Topic
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposing penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA requires proof of the exporter's knowledge or active abetment; mere negligence or irresponsible conduct in verifying shipping bills is insufficient. The ruling shields exporters from penal liability absent mens rea, clarifying that procedural lapses do not equate to complicity in smuggling.
Delhi HC held Section 122(1A) CGST Act applies to any person retaining benefit from fraudulent ITC, including non-taxable persons, and operates prospectively from 1 Jan 2021. The ruling quashes personal penalties on directors, clarifying the provision's scope and shielding taxpayers from retrospective liability.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that bank credits alone do not prove unexplained investment under Section 69 without asset identification. It deleted the ₹1.28 crore addition and penalty, stressing that credits must be tied to specific assets.
The SAT ruled that the conditions in sub-clauses (i)-(iii) of SEBI’s Regulation 27(1) bind not only the promoter’s direct entities but also borrowers, subsidiaries and associates linked to the promoter. This interpretation broadens the scope of prohibited rating assignments for credit rating agencies, exposing them to liability for ratings tied to any promoter-related borrowing.
The Supreme Court ruled that a penalty can be imposed only when the Foreign Travel Tax is not paid at all, and that a one-day delay in deposit does not attract the fine under Section 38(3). This limits liability to non-payment, obliges the government to refund the Rs 71.29 million penalty with interest, and affects airlines and other carriers subject to the tax.
Referral commissions earned by automobile dealers for steering customers to banks and insurers are now deemed a Business Auxiliary Service and thus taxable under the Finance Act, 1994. Because the dealer had settled the entire tax liability before the show-cause notice, the Supreme Court set aside the penalty under Section 73. This clarifies tax treatment for dealers and limits penalty exposure when tax is paid promptly.
Delhi HC ruled that a CGST penalty must be contested through a Section 107 appeal and that the pre-deposit requirement is governed by the original provision, staying recovery until the taxpayer deposits 25 % of the penalty. The order clarifies the procedural path for taxpayers while the scope of Section 122(1) remains pending before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reinstated SEBI's penalty on Tara Jewels promoters, ruling that merely possessing unpublished price-sensitive information and trading on it satisfies insider-trading liability, irrespective of any profit or the intended use of the proceeds. This establishes that motive or purpose of proceeds is irrelevant for penalty under the SEBI Act, affecting all present and future insider-trading cases.
The Punjab & Haryana HC ruled that a Collector under Section 31 Indian Stamp Act can only determine duty, not impose penalties or order recovery. It also held municipal parking contracts are leases under Section 2(16)(c) as they involve letting of tolls, and functus officio does not bar impounding powers. The decision limits revenue authorities' enforcement powers and clarifies stamp duty for public parking arrangements.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 cannot be rejected solely on NIDB data. The ruling reaffirms primacy of declared transaction value unless supported by legally admissible contemporaneous import evidence, impacting valuation disputes nationwide.
Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that mere misclassification of goods without fraud or willful suppression does not justify penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
ITAT Mumbai holds that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable when additions are based solely on estimates without concrete evidence of concealment.