Applying these provisions, the resubmitted applications dated 08-09-2020 were filed after the expiry of the two-year period and therefore were time barred. The adjudicating authority's rejection on limitation grounds is upheld. [Paras 13, 14, 15]
All five refund claims are time barred and the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the refund applications.
Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) affirms the Orders-in-Original and dismisses all five appeals, holding the refund applications (filed after rectification) to be barred by the two year limitation computed from the relevant dates of shipment.
Approval to reopen assessment coupled with duty to apply mind - Re-opening of assessment under Section 148 - Jurisdictional satisfaction/approval under Section 151 - Non-application of mind - Diminution in value of investment and its recognition for tax purposes
Approval to reopen assessment coupled with duty to apply mind - Non-application of mind - Re-opening of assessment under Section 148 - Jurisdictional satisfaction/approval under Section 151 - Validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's approval to reopen assessment and consequential notice under Section 148 and order rejecting objections. - HELD THAT: - The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 263 in respect of the assessee's deduction for diminution in value of investment and after consideration directed that those proceedings be dropped. Notwithstanding that earlier order, the PCIT subsequently granted approval under Section 151 to the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 148, which included the very point the PCIT had earlier rejected. The court held that the power to grant approval to reopen is coupled with a duty to apply mind to the material placed before the approving authority and to be satisfied that the reasons are founded on technical information in possession. By granting approval without considering his own earlier order and the material on file, the PCIT failed to apply his mind and therefore exercised the power in a routine and perfunctory manner. Reliance on the principle in German Remedies Ltd. was noted to the effect that such approval cannot be mechanical. On this ground alone the approval was invalid, warranting quashing of the notice under Section 148 and the order on objections without adjudicating other contentions. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]
Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was vitiated by non-application of mind; the notice under Section 148 dated 30th March 2019 and the order rejecting objections dated 1st November 2019 are quashed and set aside.
Final Conclusion: Petition allowed; the reopening notice under Section 148 and the rejection of objections are quashed on the ground that the approving authority failed to apply his mind; matter disposed.
Power under Section 263 - Error and prejudice test for revision - Limitation of Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction (not appellate) - Registration under Section 12AA - Charitable purpose versus commercial activity - Predominant activity test - Generation of reasonable surplus not vitiating charitable status
Power under Section 263 - Error and prejudice test for revision - Limitation of Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction (not appellate) - Validity of the Commissioner's exercise of revisional powers under Section 263 to set aside the assessment order - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the revisional power under Section 263 is limited and can be exercised only where the assessing officer's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Commissioner does not possess appellate jurisdiction and cannot substitute his view for a plausible view taken by the assessing officer. As the Tribunal found that the assessing officer had made appropriate inquiries and taken a plausible view in allowing the exemption, the Commissioner's exercise of revisional power to reverse the assessment was not justified.
The Commissioner's order under Section 263 was not justified and the Tribunal correctly set aside the revisional order.
Registration under Section 12AA - Charitable purpose versus commercial activity - Effect of the continuing registration under Section 12AA and whether the trust's activities were non-charitable because of commercial receipts - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the trust's registration under Section 12AA remained undisturbed, and the Tribunal correctly held that the existence of registration was a relevant factor supporting the trust's charitable character. The Tribunal also found that the trust's commercial activities were not its primary or predominant activities. Consequently, the mere receipt of consideration under contracts or the generation of reasonable surplus did not convert the trust's activities into non-charitable or commercial activities that would defeat exemption.
Registration under Section 12AA stood and the Tribunal rightly concluded that the trust's predominant activities were charitable; commercial receipts and reasonable surplus did not negate charitable status.
Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal was right to set aside the revisional order of the Commissioner under Section 263: the assessing officer had taken a plausible view after inquiries, the Commissioner exceeded the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, and the trust's registration under Section 12AA and predominant charitable character entitled it to exemption for AY 2016-17.
Reopening of assessment - proviso to Section 147 regarding failure to disclose material facts - change of opinion - valuation of shares and addition under Section 56(2)(viib) - allowability of expenditure under Section 37 - consideration of assessee's replies during assessment
Reopening of assessment - proviso to Section 147 regarding failure to disclose material facts - change of opinion - consideration of assessee's replies during assessment - valuation of shares and addition under Section 56(2)(viib) - allowability of expenditure under Section 37 - Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 read with proviso to Section 147 to reopen assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 on the grounds relied upon by the assessing officer - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the reasons for reopening and found no material on record indicating that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts, as required by the proviso to Section 147. The two triggers relied upon by the assessing officer-(i) share valuation (discounted cash flow) and alleged consequent addition under Section 56(2)(viib), and (ii) expenditure claimed as cost of samples under Advertisement and Business Promotion-had been raised and replied to during the original assessment proceedings by letters and valuation report submitted by the assessee. The Court applied settled law that where primary facts were placed before and considered by the assessing officer, reopening on the same material to take a different view amounts to a change of opinion, which does not justify reassessment. The assessing officer neither identified any specific material fact that was not truly and fully disclosed nor explained how the earlier replies failed to disclose material facts; consequently the reasons amounted to a change of opinion and were insufficient to invoke the proviso to Section 147. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Notice dated 13th March 2020 under Section 148, the undated order, rejection order dated 27th September 2021 and reference order dated 29th September 2021 were quashed and set aside as reopening was not justified.
Final Conclusion: The High Court quashed the reopening notice and consequential orders for A.Y. 2013-14 on the ground that there was no failure to disclose material facts and the attempt to reassess was a mere change of opinion; petition disposed of with no order as to costs.
Reason to believe - mere change of opinion - tangible material - reopening of assessment - reasons recorded - power to reopen assessment under section 147 - failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts - disclosure of primary facts
Reason to believe - mere change of opinion - tangible material - reasons recorded - disclosure of primary facts - Validity of the notice under section 148 reopening assessment for assessment year 2014-15 - HELD THAT: - The Court examined whether the Assessing Officer had formed a valid "reason to believe"-on the basis of tangible material and not merely by a change of opinion-to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15. The reasons for reopening relied upon parity with disallowance made in AY 2015-16 and an assertion that the issue of reimbursement embedded in "Employee Cost" was not considered in the original assessment. The record, however, shows that queries were raised during the original assessment, the petitioner furnished Form 15CA/15CB, invoices and detailed explanations describing the remittances as reimbursements of payroll, and the matter was examined by the Transfer Pricing Officer whose order was adverted to in the assessment order. Once primary facts concerning the overseas remittances and reimbursement of employee cost were placed before and considered by the Assessing Officer (including by reference to the TPO's findings), the formation of a different view in a subsequent year amounted to a mere change of opinion as regards the same material. The reopening therefore lacked the requisite tangible material distinct from the material considered earlier and was legally unsustainable. [Paras 16, 22, 24, 29, 31]
Notice under section 148 and the order rejecting objections are vitiated as based on mere change of opinion and thus unlawful; reopening quashed.
Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; the notice dated 26th February 2019 under section 148 and the order disposing of objections (challenging reopening of assessment for AY 2014-15) are quashed on the ground that reopening was founded on a mere change of opinion and not on tangible material amounting to a valid reason to believe.
Assets put to use - commencement of business - interest under section 36(1)(iii) - depreciation and additional depreciation - absence of capital work in progress as evidence
Assets put to use - interest under section 36(1)(iii) - commencement of business - absence of capital work in progress as evidence - Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that loans for acquisition of fixed assets were not put to use. - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on the finding that the assets were not put to use, relying on (i) absence of documentary proof of machinery put to use, (ii) an advance paid for testing and installation, and (iii) low capacity utilisation (about 20-25%). The Tribunal held that actual operation at about 20% capacity and the admitted fact that there was no outstanding capital work in progress as on 31.03.2012 demonstrate that the assets were put to use and that the business had commenced. The mere fact of low capacity utilisation does not mean assets were unused; on the contrary, it indicates use. On these findings, the statutory disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) has no application and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld. [Paras 9]
Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) deleted; first ground of appeal dismissed.
Depreciation and additional depreciation - assets put to use - commencement of business - Deletion of addition of depreciation and additional depreciation on the ground that machinery was not put to use. - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that the assets were put to use and that the business had commenced (as reflected by operation during the year and absence of capital work in progress), the Tribunal found that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation and additional depreciation at the prescribed rates. The CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation and additional depreciation was therefore sustained and there was no error in deleting the addition. [Paras 10]
Deletion of addition of depreciation and additional depreciation upheld; grounds two and three dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of interest and allowing depreciation and additional depreciation are affirmed.
