Hon’ble High Court at Bombay in the Writ Petition No. (L) 5172 of 2021 decided on February 26, 2021, filed by The Goods and Service Tax Practitioners’ Association of Maharashtra (GSTPAM), has questioned the locus standi of associations filing writ petitions to extend the date of returns etc. The Association had filed the petition for extension of date of filing of the Annual Return. The Court dismissed the petition. While dismissing the same, amongst other reasons, the Court also stated that a professional body like GSTPAM was before them and an individual tax payer was not expressing any difficulty in filing the Annual Return within the prescribed time or already extended time. In other words, one of the reasons for rejecting the petition was that the GSTPAM had no “locus standi” to file Writ Petition in the court for extension of the prescribed date.

Naturally, there was an uproar throughout India in the tax professionals fraternity. Bombay High Court is one of the premier Courts of India. Any observation of their Lordships of this Court is read and followed with utmost respect throughout India. Normally, the Trade Organisations avoid to approach the court in tax related matters. They have their vested interests. However, such job of compiling the annual return etc. is done by the tax professionals and if they don’t get sufficient time to carefully examine the claims and compile them, there is a possibility of loss of revenue on either side and for which the professionals are at the end of the day blamed by the clients as well as the Government.

In fact, nowadays even tax professionals are being penalised or prosecuted for mis-statements in returns and audit reports, however innocent be such mistakes. For this reason, the associations of tax professionals file writ petitions when the time for completing the compliances is not sufficient. This will of course collaterally benefit the traders, but the same is also essential for safe-guarding the interests of the tax professionals and not just the interests of the traders. Now there is a fear that such associations of tax professional won’t be able to approach the Courts of law and equity for any such causes in future. The fraternity had expected the GSTPAM to approach the Supreme Court and get that observation removed. However, since the due date for filing itself was extended thereafter due to executive mercy, the GSTPAM chose not to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court.

The author is of the firm opinion that these observations of the Bombay High Court, with due respect, are incorrect. Those were also unwarranted. Just prior to the pronouncement of judgment in this case i.e. on January 15, 2021, the same Bench in the case of CVO Chartered and Cost Accountants’ Association v. UOI had declined to give extension. However, the Court had not questioned the locus standi of that association.

What then is the correct position of law? What is “locus standi”? Whether this judgment of the Bombay High Court will affect the right of the tax professionals to move the Court in similar situations?

The expression “locus standi” has been lucidly explained by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consisting seven judges, in the year 1981 itself. In that case an individual, namely, Mr. S.P. Gupta had filed PIL (Public Interest Litigation) in the Supreme Court questioning the appointment and the tenure of judges. See what the Court says:

S.P. GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA (1981) Supreme Court Cases 87

Per Bhagwati, J.

“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or a determinate class of persons, in the Supreme Court under article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.(Para 17 ).

……. the individual who moves the court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or some other oblique consideration, the court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold..

(Para 24).

Yet again, whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives the standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper but one who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. In the absence of a machinery to effectively represent the public interest generally in courts, it is necessary to liberalise the rule of standing in order to provide judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from other violation of the Constitution or the law by allowing public minded persons and organisations to move the court and act for a general or group interest, even though, they may not be directly injured in their own rights. It is only by liberalising the rule of locus standi that it is possible to effectively police the corridors of power and prevent violations of law. The operation might be financial, commercial, corporate or governmental.” (Paras 18 and 20). (Underlining by us).

The GSTPAM is a registered tax payer. No doubt, it represents the tax professionals, however, it also approached the Court in its own right. Therefore, the Court was not correct in raising the issue of locus standi. It seems, this particular fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. Even otherwise, the GSTPAM had every right to approach the Court for the redressal of the injury which was being caused to the members.

The due date for filing annual return as per the GST Act is 31st December of next year. So for the period 2019-20 is concerned, it is 31st December 2020. But the utility thereof was made available for the first time in December 2020 itself. Therefore the department extended it to 28th February, 2021. Further due date for filing income tax return for the year 2019-20 was extended to 15th January 2021 and without finalisation and audit of accounts it was not possible to furnish annual return. It was a most difficult task to compile the requirements of the return, irrespective of whether it was done by the dealer himself or by the tax professionals.

The Supreme Court has stated above that the rule of “locus standi” is required to be liberalised and the persons who have sufficient interest in the proceeding should be permitted to approach the Court. Unfortunately, the Bombay High Court was not able to appreciate the injury which was being caused. Probably the same was not properly put before the Court.

