Case Details: Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement v. Raj Kumar Goyal - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 424 (SAFEMA-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman & Rajesh Malhotra, Member
• Ms Nidhi Raman, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Ms Nidhi Mittal, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the FIR was registered in pursuance to a direction of the High Court as serious allegation existed against respondents alleging that corruption was committed by respondent under the Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Scheme.

The Property of the respondent was attached by the Provisional Attachment Order passed by ED. However, the attachment was not confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order on the ground that ED was not authorized to attach property other than which was involved directly or indirectly in the commission of crime and derived or obtained out of criminal activity pertaining to scheduled offence.

Thereafter, ED filed an instant appeal against the impugned order. It was noted that ED could not attach any other property than proceeds of crime. Further, the proceeds of crime could not be given narrow meaning rather it has three limbs which are independent and are applicable independently in a given situation.

Appellate Tribunal Held

The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority committed grave illegality in taking the narrow meaning or giving a different construction to the definition of ‘proceeds of crime’ than legislated by the legislature, and the Courts had no authority to nullify any definition, though the Constitutional Court declared it to be ultra vires.

The Appellate Tribunal held that there were reasons to cause interference in the impugned order which was to be set aside with the remand of the case for a fresh consideration and, thus, the instant appeal was to be allowed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Shri Sadananda Nayak v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar, in the case of (Appeal No. 5612/2023), decided on 14.10.2024, (para 10), followed

The post Property Attachment Under PMLA Remanded for Fresh Consideration Due to Narrow Interpretation of ‘Proceeds of Crime’ | AT-SAFEMA appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

Case Details: Bhagirath Infra Projects (AP) (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 103 (Andhra Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• R. Raghunandan Rao & Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.
• A. Sarveswar Rao for the Petitioner.
• Santhi Chandra, Sr. Standing Counsel & J.U.M.V. Prasad, Central Government Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, engaged in the business of executing road works, bridge construction, and irrigation projects, was issued a show cause notice demanding tax on turnover reported in income tax returns for specific financial years. Subsequently, an assessment order was issued without affording the petitioner a personal hearing. The petitioner contended that the absence of a personal hearing prejudiced his case, particularly in the context of the exemption claimed under a relevant notification. The Revenue asserted that notice had been duly served via email and post. However, it was demonstrated that the email ID used did not belong to the petitioner, and the postal notices were returned unserved. Consequently, the petitioner challenged the assessment before the High Court, seeking relief on grounds of violation of natural justice.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court noted that the impugned assessment order, issued without a validly served notice of personal hearing, violated the principles of natural justice. The Court also observed that procedural fairness necessitates proper service of notice and an opportunity for the petitioner to present his case before an adverse order is passed. Accordingly, the Court set aside the assessment order and directed the Revenue to issue a fresh notice fixing a date for a personal hearing.

The post Matter Was Remanded as Assessee Was Not Given Hearing Opportunity Due to SCN Sent to Wrong Email ID | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

Case Details: Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 318 (Patna)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rajeev Ranjan Prasad & Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ.
• Anubhav Khowala, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Vivek Prasad, GP-7 for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a private limited company registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) was issued a demand notice under Section 73(9) following assessment proceedings. Aggrieved by the demand order, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority beyond the prescribed three-month period but within the additional condonable one-month period. The appellate authority, however, dismissed the appeal and the assessee filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court, contending that the appellate authority had erroneously interpreted the prescribed timeline.

High Court Held

The Honourable High Court noted that the appellate authority erred in its strict interpretation of the limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act since period of three months mentioned in section 107(1) and period of one month under section 107(4) is to be interpreted as period of 90 days and 30 days respectively or actual number of days in a calendar month. Consequently, the rejection of the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1
• SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters (1999) 4 SCC 567
• Haru Das Gupta v. State of W.B. (1972) 1 SCC 639
• Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma (2000) 8 SCC 649
• Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 624
• Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 19 (para 30) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 210 (para 7)
• Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 197 (para 7)
• Econ Antri Limited v. Rom Industries Limited and Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 769 (para 7)
• State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 448 (para 11)
• Saketh India Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1 (para 17), SIL Import
• USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters (1999) 4 SCC 567 (para 18)
• Haru Das Gupta v. State of W.B. (1972) 1 SCC 639 (para 18)
• Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma (2000) 8 SCC 649 (para 19)
• Engineers Ltd. (supra ) referred Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd. reported in (2012) 2 SCC 624 (para 26).

The post Limitation Period in Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of CGST Act to Be Interpreted as Period of 90 Days and 30 Days Respectively | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

Editorial Team – [2024] 171 Taxmann.com 378 (Article)

World Tax News provides a weekly snippet of tax news from around the globe. Here is a glimpse of the tax happening in the world this week.