Income from house property - stock-in-trade - annual value - deemed rent - conflicting High Court precedents (Ansal Housing v. Neha Builders) and Tribunal precedent favouring assessee - sub-section (5) of section 23 - annual value taken as nil for property held as stock-in-trade for specified post-completion period
Income from house property - stock-in-trade - annual value - deemed rent - Assessability of annual value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade as income from house property - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined whether unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder could be assessed to tax under the head income from house property by taxing their annual value as deemed rent. Noting a split in High Court decisions - the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ansal holding such annual letting value chargeable as house property and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Neha Builders taking the contrary view - the Tribunal relied on a Coordinate Bench decision in Kumar Properties which, in absence of a contrary decision of the jurisdictional High Court, took the view favourable to the assessee that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade do not give rise to income chargeable as income from house property. The Tribunal observed that subsequent legislative amendment (sub section (5) of section 23) prescribing a nil annual value for a specified post completion period took effect from 01.04.2018 and did not alter the legal position applicable to the years under consideration. The Tribunal further found the reliance on Raj Dadarkar and Associates by the lower authority to be misplaced as that decision dealt with a different factual/legal matrix. Applying the Coordinate Bench precedent, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in bringing the annual value of the unsold flats to tax and directed deletion of the addition. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12]
Addition of annual value of unsold flats assessed as income from house property deleted and the appeals allowed.
Final Conclusion: In respect of assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the annual value of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by the builder cannot be assessed as income from house property and accordingly set aside the additions, allowing the appeals.
Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) - Voluntariness of disclosure versus disclosure consequent to detection in survey - Statement recorded during survey under Section 133A and its evidentiary effect - Inclusion of disclosed income in return filed in response to notice and acceptance in assessment - Consistency with earlier tribunal decision as binding precedent for deletion of penalty
Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) - Voluntariness of disclosure versus disclosure consequent to detection in survey - Inclusion of disclosed income in return filed in response to notice and acceptance in assessment - Consistency with earlier tribunal decision as binding precedent for deletion of penalty - Deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of additional income disclosed during survey and thereafter included in the return - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that during a survey under Section 133A the assessee's representative admitted additional income on account of alleged bogus purchases but also stated that purchases were actually made though the assessee could not prove the parties' genuineness to the Revenue; the admission was made to avoid litigation. That disclosed amount was included in the return filed in response to reassessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer accepted the return without making additions. Relying on the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, where similar facts led to deletion of penalty, the Tribunal held that where the disclosed income is included in the return and accepted in assessment, imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified. Applying that reasoning to the present facts, the Tribunal concluded that the disclosure was not a deliberate concealment warranting penalty and therefore deleted the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). [Paras 5, 7]
Penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) is deleted.
Final Conclusion: All three appeals are allowed; the penalty confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is deleted for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.
Registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act - genuineness of objects and activities of a trust - separation between grant of registration and assessment proceedings - non-filing of returns or non-payment of tax cannot by itself invalidate claim for registration
Registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act - genuineness of objects and activities of a trust - non-filing of returns or non-payment of tax cannot by itself invalidate claim for registration - separation between grant of registration and assessment proceedings - Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application in Form No.10A for registration under Section 12AA of the Act on the ground of non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax, and whether registration should be granted. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the impugned order rejecting registration and the material on record, including the assessee's written submissions and acknowledgements evidencing filing of returns and payment of tax for F.Y. 2016-17 and F.Y. 2017-18. It noted that the CIT(Exemption) did not point to any defect in the objects of the trust or to any non-genuineness in the trust's activities, but founded the rejection solely on an incorrect factual premise that returns were not filed and taxes not paid. The Tribunal relied on the settled principle that the mandate of Section 12AA is concerned with whether the objects of the trust are charitable and whether activities are genuine, and that grant of registration is distinct from assessment proceedings (as applied in Ananda Social and Educational Trust and in the Tribunal's earlier decision in Sant Zolebaba Sansthan Chikhali). Consequently, issues relating to assessment, income determination or tax payment are not proper grounds for refusing registration under Section 12AA when no adverse finding is recorded about the trust's objects or genuineness of activities. Applying these principles to the facts, and noting that the returns for the specified years were in fact filed before the impugned order, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection was unsustainable.
The order of the CIT(Exemption) rejecting registration under Section 12AA is set aside and the CIT(Exemption) is directed to grant registration to the assessee under Section 12AA from the date of application.
Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed; registration under Section 12AA to be granted from the date of application as the rejection based solely on non-filing/non-payment was unsustainable and no adverse finding as to objects or genuineness of activities was recorded.
Reopening of assessment and requirement of recorded reasons under section 148 - disposal of objections to reasons prior to completion of reassessment (GKN Driveshafts principle) - borrowed satisfaction v. Assessing Officer's own satisfaction in reassessment - admission of additional legal ground of appeal - estimation of agricultural income and consistency principle - treatment of sale of livestock as non-agricultural income - ad hoc disallowance for unverifiable purchases and duty to afford opportunity (principles of natural justice)
Reopening of assessment and requirement of recorded reasons under section 148 - disposal of objections to reasons prior to completion of reassessment (GKN Driveshafts principle) - Validity of reassessment for A.Y. 2009-10 in absence of reasons furnished to the assessee and failure to dispose of objections prior to completion of assessment. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not furnish the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment to the assessee and consequently the assessee had no opportunity to file objections or rebut material, in breach of the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts and related authorities. Reliance on binding decisions of the Bombay High Court (including CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. and subsequent coordinate Bench decisions) established that where reasons are not furnished and objections are not disposed of by a separate speaking order before completion of reassessment, the reassessment is vitiated. In the facts, absence of reasons on record and failure to give them to the assessee led to conclusion that reassessment was bad in law and had to be quashed; merits were not undertaken as consequence. [Paras 11, 16]
Reassessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 quashed as bad in law for non-supply of reasons and non-disposal of objections.
Admission of additional legal ground of appeal - Admissibility of the assessee's additional ground challenging validity of notice under section 148 for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee was purely a legal question not requiring additional facts and therefore admitted the ground relying on the Apex Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. The admission was recorded for both the years before examining the substantive challenge to reopening. [Paras 8, 19]
Additional legal ground of appeal admitted for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11.
Borrowed satisfaction v. Assessing Officer's own satisfaction in reassessment - reopening of assessment and requirement of recorded reasons under section 148 - Validity of reassessment for A.Y. 2010-11 where reasons recorded show reliance on information from Investigation Wing and no independent inquiry by the Assessing Officer (borrowed satisfaction). - HELD THAT: - On review of the reasons recorded, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had largely relied on information supplied by the Investigation Wing without conducting any independent inquiry, and that certain factual assertions in the reasons (e.g., dates of land transfer) were incorrect when compared with documents in record. The authorities establish that reassessment must rest on the Assessing Officer's own satisfaction based on tangible material and a live link between that material and the belief that income escaped assessment; reliance on 'borrowed' satisfaction renders the notice invalid. Accordingly, the reassessment for A.Y. 2010-11 was quashed. [Paras 21, 22]
Reassessment order for A.Y. 2010-11 quashed as bad in law for being based on borrowed satisfaction and defective reasons.
Estimation of agricultural income and consistency principle - treatment of sale of livestock as non-agricultural income - Validity of Ld. CIT(A)'s estimation of agricultural income at 40% of gross for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 and treatment of sale of goats/goat mindvi. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the record and noted that the Assessing Officer had relied on investigation findings (disputed by the assessee and addressed by the CIT(A)) to treat agricultural receipts as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s onward estimation of net agricultural income at 40% of gross was held to be without supporting material and based on assumptions; moreover, the Department had accepted agricultural income for two adjacent years on similar facts, invoking the principle of consistency. The Tribunal directed exclusion of proceeds from sale of goats and goat mindvi from agricultural income, holding those receipts not to be agricultural income, and ordered recomputation treating the balance as agricultural income. For the sale of goats/goat mindvi the Tribunal accepted that a reasonable net-profit estimate was appropriate and, in the interest of justice, fixed the net income therefrom at 10% of such sales (higher than the assessee's suggested 5%). [Paras 26, 27, 28]
CIT(A)'s 40% estimate set aside; agricultural income to exclude sale of goats/goat mindvi (treated as non-agricultural) and income from such sales to be assessed at 10% of gross sales; recomputation directed for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16.
