Supreme Court Dismisses Miscellaneous Application as Not Pressed: Withdrawal Permission Sought and Refused - The Supreme Court’s order dismissing the Miscellaneous Application as not pressed establishes that mere filing of a withdrawal request does not guarantee that such permission will be granted. The applicant must present a clear and cogent case for withdrawal, and the Court retains full discretion to either grant or refuse such a request. Parties are cautioned that applications abandoned without permission may be dismissed without the opportunity to refile, unless specifically allowed by the Court.
Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of SLP Due to Inadequate Explanation for Delay in Recovery Proceedings - In light of the above, the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the settled position that procedural timelines are sacrosanct and cannot be disregarded without cogent justification. Assessees and revenue authorities alike must ensure that any appeals or petitions are filed within the prescribed limitation period, and that any request for condonation of delay is supported by robust and credible reasons. The dismissal, based solely on delay, serves as a cautionary precedent for future litigants.
Allahabad High Court Quashes Mechanically Reproduced Assessment Order: Non-Application of Mind and Violation of Natural Justice Under UPVAT Act - The decision of the Allahabad High Court makes it actionable that on remand, tax authorities must pass fresh, reasoned, and speaking orders that reflect due consideration of the appellate directions and an independent application of mind to the facts and law. Repeating earlier orders verbatim, especially those set aside in appeal, is not only impermissible but also fatal to the validity of such orders. Assessing Authorities must ensure that every order issued after remand is distinct, addresses the appellate findings, and demonstrates genuine adjudicatory effort.
Calcutta High Court Nullifies Penalty for Absence of Waybill at Interstate Checkpost When Vehicle Had Not Entered State Borders - The decision conclusively directs that penal provisions concerning the absence of waybills cannot be invoked when the authorized period for producing such documents has not expired and the vehicle has not entered the taxing state. The orders of the Tribunal and the lower authorities imposing and confirming the penalty were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the assessee.
Delhi High Court Allows Rectification of DVAT Returns for Issuance of ‘F’ Forms in Inter-State Stock Transfers, Subject to Supreme Court Adjudication - In view of the present order, the petitioner may proceed to rectify its DVAT returns for the specified periods to enable the issuance of ‘F’ Forms, but the implementation of this relief is stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decisions in related cases. Taxpayers facing similar procedural hurdles in obtaining ‘F’ Forms due to errors or omissions in returns may seek interim permission from the High Court, but must be mindful that any such relief will be subject to the final pronouncement by the Supreme Court on this issue.
Allahabad High Court Upholds Denial of Set-Off under Section 15(c) of CST Act for Tax Paid on Paddy Used in Interstate Sale of Rice - The Allahabad High Court’s decision confirms that assessees cannot claim the benefit of Section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for tax paid on paddy if the paddy is processed into rice and then sold in interstate trade. Only the tax paid on the goods actually sold in interstate commerce is eligible for set-off or reimbursement. Assessees engaged in agro-processing must therefore account for the distinct treatment of raw materials and finished products under the CST Act when planning their transactions and compliance.
Delhi High Court Allows Rectification of DVAT Returns for F Form Issuance, Subject to Supreme Court Outcome - In light of the above, the Delhi High Court has, following established precedent, permitted the petitioner to file a revised DVAT return for Q3 2018-19 to enable the issuance of statutory Form ‘F’. However, this relief is not immediately operative and is subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court appeals. The petitioner must await the Supreme Court’s final decision before availing the benefit of the High Court’s direction.
Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Stance: No Error in Denial of Review for Notification Dated 10-8-2017 - The Supreme Court, by dismissing the review petition, has conclusively held that the High Court’s order—regarding the benefit under Notification dated 10-8-2017—suffers from no error of law or fact. Taxpayers and litigants must take note that the window for review is extremely narrow and only available in cases of manifest error or discovery of new evidence. The Supreme Court’s affirmation brings finality to the proceedings and upholds the earlier legal position taken by the High Court.
HP High Court Rules Ancillary Canteen Sales by Educational Institutions Not Liable to VAT in Absence of Business Intent; Assessment Proceedings Declared Void Ab Initio - Based on the above analysis, it is actionable for educational institutions to assert non-liability for VAT on ancillary canteen or similar supplies to students, provided these activities are incidental and lack an independent business or profit-making intent. Institutions should maintain clear records in their financial statements, distinctly showing the dominant educational character of their operations and the ancillary nature of any incidental supplies. Any assessment undertaken without the statutory notice in prescribed form is liable to be challenged and set aside as void ab initio.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Bank’s Priority over State Tax Dues in Debt Recovery from Secured Assets - The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that, on the strength of Section 31-B of the SARFAESI Act and in the absence of an overriding first charge in favor of the State, the petitioner Bank’s right to recover its dues by selling the secured asset takes precedence over arrears sought to be recovered by the State under state tax laws.