Kindly now see another judgment on the subject, popularly known as Indian Banks Association’s case. This case is under the Interest Act, 1974. The interest tax Act was enacted by Parliament with effect from 1.8. 1974 with an object of imposing tax on the total amount of interest received by scheduled banks/ credit institutions on loans and advances. RBI by its circular letter dated 2.9.1991 advised all the scheduled commercial banks that the incidence of interest tax should pro rata be passed on to borrowers wherefore a uniform practice should be followed in consultation with the Indian Banks Association (IBA). The IBA purporting to be acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said circular as also with a view to formulate a structure of uniform interest rate chargeable after including the interest tax payable, which was passed on to the borrower’s by the banks concerned, and advised them that the rate of interest will be loaded with the interest tax of 3% and rounded up to the next higher 0.25%. Such rounding up was found necessary allegedly on account of the grossing -up involved in calculating the incidence of tax. RBI purportedly gave its approval to the proposal of the IBA in terms of its letter dated 22.4.1993. The aforementioned action on the part of the IBA came to be questioned by the respondents in a public interest litigation filed before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that such purported rounding up was illegal and without jurisdiction as there by the tax element came to be increased and as a result thereof the banks concerned had collected additional sum of ` 7 23.79 crores annually. The High Court found the action on the part of the IBA illegal, arbitrary and untenable. A command was issued interalia to all the banks to submit an account of the excess interest collected by them from the borrowers and deposit the same with RBI to be debited in the account of the Union Bank of India. The appellants i.e. the IBA approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition against the said order. The first objection was about the locus standi of the petitioner before the High Court, the petitioner being a Chartered Accountant’s Firm. The observations of the Supreme Court on this issue in the impugned case are interesting and are directly applicable to the GSTPAM case.

INDIAN BANKS’ ASSOCIATION, BOMBAY AND OTHERS vs. DEVKALA CONSULTANCY SERVICE AND OTHERS (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases

‘The writ petitioner before the High Court was a firm of Chartered Accountants. As an expert in accountancy and auditing, it must have come across several cases where its client had to pay a higher amount of interest to the banks pursuant to and in furtherance of the impugned action of the appellants. By reason of such action on the part of the appellants and also RBI the citizens of India had to pay a higher amount of tax as also a higher amount of interest for no fault on their part. The same had been recovered from them without any authority of law.’ (Para 32)

‘In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of his personal grievance, the court in furtherance of public interest may treat it as a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as public interest case. (Para 34) (Underlining Supplied).

There are many decisions on the subject. All those decisions need not be cited. These two judgments are sufficient to say that even if the Bombay High Court felt that the GSTPAM case was a private interest case, they could have treated it as public interest case. However, they chose not to do so. Reasons are not known. Possibly, the precedential law was not brought to the notice of the court. In fact, Bombay High Court always welcomed the associations. When the author was arguing Abicor’s case, it was a private case, however, Hon’ble Justice Dharmadhikari himself invited the GSTPAM to put forth it’s grievances.

Lastly, to avoid such verdicts, we suggest the following:

  • The petition itself should in clear words bring out the relationship of the petitioner with the cause of action and the sufficiency of the interest of the petitioner in the proceedings;

  • The injury which is being caused by the act or omission of the State should be clearly brought out in the petition;

  • Most importantly, the court should not get the impression that the petitioner has approached the court for his personal gain or private profit. Personal gain or private profit need not be in terms of money. If the Court suspects that the petition has been filed for self-emulation, it will reject the petition at the threshold.

  • Many a times the Court gives indication if they were to decide against the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is prudent to withdraw the case, unless the petitioner is ready to approach the higher court.

  • Such judgments should necessarily be challenged in Supreme Court otherwise those become a hurdle for others.

To conclude, the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of GSTPAM is not a correct judgment so far it relates to locus standi. In my view, on future occasions, the other associations should request the Bombay High Court to revisit its views on the basis of the law declared by the Supreme Court. However, suggestions made above should also be scrupulously followed.

Posted in May.

Hon’ble High Court at Bombay in the Writ Petition No. (L) 5172 of 2021 decided on February 26, 2021, filed by The Goods and Service Tax Practitioners’ Association of Maharashtra (GSTPAM), has questioned the locus standi of associations filing writ petitions to extend the date of returns etc. The Association had filed the petition for extension of date of filing of the Annual Return. The Court dismissed the petition. While dismissing the same, amongst other reasons, the Court also stated that a professional body like GSTPAM was before them and an individual tax payer was not expressing any difficulty in filing the Annual Return within the prescribed time or already extended time. In other words, one of the reasons for rejecting the petition was that the GSTPAM had no “locus standi” to file Writ Petition in the court for extension of the prescribed date.