Ad hoc disallowance for unverifiable purchases and duty to afford opportunity (principles of natural justice) - Sustainability and quantum of ad hoc disallowance (10% of purchases and other expenses) made by AO for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 where third-party enquiries returned no response and field reports were not confronted with the assessee. - HELD THAT: - The Assessing Officer made a broad 10% disallowance of profit element in purchases (on finding purchases could be from grey market and not verifiable) and 10% of other expenses, relying on non-response to section 133(6) notices and uncommunicated field enquiries. The Tribunal observed that books were audited without adverse remarks, the assessee had produced invoices and sales accounted for, and the field reports were not placed before the assessee for rebuttal, amounting to procedural infirmity and breach of natural justice. Balancing the facts and in the interests of justice the Tribunal found a reduced ad hoc disallowance of 5% adequate and ordered accordingly. [Paras 29, 33]
Ad hoc disallowance reduced from 10% to 5% of purchases/other expenses for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16; ground partly allowed.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 and quashed the reassessment orders for those years-2009-10 for non-supply of recorded reasons and failure to dispose objections, and 2010-11 for reliance on borrowed satisfaction. For A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 the Tribunal disallowed treating the entire agricultural receipts as unexplained, excluded sale of goats/goat mindvi from agricultural income (assessed netly at 10% of such sales), directed recomputation of agricultural income, and reduced the AO's ad hoc disallowance from 10% to 5%.
Registration under section 12AA - application under clause (ab) of sub-section (1) to Section 12A - maintainability of belated application for modification of objects - Rule 17A compliance - de novo consideration - opportunity to rectify procedural mistakes in Form No.10A
Application under clause (ab) of sub-section (1) to Section 12A - maintainability of belated application for modification of objects - Rule 17A compliance - Whether the application for registration should be rejected as not maintainable on account of being filed under clause (ab) of sub-section (1) to Section 12A beyond the 30 day period and without furnishing amended constitutional documents. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found on the record that the assessee had in fact filed an application for registration for the first time but, owing to a bonafide mistake, marked Column 5a of Form No.10A as an application under clause (ab) of sub section (1) to Section 12A. The CIT(Exemption) treated the filing as an application under clause (ab), held it time barred and also noted non compliance with the requirement to furnish documents evidencing modification of objects as per Rule 17A. The authorised representative explained the erroneous entry and sought restoration for fresh consideration. The Departmental Representative conceded that the issue had not been examined properly and accepted restoration for re examination. In view of the admitted mistake in the Form and the lack of proper examination on the merits, the Tribunal concluded that fairness requires the application to be restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake and furnish requisite documents. [Paras 6, 7]
The matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for de novo consideration of the Form No.10A application, with opportunity to rectify the error and to furnish required documents; appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored the assessee's Form No.10A application to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration and disposal after permitting the assessee to rectify the inadvertent mistake and to supply the necessary documents.
Revision under section 263-Explanation 2(a) (failure to make enquiries) - adequacy of enquiries by assessing officer - taxability of shares received by way of gift under section 56(2)(viia) - company as donor and validity of gift of shares - direction to examine section 68 without opportunity
Revision under section 263-Explanation 2(a) (failure to make enquiries) - adequacy of enquiries by assessing officer - Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in holding the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial under Explanation 2 to section 263 for alleged failure of the Assessing Officer to make enquiries - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to section 263 deems an assessment order erroneous only where the Assessing Officer failed to make enquiries which he, acting as a prudent and judicious officer, was reasonably expected to make. The revisionary power cannot be exercised for mere omission of peripheral or immaterial enquiries; the PCIT must specify what meaningful, pertinent and relevant enquiries were not made. On the facts, the AO had obtained and considered material including board resolutions of donor companies, demat/delivery instructions, SEBI disclosure, partnership deed, accounts showing investment and dividend and specific letters explaining applicability of section 56(2)(viia). The Tribunal found these enquiries to be relevant and adequate for determining taxability of the gift of shares and concluded that the PCIT failed to indicate any specific meaningful enquiries omitted by the AO. Therefore the deeming provision was not attracted and the order under section 263 could not be sustained. [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 33]
Revision under section 263 set aside as there was no failure by the AO to make relevant and pertinent enquiries; Explanation 2(a) does not apply.
Taxability of shares received by way of gift under section 56(2)(viia) - company as donor and validity of gift of shares - Whether the shares received by the assessee as gift were chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viia) - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that section 56(2)(viia) applies where a firm or company receives shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested. The shares in question were of Wockhardt Ltd, a listed company covered by the definition of a company in which the public are substantially interested, and hence excluded from the scope of section 56(2)(viia). The Tribunal further held there is no bar on a company making a gift of shares and that the AO had examined and accepted the facts of transfer (board resolutions, demat transfer to trustee, SEBI disclosure and accounting treatment). Absent contrary evidence showing the gift to be a sham, the transaction was a capital receipt and not taxable under section 56(2)(viia). [Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 33]
Shares received as gift are not chargeable under section 56(2)(viia) because they were shares of a company in which the public are substantially interested; the AO's conclusion to that effect was sustained.
Direction to examine section 68 without opportunity - principles of natural justice in revisionary proceedings - Whether the PCIT was right in directing the Assessing Officer to examine applicability of section 68 without putting the assessee on notice - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that while the PCIT has power under section 263 to make or cause enquiries, he must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard on any matter contemplated in the revision. In this case the PCIT's order casually directed the AO to examine section 68 if the gift was found invalid, but did not put that issue to the assessee during revisionary proceedings nor explain how section 68 applied to receipt of shares (as opposed to credit of a sum). The Tribunal held such a direction, made without affording the assessee an opportunity and without articulating the basis of applicability of section 68, was improper. [Paras 31]
Direction to examine section 68 without giving the assessee an opportunity was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 dated 09/03/2021 was quashed: the Assessing Officer had made relevant and adequate enquiries and correctly held the gift of listed shares not taxable under section 56(2)(viia); furthermore the PCIT erred in directing an examination under section 68 without affording the assessee an opportunity. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Unexplained investment under section 69 - excess stock treated as business income - applicability of section 115BBE - retrospective operation of tax amendments - cumulative conditions for invoking section 69 - mixed stock not separately identifiable
Unexplained investment under section 69 - mixed stock not separately identifiable - excess stock treated as business income - Whether the excess physical stock found on search should be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 or as business income taxable under normal rates - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the factual matrix and the authorities relied upon and accepted the view recorded by the CIT(A) that the excess stock was part of the mixed business stock and was not separately identifiable. The assessee had admitted in his statement recorded under section 132(4) that the excess represented additional business income for FY 2016-17 and no material was produced to show any other source of income. In such circumstances, and following consistent precedents that where undisclosed stock forms part of the overall trading stock and lacks independent physical identity it represents undeclared business receipts, the addition as unexplained investment under section 69 was not warranted. Consequently the amount was to be taxed as business income at normal rates. [Paras 7, 8]
The excess stock is business income and not unexplained investment under section 69; the CIT(A)'s direction to treat it as business income is upheld.
Cumulative conditions for invoking section 69 - unexplained investment under section 69 - Whether the conditions for invoking section 69 were satisfied in the assessee's case - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted the statutory conditions for invoking section 69 and accepted the view that, although the existence of unrecorded investments and non-recording in books were satisfied, the statutory scheme requires either absence of any explanation or an explanation unsatisfactory to the AO. The assessee had offered an explanation in his sworn statement attributing the excess to regular business operations; neither the search party nor the AO produced evidence to rebut or to show alternative sources. On that basis, the Tribunal agreed that section 69 could not be properly invoked as the requisite cumulative conditions were not met. [Paras 7, 8]
Section 69 was not properly attracted because the assessee had offered an explanation linking the excess to business receipts and the necessary conditions for deeming under section 69 were not fulfilled.