Allahabad High Court Invalidates Entry Tax Assessment for Lack of Jurisdictional Clarity and Six-Month Limitation Breach - Given that the assessment order was issued beyond the statutory six-month period following official receipt of the certified copy of the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition, and in the absence of any order or notification evidencing transfer of jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 18, Ghaziabad, the assessment order dated 31.12.2013 is unsustainable in law. The Commercial Tax Tribunal’s order is thus set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the appropriate assessing authority in accordance with law and proper jurisdictional allocation.
Delhi High Court Allows Rectification of DVAT Returns for Issuance of ‘F’ Forms in Inter-State Stock Transfers—Relief Subject to Supreme Court Outcome - In conclusion, the Delhi High Court has granted the petitioner an opportunity to rectify its statutory filing under the DVAT Act to obtain the necessary ‘F’ Forms for inter-state stock transfers, in line with the principles laid out in GSP Power System Pvt. Ltd. However, this relief has been explicitly made subject to the outcome of pending appeals before the Supreme Court, and no final action can be taken until those cases are decided. Petitioners in similar situations should monitor the Supreme Court proceedings closely and prepare to act swiftly in accordance with the final verdict.
CESTAT Delhi Rules: Marketing Services to Foreign Universities Constitute Export of Service, Not Intermediary Supply—No Service Tax Liability - On the basis of the above judicial and statutory framework, it is actionable that service providers engaging in promotional and consultancy activities for foreign entities, without any direct engagement or consideration from Indian customers, are to be treated as exporters of service as per Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Such services, when exported in compliance with statutory provisions, are not liable to service tax in India, nor do they fall under the definition of intermediary services. Entities should ensure proper documentation of recipient identity, contractual arrangements, and foreign exchange realization to substantiate the export nature of their services.
Allahabad High Court Restricts Revisional Powers under Section 10B to Existing Assessment Record; Subsequent Judicial Pronouncements Not Ground for Reassessment - The High Court’s decision decisively rules that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is confined to assessment records and legal materials available at the time of the original order. Subsequent changes in law or later judicial interpretations cannot be invoked to initiate or justify revisional proceedings. Accordingly, all orders of the Commercial Tax Tribunal founded solely on such subsequent material have been quashed.
High Court Upholds Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals, Allows Relief Under Article 226 Where Appellate Authority Lacks Jurisdiction - This decision underscores the strict adherence to statutory pre-deposit requirements by appellate authorities and clarifies that such authorities lack any inherent or equitable jurisdiction to dispense with such mandates. However, the High Court has reaffirmed its power to intervene in exceptional circumstances under Article 226, especially where the taxpayer demonstrates a bona fide intention to comply and faces procedural hardship.
Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Tribunal Order for Issuing Form III-B Without Specified Tax Rate; Emphasizes Individual Scrutiny and Adherence to Binding Circulars - The Allahabad High Court’s decision mandates that each instance of issuing Form III-B (or similar certificates) must be scrutinized individually to determine whether it resulted in wrongful tax benefit. Assessment authorities are directed to avoid blanket orders for entire assessment periods and to ensure all binding circulars are faithfully followed. Authorities must pin-point specific defaults in each case and pass separate orders for each instance of alleged violation. This actionable direction reforms the assessment process towards specificity and procedural fairness.
High Court Overturns Dismissal of Tax Appeal Owing to Advocate’s Negligence: Orders Fresh Hearing on Merits - Based on the analysis, it is actionable for litigants to clearly document the circumstances causing delay and, where attributable to counsel’s admitted fault, to seek condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Appellate authorities are expected to exercise discretion in favor of substantive justice rather than technical rejection, particularly where the litigant is demonstrably free from fault and the delay is neither deliberate nor contumacious. Immediate payment of the imposed cost is crucial for restoration of the appeal.
Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Denying Input Tax Credit on Exempt Sales, Relies on Supreme Court Precedent - Based on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Neha Enterprises, the Allahabad High Court held that the impugned order denying input tax credit for exempt sales could not be sustained. The Court quashed the order, reaffirming that the statutory exemption under Section 7(c) prevails unless the law expressly excludes ITC in such cases. The actionable takeaway is that authorities must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s interpretation when considering the intersection of exemption and input credit provisions.
Supreme Court Declines to Entertain SLP in DVAT Penalty Case Due to 405-Day Delay - In light of the Supreme Court’s order, it is clear that parties seeking to challenge orders under the DVAT Act (or similar statutes) before higher judicial forums must be vigilant in adhering to prescribed timelines. Any significant delay in filing appeals or petitions must be satisfactorily explained with cogent reasons supported by evidence. Failure to do so will result in dismissal at the threshold, regardless of the merits of the underlying case.
Supreme Court Extends Deadline for Statutory Deposit: Final Opportunity Granted Amidst Natural Justice Concerns - In summary, the Supreme Court has provided a final window for the appellant to rectify the procedural lapse by making the statutory deposit by the stipulated deadline. The order underscores the importance of procedural compliance, while also ensuring that litigants are not unduly deprived of the right to appeal due to a technical default, provided they are vigilant and comply within the extended timeline. The actionable takeaway is that appellants must strictly adhere to statutory pre-deposit requirements, and any failure will result in the forfeiture of their right to have their appeal adjudicated on merits.