(a) UAE introduces Pillar 2 Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax

(b) OECD highlights Kazakhstan’s progress in tackling tax avoidance

(c) China revises procedures for obtaining TRCs

(d) Sri Lanka releases guidelines for obtaining TRCs

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Tax News] UAE Introduces Pillar 2 Domestic Minimum Top-Up Tax and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

Case Details: Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 268 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.B. Pardiwala & Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2011-12 after the due date. Subsequently, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice alleging violation under section 276CC. The notice stated that although the due date for filing the income tax return was 1-8-2011, the assessee had filed the same with a delay on 4-3-2013.

The assessee replied to the aforesaid show cause notice along with the application for compounding. Later, the assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2013-14, which was also filed after the due date. Consequently, he received another show cause notice as regards the launching of prosecution.

The Commissioner rejected the compounding application of the assessee on the ground that the offence committed by the assessee would not be covered by the expression “first offence” as defined in the 2014 guidelines.

The matter reached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that after discussing the various methods of statutory interpretation, took the view that the legislative intent behind section 276CC, undoubtedly, was to restrict the meaning of the expression ”in due time” used in the said provision to the time period referred to in section 139(1) and not to the time period referred to in section 139(4).

The Supreme Court observed that by virtue of section 278E, the trial court has to presume the existence of a culpable mental state, and it would be open to the accused to plead the absence of the same in his defence. What is discernable from the decision is that an offence under section 276CC could be said to have been committed as soon as there is a failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing the return of income within the due time as prescribed under section 139(1).

Filing the return of income later within the time limit under Section 139(4) or before the initiation of prosecution does not change the fact that an offence under Section 276CC occurs on the day immediately after the due date for filing the return.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax [2017] 81 taxmann.com 60 (Gujarat)/[2017] 247 Taxman 253 (Gujarat) [para 82] reversed.
• Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 9 SCC 686 [para 44] followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 9 SCC 686 (para 34)
• Y.P. Chawla v. M.P. Tiwari (1992) 2 SCC 672 (para 52).

The post Offence Under Section 276CC Committed as Soon as There Is Failure on Part of Assessee in Filing ITR Within Due Date | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

Notification no. F. No. FMRD.DIRD.14/14.03.042/2024-25; Dated: 07.02.2025

The RBI has expanded the scope of permissible contracts for the sale or purchase of Government securities, gold-related securities and money market securities. Now, any contract specifically permitted by the RBI is included under the list of permissible contracts. Earlier, the permissible contracts included only spot contracts and other contracts traded on a recognised stock exchange as permissible under the SCRA, rules and bye-laws of such stock exchange.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification

The post RBI Expands Scope of Permissible Contracts for Sale or Purchase of Govt. Securities, Gold-Related & Money Market Securities appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

Consultation Paper; Dated: 13.02.2025

SEBI has released a Consultation Paper seeking public comments on the proposals to strengthen ‘ESG Rating Providers’ (ERPs). ESG stands for environmental, social and governance. SEBI has proposed the circumstances under which ERPs can withdraw ratings under the Subscriber-Pays business model and an Issuer-Pays business model. Under the Subscriber-Pays business model, an ERP can withdraw a rating if there are no subscribers for the rating on the date of withdrawal.

Click Here To Read The Full Updates

The post SEBI Proposes Measures to Strengthen the Framework for ‘ESG Rating Providers’ appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

ICAI has released the revised edition of the Technical Guide on Accounting for Expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities, updated in January 2025. The guide provides comprehensive guidance on the recognition, measurement, and disclosure of CSR expenditures, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and transparency in financial reporting. It covers both cash and in-kind CSR activities, handling unspent CSR funds, and the importance of proper disclosure, making it an essential resource for Chartered Accountants and company management.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post ICAI Releases Revised Edition of Technical Guide on Accounting for CSR Expenditures appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

ICAI has released the revised FAQ on SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (LODR), updated in January 2025. The guide provides clarity on key amendments to SEBI regulations, covering areas such as corporate governance, disclosure norms, and compliance procedures. It includes a new Compliance Calendar to help professionals track important deadlines and regulatory obligations.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post ICAI Releases the Revised Edition of FAQs on SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

ICAI has released the revised edition of the FAQs on the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008, updated in January 2025. This guide provides essential insights into the LLP framework, covering key amendments, LLP formation, governance, partner responsibilities, and financial disclosures. It also includes updates on compliance processes, LLP e-filing, and the transition to the MCA V3 portal, ensuring stakeholders are well-informed on the latest regulatory requirements.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post ICAI Releases Revised Edition of FAQs on the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.