Applicability of section 115BBE - retrospective operation of tax amendments - Whether the amended, higher-tax provisions of section 115BBE applied to the surrendered income uncovered by a search conducted on 15.12.2016 - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that the search took place on 15.12.2016 and the amendment to section 115BBE (raising the tax rate) was effective from 01.04.2017. Applying settled principles that substantive amendments are not to be given retrospective effect unless expressly provided, and having regard to precedents holding that additions consequent to a search before the amendment should be taxed under the law prevailing at the time, the Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in invoking the amended higher rate of section 115BBE. Given that the amount was to be treated as business income, the special taxing mechanism under section 115BBE in its amended form was inapplicable. [Paras 7, 8]
The amended provisions of section 115BBE (effective 01.04.2017) do not apply to the amount surrendered following the search on 15.12.2016; the special higher rate is not attracted.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the excess stock of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- found on search is to be treated as business income taxable at normal rates and that section 115BBE (as amended effective 01.04.2017) is not applicable to the surrendered amount arising from the search on 15.12.2016.
Revision under section 263 - erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue - estimation of income where books not maintained - application of plausible view by Assessing Officer - allowability of depreciation and interest after estimation of gross income - penalty proceedings under section 271A - validity of dropping penalty - scope of interference in revision where two views possible
Estimation of income where books not maintained - application of plausible view by Assessing Officer - allowability of depreciation and interest after estimation of gross income - revision under section 263 - erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue - scope of interference in revision where two views possible - Validity of revision under section 263 in setting aside the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation and interest after estimating gross income. - HELD THAT: - The assessing officer scrutinised the receipts, issued queries, proposed estimation of gross income and ultimately estimated gross income at 10% of turnover while allowing deduction of depreciation and interest. The Commissioner (Principal CIT) treated that allowance as contrary to section 44AD(2) and held the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, setting it aside under section 263. The Tribunal examined the material and found that the AO had applied his mind and taken a conscious, plausible view on estimation and on allowing depreciation and interest. Applying the settled principle that section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has taken a view that is sustainable in law and where two views are possible, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in interfering. Reliance on precedent recognising that an order is not 'erroneous and prejudicial' merely because the Commissioner prefers a different view supports the conclusion that revision was unsustainable on this issue. [Paras 13, 14]
Revision order under section 263 setting aside the assessment for allowing depreciation and interest after estimating income is unsustainable and is set aside; the AO's view was plausible and not erroneous prejudicial to revenue.
Penalty proceedings under section 271A - validity of dropping penalty - revision under section 263 - scope of separate order for penalty matters - Validity of the Principal CIT's observation that dropping of penalty under section 271A was based on a wrong appreciation of law, and whether the Tribunal should interfere with that observation. - HELD THAT: - The Principal CIT held that the A.O.'s dropping of penalty under section 271A was a wrong appreciation of the High Court judgment relied upon by the assessee and included that finding in the revision order. The assessee contended that a separate revision order should have been passed in respect of the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been given an opportunity to be heard by the Principal CIT. The assessee did not furnish authorities to nail down the asserted procedural defect. In these circumstances the Tribunal did not find it necessary to interfere with the Principal CIT's observations on the penalty-dropping issue. [Paras 15]
The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Principal CIT's observations regarding the dropping of penalty under section 271A and did not upset that part of the revision exercise.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the Tribunal quashed the revision insofar as it set aside the assessment for allowing depreciation and interest after estimating income (holding the AO's view plausible), but it did not interfere with the Principal CIT's observations concerning the dropping of penalty under section 271A.
Rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) - estimation of suppressed production on basis of installed capacity and excise levy - deemed production for excise duty as yardstick - deductibility under section 43B of delayed employees' provident fund contribution - treatment of employer and employee contributions to welfare funds under section 43B
Rejection of books of accounts under section 145(3) - estimation of suppressed production on basis of installed capacity and excise levy - deemed production for excise duty as yardstick - Validity of addition of Rs. 3,44,85,310 determined as value of suppressed production after rejection of books and estimation of production. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer validly rejected the assessee's books under the statutory test because the assessee failed to furnish day to day purchase/consumption details, delivery challans, purchase bills and other material called for; the pattern of lopsided purchases (majority at year end), low recorded production vis a vis substantial excise duty paid under the compounded levy tied to machine capacity, and absence of satisfactory explanation justified rejection of books. Given those infirmities and the compounded excise regime where duty was fixed with reference to installed machine capacity, the lower authorities legitimately used the deemed production basis adopted by excise authorities (installed capacity) as the yardstick to estimate shortfall. The information from the Sales Tax Department about unaccounted sales by the sister concern to whom the assessee supplied further fortified the inference of suppressed production. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the A.O.'s estimation of suppressed production at 3,44,85,310 pouches valued at Re.1 per pouch and confirmed the addition. [Paras 9, 10]
Addition of Rs. 3,44,85,310 towards suppressed production upheld and ground dismissed.
Deductibility under section 43B of delayed employees' provident fund contribution - treatment of employer and employee contributions to welfare funds under section 43B - Whether the delayed deposit of employees' contribution to Provident Fund is disallowable or saved by section 43B if deposited before the due date for filing return. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered binding and persuasive decisions of High Courts holding that employees' as well as employers' contributions to PF/ESI fall within the ambit of section 43B and that delayed payments deposited before the return filing due date fall within the statutory protection. Relying on the Bombay High Court decision and other cited authorities, the Tribunal concluded that no distinction arises between employer and employee contributions for the purpose of section 43B and therefore the disallowance of the delayed employees' contribution could not be sustained where the amount was deposited before the due date for filing the return. [Paras 11]
Disallowance of Rs. 9,18,996 relating to delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution vacated; additional ground allowed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the addition on account of suppressed production (Rs. 3,44,85,310) is upheld; the disallowance of delayed employees' provident fund contribution (Rs. 9,18,996) is vacated under section 43B.
Disallowance under section 14A - Application of Rule 8D for computation of disallowance - Limitation of section 14A disallowance to the amount of exempt income - Deductibility of education cess and higher education cess under section 40(a)(ii) - Powers of appellate authorities to allow deductions not claimed in original return
Disallowance under section 14A - Application of Rule 8D for computation of disallowance - Limitation of section 14A disallowance to the amount of exempt income - Extent of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of exempt dividend income received during the year - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the quantification of disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D as applied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), and considered the contention that the disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income received. Relying on the array of judicial authorities cited by the assessee (including decisions treating the 14A disallowance as cap limited by exempt income), the Tribunal agreed that the amount of disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt dividend income actually received in the year. Having accepted that legal principle, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the exempt dividend amount of Rs. 9,93,863/-, thereby allowing the grounds challenging the larger disallowance computed under Rule 8D. The Tribunal therefore gave effect to the rule of proportionality between exempt income and corresponding disallowance and set aside the higher computation made by the AO. [Paras 8]
Disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D restricted to the amount of exempt dividend income received in A.Y 2015-16; AO to give effect accordingly.
Deductibility of education cess and higher education cess under section 40(a)(ii) - Powers of appellate authorities to allow deductions not claimed in original return - Whether amounts paid as Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess are deductible while computing business income and whether appellate authorities can allow such deduction though not claimed in the original return - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Limited and concluded that the expression in Section 40(a)(ii) - restricting deduction of "any rate or tax levied" - does not include "cess"; legislative history and the CBDT circular were held to support that omission. Accordingly, amounts paid as Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess are not barred from deduction under section 40(a)(ii) and are allowable while computing profits and gains of business. The Tribunal also accepted the principle that appellate authorities have power to allow a deduction claimed before them even if not made in the original return, and therefore allowed the assessee's additional ground seeking deduction of the cesses. [Paras 7]
Claim for deduction of Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess allowed; appellate authority entitled to allow such deduction despite absence of claim in original return.
Final Conclusion: In part allowing the appeal, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D be limited to the exempt dividend income received in A.Y 2015-16 and allowed the deduction of Education Cess and Higher and Secondary Education Cess; the appeal is allowed accordingly.
Judicial discretion to dispense with meetings under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - sanctioning of a scheme of amalgamation - convening of meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors - provisional accounting statements circulation under the Companies Act - continuity of employment and protection of employees' terms on amalgamation - statutory compliance for notice, advertisement and filing requirements for compromise/arrangement
Judicial discretion to dispense with meetings under Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - convening of meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors - Whether meetings of shareholders and creditors should be dispensed with or convened for the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation for each applicant company and, where convened, the schedule and quorum for such meetings. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal exercised its judicial discretion under the provisions governing compromises, arrangements and amalgamations to determine, on the facts and ownership patterns before it and in view of affidavits of consent, which meetings could be dispensed with and which must be convened. For Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (transferor companies) the meetings of equity shareholders were dispensed with because all shareholders had given affidavits of consent and the shareholding/ownership pattern justified dispensation; there were no secured creditors for these transferor companies and where no unsecured creditors existed no meeting was required. For Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No. 2 the meetings of unsecured creditors were directed to be convened on specified dates by video conferencing with remote e-voting and prescribed quorum (numerical and 40% value). For Applicant No. 4 (transferee company) the meetings of equity shareholders, secured creditors and unsecured creditors were directed to be convened on specified dates by video conferencing with remote e-voting with prescribed quorums (numerical and 40% value). The Tribunal further provided that if the requisite quorum is not present at commencement the meeting shall stand adjourned for 30 minutes and thereafter those present and voting shall constitute the quorum.
Dispensed with meetings of equity shareholders of Applicant Nos. 1-3; directed convening of specified meetings for unsecured creditors of Applicant Nos.1-2 and for equity shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of Applicant No.4 with fixed dates, modes and quorums; adjournment rule where quorum absent.
Appointment of Chairperson, Alternate Chairperson and Scrutinizer for meetings - remuneration and reimbursement for meeting officers - Appointment and remuneration of persons to preside over and scrutinize the meetings convened under the order. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal appointed a Senior Advocate as Chairperson, named an Alternate Chairperson and appointed a Scrutinizer for the meetings to be called, and fixed their fees and out-of-pocket expense arrangements. The fees and expenses of the Chairperson, Alternate Chairperson and Scrutinizer are to be borne jointly by Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4. These appointments and the fee directions form part of the procedural directions to ensure proper conduct of the meetings called under the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016.
Specified persons appointed as Chairperson, Alternate Chairperson and Scrutinizer with fixed fees; fees and out-of-pocket expenses to be borne jointly by Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4.
Provisional accounting statements circulation under the Companies Act - statutory compliance for notice, advertisement and filing requirements for compromise/arrangement - Directions as to the form and manner of notice, dissemination of the Scheme and explanatory statement, circulation of provisional accounting statements and compliance with statutory filing and publication requirements prior to the meetings. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal directed that individual notices of the meetings be sent 30 days in advance by registered post/speed post/courier or email together with a copy of the Scheme, the explanatory statement and other documents required under the Act and Rules. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were directed to circulate provisional accounting statements as on 30.09.2021 (or a later date) for the meetings. The applicants were ordered to publish advertisements in the specified newspapers not less than 30 clear days before the meetings and to publish the notice on their websites where available. The applicants must send statutory notices in Form No. CAA-3 and required documents to specified governmental and regulatory authorities and comply with filing and affidavit requirements, including furnishing affidavits of service and publication at least one week before the meetings. The Scrutinizer's report is to record compliance with these directions and the Chairperson is to report results in Form No. CAA-4 within seven days of conclusion.
Applicants directed to comply with specific notice, circulation, advertisement, statutory filing and affidavit requirements and to circulate provisional accounting statements; Scrutinizer and Chairperson to report compliance and results in prescribed forms and timeframes.
Continuity of employment and protection of employees' terms on amalgamation - Treatment of staff, workmen and employees on the coming into effect of the Scheme. - HELD THAT: - The Scheme provides that all staff, workmen and employees of the transferor companies in employment on the Effective Date shall become employees of the transferee company with effect from the Appointed Date, with continuity of employment and on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable immediately prior to transfer. The Tribunal noted this provision of the Scheme while passing directions for meetings and disclosure to stakeholders.
Employees of transferor companies shall be deemed to have continuous employment with the transferee company from the Appointed Date and their terms shall not be less favourable than before transfer.
Final Conclusion: First motion petition disposed of with directions: meetings dispensed with or convened as specified for each applicant; detailed procedural directions given for conduct of meetings (mode, dates, quorums), appointment and payment of Chairperson/Alternate/Scrutinizer, circulation of provisional accounts, notices, publications and statutory filings; Chairperson and Scrutinizer to report results and compliance within prescribed timeframes.
Restoration of company name - Strike off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Running business as on the date of strike off - Obligation to file annual returns and financial statements - Consequential conditions for restoration - Prohibition on alienation of assets pending compliance - Directors' disqualification under Section 164 not automatically remedied - Payment of costs and filing of affidavit of compliance
Restoration of company name - Restoration under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - Running business as on the date of strike off - Obligation to file annual returns and financial statements - Whether the name of M/s. Ezhil Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd. should be restored to the Register of Companies. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the materials placed by the petitioner, including the lease agreement, balance sheets for FY 2018-19 to 2020-21 and documents indicating grant of quarrying/clearance, and concluded that the company had been active and carrying on its business for the two years preceding the date of strike off. Applying the discretion vested under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, and having regard to interests of stakeholders including members, employees and revenue, the Tribunal found it just to restore the company's name subject to specified conditions. Restoration is conditioned upon filing of outstanding annual returns and financial statements for the period of default with requisite fees and additional fees/late charges, payment of prescribed cost, and other compliance directions imposed by the Tribunal. [Paras 10, 11]
The petition to restore the company's name is allowed and the Registrar of Companies, Chennai is directed to restore the company's status to active, subject to specified compliance conditions.
Consequential conditions for restoration - Prohibition on alienation of assets pending compliance - Payment of costs and filing of affidavit of compliance - Directors' disqualification under Section 164 not automatically remedied - What conditions and consequential effects attend restoration of the company's name, and whether restoration reinstates any disqualified directors automatically. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal imposed specific conditions as part of the restoration order: (a) filing of all outstanding annual returns, balance sheets and other statutory compliances within 30 days of restoration with requisite fees and additional charges; (b) payment of costs by online payment under the MCA portal; (c) prohibition on alienation or disposal of valuable assets until compliances are completed; (d) filing of an affidavit of compliance within two months; and (e) shareholders' undertaking regarding non-use of accounts to transact tainted money during demonetisation. The Tribunal expressly observed that restoration of the company's name does not automatically revive or restore any director disqualified under Section 164; any restoration of directorships must follow law. [Paras 11]
Restoration is subject to the Tribunal's enumerated conditions and does not automatically relieve or reinstate directors disqualified under Section 164.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the petition and directed the Registrar of Companies, Chennai to restore M/s. Ezhil Blue Metals Pvt. Ltd. to active status, subject to filing outstanding statutory compliances with fees, payment of costs, an undertaking and affidavit of compliance, a prohibition on disposal of assets pending compliance, and without affecting the legal status of any directors disqualified under Section 164.
Operational debt - Operational creditor - advance payment - privity of contract - maintainability under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
Operational debt - Operational creditor - advance payment - privity of contract - maintainability under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Whether the amount advanced by the petitioner to the corporate debtor constitutes an "operational debt" and whether the petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 is maintainable. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the definitions of "Operational Creditor" and "Operational Debt" under Sections 5(20) and 5(21) of the IBC, 2016. The admitted factual position was that the corporate debtor, and not the petitioner, was the service provider; the petition is founded on an advance payment made by the petitioner which the corporate debtor has not refunded. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the advance falls within the four corners of "operational debt", noting absence of privity of contract establishing that the petitioner supplied goods or services to the corporate debtor or that the claim arose as a provider's monetary claim for goods or services. Reliance placed by the petitioner on precedent involving principal agent or service provider relationships was held to be inapposite on the facts of this case. Having concluded that the alleged liability does not qualify as an "operational debt", the petition under Section 9 was held to be not maintainable. [Paras 8]
The petition under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 is dismissed on the ground that the alleged claim does not constitute an "operational debt"; petition dismissed without costs.
Final Conclusion: The application to initiate CIRP under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 is dismissed because the claimed advance does not qualify as an "operational debt" within the meaning of the Code; no costs awarded.
Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors - limited judicial review under Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) - time bound nature of the CIRP and extension under Section 12(2) - implementation of the approved resolution plan and finality of actions taken thereunder - Regulation 40C - special provision relating to timelines during COVID 19 lockdown - equal opportunity to resolution applicants in the RFRP/process
Commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors - limited judicial review under Section 30(2) and Section 61(3) - time bound nature of the CIRP and extension under Section 12(2) - Validity of the CoC's refusal to grant further extension to the appellant and approval of the Resolution Plan submitted by the successful resolution applicant. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the decision of the CoC to decline further extension after multiple extensions was not unreasonable or arbitrary and fell within the commercial domain of the CoC which is not amenable to judicial interference. The Court emphasised that the IBC is a time bound statute and any extension of the CIRP timeline must comply with the mechanism in Section 12(2); the RP cannot act contrary to a CoC decision. The appellate review is limited and cannot trespass upon the commercial decision of the majority of the CoC as circumscribed by Section 30(2) and Section 61(3). Having regard to those constraints, the CoC's conduct in refusing further extension and proceeding with the open bidding could not be set aside. [Paras 2, 13]
CoC's refusal to extend time and subsequent approval of the successful resolution plan was valid; the appeal on this ground is dismissed.
Regulation 40C - special provision relating to timelines during COVID 19 lockdown - equal opportunity to resolution applicants in the RFRP/process - Whether the appellant's plea of inability to finalise the resolution plan due to COVID 19 and the reliance on Regulation 40C entitled it to further time. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation - that lockdown and illness of a director prevented finalisation - not persuasive in the factual matrix, noting availability of remote working and that multiple opportunities and extensions had already been granted. The Adjudicating Authority's observation that Regulation 40C applies only for the lockdown period was accepted; moreover all resolution applicants had been given equal opportunities and the appellant chose to exit the meeting after seeking limited time. The Tribunal did not accept the contention that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity. [Paras 8, 10, 21]
The appellant's COVID related plea and reliance on Regulation 40C did not justify further extension; the CoC's refusal was acceptable.
Implementation of the approved resolution plan and finality of actions taken thereunder - commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors - Whether the fact that the approved resolution plan had been implemented (change of directors, release of security, payments made) permitted setting aside the CoC's approval and restoring the process in favour of the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal observed that the resolution plan had been implemented, new management had taken control, secured creditors had released charges and received payment, and the plan was operational. In such circumstances it would defeat the object and purpose of the Code to 'turn back the clock'. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising finality where implementation has taken place, and the Tribunal held that relief sought by the appellant to set aside the approval could not be granted. [Paras 14]
Setting aside the approved and implemented resolution plan was refused; the appeal could not succeed on this ground.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's conclusion that the CoC's refusal to grant further time and its approval of the successful resolution plan were within its commercial domain and not amenable to interference, and that no relief could be granted as the approved plan stood implemented.
Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - existence of debt and default - ex parte admission in insolvency proceedings - moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - appointment and confirmation of interim resolution professional and duties under Sections 15, 17 and 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - existence of debt and default - ex parte admission in insolvency proceedings - Application under Section 7 was admitted and CIRP initiated against the corporate debtor. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the applicant had established the existence of a debt and default by the corporate debtor based on the ledger accounts and account confirmations filed. Notices were duly served and the respondent failed to appear despite opportunities, resulting in ex parte proceedings. On the material placed before it, the Tribunal held that the conditions for admission under the relevant provision were satisfied and therefore admitted the petition and initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process with immediate effect. [Paras 2, 3]
Petition under Section 7 admitted; CIRP initiated against the respondent.
Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - A moratorium was imposed in terms of the Code effective from the date of the order until completion of the CIRP. - HELD THAT: - On admission of the Section 7 petition and initiation of CIRP, the Tribunal imposed the statutorily mandated moratorium. The order restrained institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor, transfer or disposal of assets, enforcement of security interests and recovery of property in the possession of the corporate debtor, subject to specified exceptions and provisions governing essential supplies and any transactions notified by the Central Government. [Paras 4]
Moratorium under the Code ordered forthwith and to remain in effect until completion of CIRP.
Appointment and confirmation of interim resolution professional and duties under Sections 15, 17 and 18 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The interim resolution professional proposed by the applicant was confirmed and directed to perform statutory functions. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal confirmed the proposed interim resolution professional and directed him to undertake the duties required under the Code, specifically to act in accordance with the provisions relating to management and conduct of the corporate debtor's affairs and to file the requisite report within thirty days before the Bench. The appointment was recorded with the professional's registration details as provided in the application. [Paras 5]
Proposed interim resolution professional confirmed and directed to carry out obligations under the Code and file report within 30 days.
Final Conclusion: The Section 7 petition was admitted on the basis of established debt and default, CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor, moratorium under the Code was imposed with immediate effect, and the proposed interim resolution professional was confirmed and directed to discharge statutory duties.
Private sale under Regulation 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - Related party transaction - proviso to Regulation 33(2) - Requirement of prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority for private sale to related parties - Non-application of Section 29A bar - Reserve price compared with market valuation as justification for private sale - Absence of competitive bids and commercial exigency in liquidation - Prohibition on private sale where collusion is suspected
Private sale under Regulation 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - Related party transaction - proviso to Regulation 33(2) - Requirement of prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority for private sale to related parties - Non-application of Section 29A bar - Permission was sought for private sale of the corporate debtor's assets to a proposed buyer who is a related party; whether such private sale could be permitted. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal considered Regulation 33(2) which permits private sale subject to conditions and the proviso which requires prior permission where the purchaser is a related party. The proposed buyer was found to be a related party within the meaning noted by the liquidator, but not barred from participation under Section 29A of the Code. The Bench recorded that prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority is required in such cases and, having considered the facts (including that the buyer was the only bona fide offeror and there was no material to indicate collusion), concluded that the statutory pre-condition of obtaining prior permission was satisfied and that Section 29A did not operate as a bar to the transaction. On this basis the Tribunal granted permission for the private sale to the related party. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9]
Application allowed and prior permission granted for private sale to the related party under Regulation 33(2).
Reserve price compared with market valuation as justification for private sale - Absence of competitive bids and commercial exigency in liquidation - Prohibition on private sale where collusion is suspected - Whether the circumstances - including collector's market valuation, reserve price set in failed auctions, absence of further bids and lack of funds in the corporate debtor's account - justified permitting a private sale instead of continued public auction. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal received the District Collector's report on market value and compared it with the reserve price fixed in the last auction. The market valuation (collector's report) was substantially in line with the reserve price fixed by the liquidator, and the Bench noted no significant discrepancy between the two valuations. The record showed multiple prior attempts at public auction with no bids except the present offer, and that the corporate debtor lacked further funds. The Tribunal also noted the statutory prohibition on private sale where collusion is suspected and observed no reason to believe collusion. In these circumstances the Bench held that the lone bona fide proposal, the parity between reserve price and market valuation, and the commercial realities of liquidation justified permitting a private sale under Regulation 33(2). [Paras 3, 4, 5, 8]
On the stated facts and valuations, private sale by the liquidator was appropriate and was permitted.
Final Conclusion: The application by the liquidator for permission to effect a private sale of the corporate debtor's immovable property and subsidiary shares to the lone bona fide bidder (a related party not barred under Section 29A) is allowed under Regulation 33(2) of the Regulations; IA No. 1577 of 2021 is disposed of.
Ineligibility under section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Eligibility of promoters/suspended management to submit a resolution plan - Preclusive effect of relevant NCLAT precedent on eligibility - Approval of resolution plan under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Compliance with CIRP Regulations, 2016 including requirements of regulations 36 to 39 - Feasibility and viability of a resolution plan - Extinguishment of claims upon approval of a resolution plan - Limits on release of personal and corporate guarantees vis-a -vis law of indemnity and guarantee - Effect of MSME classification and prospective operation of notifications
Ineligibility under section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Eligibility of promoters/suspended management to submit a resolution plan - Preclusive effect of relevant NCLAT precedent on eligibility - Effect of MSME classification and prospective operation of notifications - Applicant's contention that the suspended management/promoters were ineligible under section 29A and that the resolution professional failed to assess such ineligibility, and whether the application seeking priority consideration and rejection of the resolution plan should be allowed. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal rejected the contention that the suspended management/promoters were shown to be ineligible under section 29A. It held that the applicant did not bring material to demonstrate disqualification of suspended management as on the insolvency commencement date, and the alleged personal guarantee (letter relied upon) did not constitute a guarantee capable of disqualifying them. The Tribunal noted that the question of eligibility in circumstances where MSME classification and related notifications are invoked had been addressed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in identical factual situations, and that precedent rendered the applicant's challenge untenable. On these bases and in the absence of admissible material establishing disqualification, the application seeking priority consideration and rejection of the plan was liable to be dismissed. [Paras 5, 6]
I. A. No. 145 of 2021 rejected; applicant failed to prove ineligibility under section 29A and the relied upon letter did not amount to a personal guarantee disqualifying the suspended management.
Approval of resolution plan under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Compliance with CIRP Regulations, 2016 including requirements of regulations 36 to 39 - Feasibility and viability of a resolution plan - Extinguishment of claims upon approval of a resolution plan - Limits on release of personal and corporate guarantees vis-a -vis law of indemnity and guarantee - Whether the modified resolution plan submitted by the resolution applicants satisfies statutory and regulatory requirements and should be approved by the Adjudicating Authority. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the resolution plan, Form H, and the process followed in the CIRP and found compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements, including regulations 36 to 39 of the CIRP Regulations and the obligation under section 30(2)(b). The plan was held to be feasible and viable by the CoC and the Tribunal, addresses causes of failure and contains implementation measures. The Tribunal noted creditor distributions (full payment to secured and unsecured financial creditors and employees; a limited percentage to operational creditors) and observed that payments under the plan exceeded the liquidation value. The Tribunal required correction of an inadvertent numerical entry in Form H but found it factual and not affecting approval. While granting several reliefs and concessions available upon approval, the Tribunal confined the release of personal and corporate guarantees: such releases cannot be granted as a blanket entitlement inconsistent with the law of indemnity and guarantee, but guarantees may be released where claims of assenting and dissenting financial creditors are satisfied and they consent. Directions were issued for operational formalities (effective date, cessation of moratorium, sending order copies, forwarding records to the IBBI, compliance with other statutory authorities for taxes/land/approvals, reconstitution of board and accounting entries). [Paras 11, 12]
I. A. No. 58 of 2021 allowed; the resolution plan is approved and shall become effective from the date of this order, subject to the specified directions and limitations on blanket release of guarantees.
Final Conclusion: The application challenging eligibility and seeking rejection of the plan is dismissed for failure to prove disqualification under section 29A and on the basis of controlling appellate precedent; the modified resolution plan has been found compliant, feasible and viable, and is approved with specified directions, extinguishments of claims upon satisfaction and limits on release of guarantees.
Principles of natural justice - requirement of personal hearing before rejection of SVLDR declaration - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - eligibility and restoration of SVLDRS-1 declaration - Fourth Schedule to Central Excise Act - excisability of Superior Kerosene Oil - administrative consideration of CBIC communication dated 26/11/2019
Principles of natural justice - requirement of personal hearing before rejection of SVLDR declaration - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - eligibility and restoration of SVLDRS-1 declaration - Impugned rejection of the Petitioner's SVLDRS-1 declaration without affording personal hearing was in violation of principles of natural justice and the declaration was to be restored for fresh consideration. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that summary rejection of an SVLDR declaration without affording an opportunity of hearing to the declarant would violate the principles of natural justice, especially where eligibility and quantification issues are involved and may lead to adverse civil consequences for the declarant. The reasoning follows the Court's earlier consideration of the Scheme and the decision in Thought Blurb (supra) that before rejecting or insisting on a higher amount the designated committee must give an opportunity of hearing to the declarant. In the facts of this case the declaration filed by the Petitioner was rejected as belonging to goods in the Fourth Schedule without any personal hearing despite representations and materials submitted by the Petitioner; therefore the rejection orders were quashed, the SVLDRS-1 declaration restored to file, and the respondents directed to grant a personal hearing and thereafter pass a fresh order uninfluenced by the earlier rejection. [Paras 20, 25, 26]
Orders dated 27/12/2019 and 06/02/2020 quashed and set aside; Form SVLDRS-1 restored; respondents to grant three days' clear notice, afford personal hearing and pass fresh order within eight weeks thereafter, with communication and limited protection against coercive steps.
Fourth Schedule to Central Excise Act - excisability of Superior Kerosene Oil - administrative consideration of CBIC communication dated 26/11/2019 - Whether Superior Kerosene Oil is excisable and falls under the Fourth Schedule was not finally adjudicated but remanded for fresh consideration by the respondents after affording hearing, including consideration of the CBIC communication dated 26/11/2019. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the question whether Superior Kerosene Oil is an excisable product and whether it falls within the Fourth Schedule is determinative of eligibility under the SVLDR Scheme and thus required adjudication after affording the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court noted the Petitioner's reliance on a CBIC communication dated 26/11/2019 (OSD (CX)) which distinguished certain petroleum products as outside the purview of Central Excise; it directed the respondents to consider the effect of that communication when reassessing eligibility and excisability. The Court did not decide the substantive question on merits but remitted the issue to the respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law following personal hearing. [Paras 21, 22, 24, 26]
Issue remanded: respondents to consider, after personal hearing, whether Superior Kerosene Oil is excisable or falls under the Fourth Schedule and accordingly decide the Petitioner's eligibility under the SVLDR Scheme, taking into account the CBIC communication dated 26/11/2019.
Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed: prior rejection orders set aside, the SVLDRS-1 declaration restored and directed to be reconsidered after three days' clear notice and a personal hearing; question of excisability of Superior Kerosene Oil remitted to respondents for fresh decision in accordance with law (respondents to decide and communicate within specified time and limited protection against coercive steps if decision is adverse).
Issues: (i) Whether Modvat credit was admissible on capital goods used for erection of a captive power plant within the factory and used for manufacture of the final products. (ii) Whether Modvat credit could be denied for non-compliance with the procedural requirements relating to declaration, registration, and other formalities under the 1944 Rules.
Issue (i): Whether Modvat credit was admissible on capital goods used for erection of a captive power plant within the factory and used for manufacture of the final products.
Analysis: The relevant rules permitted credit on capital goods used in the factory of the manufacturer. The power plant stood within the approved factory premises, the electricity generated was captively consumed in manufacture of dutiable cement, and the entities that erected the plant had no independent legal existence apart from the assessee. The reasoning accepted that capital goods acquired for use in the assessee's factory were eligible for credit even if the equipment was assembled or installed as part of a captive power generating facility.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; Modvat credit on the capital goods was admissible.
Issue (ii): Whether Modvat credit could be denied for non-compliance with the procedural requirements relating to declaration, registration, and other formalities under the 1944 Rules.
Analysis: The question of procedural compliance was treated as academic once eligibility on merits was upheld. In any event, the procedural lapse was held not to be a valid basis to deny a benefit otherwise available in law, especially where the substantive entitlement was established and the departmental circular also supported non-denial on mere irregularity.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; procedural irregularities did not justify denial of credit.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit on the capital goods used for the captive power plant, and the alleged procedural defects did not alter that substantive entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: Capital goods used in a captive power plant situated within the factory and used for manufacturing final dutiable products are eligible for Modvat credit, and mere procedural non-compliance cannot defeat a substantive entitlement to credit.
Modvat credit on capital goods - capital goods used in the factory - Rule 57Q(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - credit where capital goods are installed by divisions of same legal entity - procedural irregularity not a ground to deny substantive credit
Modvat credit on capital goods - capital goods used in the factory - Rule 57Q(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - credit where capital goods are installed by divisions of same legal entity - Respondent entitled to avail Modvat credit on duty-paid capital goods used in erection of captive power plant erected by other divisions of the same legal entity. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the respondent is a single legal entity holding one Central Excise registration and that the registered ground plan of its factory covered the site of the captive power plant, which supplies electricity captively for manufacture of dutiable cement. The Divisions (Group-II and LTCG) that carried out erection had no separate legal existence and operated as parts of the respondent. Rule 57Q(6) permits credit for specified duty paid on capital goods used by a manufacturer in his factory; Rule 57Q does not require that the capital goods be manufactured by the claimant or installed by a legally separate entity. The Court relied on earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions interpreting Rule 57Q to allow credit where components/capital goods, though forming a generating set or assembled by another manufacturer or division, are used in the claimant's factory for manufacture of final products. Decisions relied upon by Revenue (Gajra Gears; Saraswati Sugar) were held distinguishable on facts and legal focus; they did not negate the applicability of Rule 57Q where capital goods are within the factory and used for manufacture of dutiable goods. Applying these principles to the admitted facts, the Court held that denial of credit was not justified. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]
Question No.1 answered in favour of the respondent; Modvat credit rightly availed.
Procedural irregularity not a ground to deny substantive credit - Rule 57G and Rule 57T procedural requirements - Failure to follow procedural formalities under the Rules did not disentitle the respondent to Modvat credit which it was otherwise entitled to. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded, relying on Board Circular No. 441/7/99-CX dated 23.02.1999, that procedural lapses alone should not result in denial of benefits of Modvat credit where substantive entitlement exists. The CESTAT confirmed that view. Given the Court's conclusion on substantive entitlement under Rule 57Q, the question of procedural non-compliance became academic; nevertheless the finding that procedural irregularity would not defeat an otherwise valid claim was accepted and not interfered with. [Paras 9, 14]
Question No.2 answered in favour of the respondent; procedural lapses do not bar the credit.
Final Conclusion: The appeal by Revenue is dismissed; the respondent was correctly held entitled to Modvat credit on capital goods used in the captive power plant and procedural irregularities did not justify denial of that credit; parties to bear their own costs.
Issues: Whether the reassessment orders under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were liable to be interfered with for alleged want of opportunity and failure to verify input tax credit mismatch, and whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the available statutory appeal remedy.
Analysis: The notices for personal hearing and calling for objections showed that reasonable opportunity had been afforded. Under the revision procedure in Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, personal hearing is not mandatory and a reasonable opportunity to show cause is sufficient. On the mismatch issue, the reassessment orders reflected verification on the basis of available records and departmental data, so it could not be said that no verification was undertaken. The Court also applied the settled rule of alternate remedy with greater rigour in fiscal matters and noted that the petitioner had a statutory appeal under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In the absence of a demonstrated exception such as a clear breach of natural justice, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not warranted.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts and the impugned reassessment orders were not interfered with.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax assessment orders failed, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal matters, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised where reasonable opportunity has been afforded and an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists, unless a recognised exception to the alternate remedy rule is established.
Reasonable opportunity to show cause - personal hearing not statutorily imperative - verification of Input Tax Credit mismatch - alternate remedy rule and statutory appeal under Section 51 - exceptions to alternate remedy - breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or challenge to vires
Reasonable opportunity to show cause - personal hearing not statutorily imperative - Impugned revisional orders did not suffer from denial of reasonable opportunity to show cause. - HELD THAT: - The revisional authority issued pre-revision notices calling for objections and personal hearing (noted in the writ affidavit). The Court applied the principle that while a reasonable opportunity to show cause is required for revision proceedings, personal hearing is not a statutory imperative and is discretionary with the Assessing Officer. The petitioner did not aver that he responded to, or otherwise availed, the notices and gave no explanation for non-availment of the opportunity. On these facts the Court found no breach of natural justice in the making of the impugned orders. [Paras 6]
The grievance of denial of opportunity fails and does not warrant interference.
Verification of Input Tax Credit mismatch - Whether the Assessing Officer failed to verify ITC mismatch with the dealer at the other end. - HELD THAT: - The impugned orders record that the respondent carried out verification based on available records and the departmental intranet website and accepted proposals after correlating information. The petitioner relied on the JKM Graphics principle but the Court found that JKM did not assist because there was some verification and, importantly, the petitioner had not engaged with the pre-revision process. In these circumstances the Court was not persuaded that the Assessing Officer wholly omitted verification of the alleged mismatch. [Paras 6]
The contention of non-verification of ITC mismatch is rejected.
Alternate remedy rule and statutory appeal under Section 51 - exceptions to alternate remedy - breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or challenge to vires - Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the well established doctrine that writ jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised where effective statutory remedies are available, particularly in fiscal matters. The availability of an appeal under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act operates as an alternate remedy. The exceptions to this rule (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires) were considered; none was shown on the facts because notices had been issued and the petitioner did not explain non availment. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse writ relief and directed that the statutory appeal remains open. [Paras 6]
Writ petition is dismissed as an alternate statutory remedy is available and no exception to the rule for interference is established.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the revisional orders for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 is dismissed: the revisional authority afforded reasonable opportunity, carried out verification of alleged ITC mismatch on available records, and the petitioner has the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 51 which the Court left open for consideration on merits.
Issues: Whether recovery proceedings could be continued when the assessee's revision petition under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 remained undisposed of, and whether a direction was warranted for disposal of the revision petition within a time frame.
Analysis: The assessee had filed a revision petition under Section 22(6) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 against the assessment order. Since that statutory request had not been disposed of, immediate coercive recovery was considered inappropriate. At the same time, the record showed that the assessee had been negligent in not responding to earlier notices, so the Court balanced the competing considerations by directing expeditious disposal of the revision petition rather than annulling the assessment or recovery proceedings outright.
Conclusion: The assessee succeeded to the extent that the revision petition was ordered to be decided within thirty days and recovery proceedings were directed to remain in abeyance until the statutory proceedings were concluded.
Revision under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - stay of recovery pending disposal of statutory revision petition - assessment order for Assessment Year 2013-2014 - bank attachment in recovery proceedings
Revision under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - stay of recovery pending disposal of statutory revision petition - Petition filed under Section 22(6) was filed in time and, while it remains undisposed, recovery proceedings cannot be proceeded with immediately. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that although the petitioner had been negligent in not filing returns and in not replying to earlier notices, the record shows that a revision petition under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 was filed on 26.10.2016 against the assessment order dated 28.09.2016. In view of the pendency of that statutory remedy and because it has not been disposed of, the impugned recovery proceedings (including attachment of bank accounts) cannot be allowed to proceed immediately. The Court therefore directed that recovery be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the revision petition. This conclusion balances the existence of a timely filed statutory petition against the respondents' entitlement to recovery, by requiring final administrative action before recovery continues. [Paras 10, 11]
The impugned recovery cannot be proceeded with immediately while the revision petition under Section 22(6) remains undisposed; recovery proceedings to be kept in abeyance.
Revision under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - bank attachment in recovery proceedings - The revision petition filed by the petitioner is remanded to the respondents for disposal within a specified time and recovery proceedings are to remain subject to its outcome. - HELD THAT: - The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment or the correctness of the recovery measures. Instead, it directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petition dated 26.10.2016 (filed under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006) within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order. All recovery proceedings (including the bank attachment) are ordered to be kept in abeyance and will be subject to the final outcome of the statutory revision proceedings. The order thus remands the matter for fresh/expeditious administrative consideration without adjudicating the substantive tax liability. [Paras 11, 12]
Respondents directed to dispose of the Section 22(6) petition within thirty days; recovery proceedings to remain in abeyance pending that disposal.
Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed by directing the respondent-authority to decide the revision petition filed under Section 22(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 within thirty days; all recovery proceedings (including bank attachment) are to be kept in abeyance pending the outcome of that disposal.
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - rebuttal of statutory presumption by preponderance of probabilities - onus on accused to lead rebuttal evidence and conduct effective cross-examination - scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings
Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - rebuttal of statutory presumption by preponderance of probabilities - onus on accused to lead rebuttal evidence and conduct effective cross-examination - Validity of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. - HELD THAT: - The courts below rightly treated the issued cheque as admitted and applied the statutory presumption that issuance of the cheque is towards a debt or liability. The accused's defence that a blank cheque was misused was not supported by any rebuttal evidence and he did not lead evidence or an effective cross-examination to raise a probable defence. Documentary material produced by the complainant (including credit registers and ledger extracts) showed continuing transactions and corroborated the claim. In these circumstances the accused failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption by preponderance of probabilities and the trial and appellate Courts did not err in convicting the accused under Section 138. [Paras 8, 9]
Conviction under Section 138 NI Act affirmed as rightly based on admitted cheque, corroborative documentary material and absence of any effective rebuttal by the accused.
Scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings - onus on accused to lead rebuttal evidence and conduct effective cross-examination - Whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate Courts. - HELD THAT: - Given that the trial and appellate Courts re-appreciated evidence, found the cheque admitted, accepted the complainant's documentary evidence of continuous transactions and noted absence of rebuttal evidence or effective cross-examination by the accused, there is no illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision. The High Court will not exercise revisional powers where concurrent findings are supported by material on record and the accused has not met the onus to raise a probable defence. [Paras 9]
Revision jurisdiction declined; no ground made out to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Final Conclusion: Revision petition dismissed; the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are upheld for the reasons stated by the Courts below and by this Court, there being no satisfactory rebuttal of the statutory presumption or any illegality calling for revisional interference.
TaxTMI 