Naturally, there was an uproar throughout India in the tax professionals fraternity. Bombay High Court is one of the premier Courts of India. Any observation of their Lordships of this Court is read and followed with utmost respect throughout India. Normally, the Trade Organisations avoid to approach the court in tax related matters. They have their vested interests. However, such job of compiling the annual return etc. is done by the tax professionals and if they don’t get sufficient time to carefully examine the claims and compile them, there is a possibility of loss of revenue on either side and for which the professionals are at the end of the day blamed by the clients as well as the Government.

In fact, nowadays even tax professionals are being penalised or prosecuted for mis-statements in returns and audit reports, however innocent be such mistakes. For this reason, the associations of tax professionals file writ petitions when the time for completing the compliances is not sufficient. This will of course collaterally benefit the traders, but the same is also essential for safe-guarding the interests of the tax professionals and not just the interests of the traders. Now there is a fear that such associations of tax professional won’t be able to approach the Courts of law and equity for any such causes in future. The fraternity had expected the GSTPAM to approach the Supreme Court and get that observation removed. However, since the due date for filing itself was extended thereafter due to executive mercy, the GSTPAM chose not to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court.

The author is of the firm opinion that these observations of the Bombay High Court, with due respect, are incorrect. Those were also unwarranted. Just prior to the pronouncement of judgment in this case i.e. on January 15, 2021, the same Bench in the case of CVO Chartered and Cost Accountants’ Association v. UOI had declined to give extension. However, the Court had not questioned the locus standi of that association.

What then is the correct position of law? What is “locus standi”? Whether this judgment of the Bombay High Court will affect the right of the tax professionals to move the Court in similar situations?

The expression “locus standi” has been lucidly explained by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consisting seven judges, in the year 1981 itself. In that case an individual, namely, Mr. S.P. Gupta had filed PIL (Public Interest Litigation) in the Supreme Court questioning the appointment and the tenure of judges. See what the Court says:

S.P. GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA (1981) Supreme Court Cases 87

Per Bhagwati, J.

“Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or a determinate class of persons, in the Supreme Court under article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.(Para 17 ).

……. the individual who moves the court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or some other oblique consideration, the court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold..

(Para 24).

Yet again, whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives the standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper but one who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. In the absence of a machinery to effectively represent the public interest generally in courts, it is necessary to liberalise the rule of standing in order to provide judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from other violation of the Constitution or the law by allowing public minded persons and organisations to move the court and act for a general or group interest, even though, they may not be directly injured in their own rights. It is only by liberalising the rule of locus standi that it is possible to effectively police the corridors of power and prevent violations of law. The operation might be financial, commercial, corporate or governmental.” (Paras 18 and 20). (Underlining by us).

The GSTPAM is a registered tax payer. No doubt, it represents the tax professionals, however, it also approached the Court in its own right. Therefore, the Court was not correct in raising the issue of locus standi. It seems, this particular fact was not brought to the notice of the Court. Even otherwise, the GSTPAM had every right to approach the Court for the redressal of the injury which was being caused to the members.

The due date for filing annual return as per the GST Act is 31st December of next year. So for the period 2019-20 is concerned, it is 31st December 2020. But the utility thereof was made available for the first time in December 2020 itself. Therefore the department extended it to 28th February, 2021. Further due date for filing income tax return for the year 2019-20 was extended to 15th January 2021 and without finalisation and audit of accounts it was not possible to furnish annual return. It was a most difficult task to compile the requirements of the return, irrespective of whether it was done by the dealer himself or by the tax professionals.

The Supreme Court has stated above that the rule of “locus standi” is required to be liberalised and the persons who have sufficient interest in the proceeding should be permitted to approach the Court. Unfortunately, the Bombay High Court was not able to appreciate the injury which was being caused. Probably the same was not properly put before the Court.

Kindly now see another judgment on the subject, popularly known as Indian Banks Association’s case. This case is under the Interest Act, 1974. The interest tax Act was enacted by Parliament with effect from 1.8. 1974 with an object of imposing tax on the total amount of interest received by scheduled banks/ credit institutions on loans and advances. RBI by its circular letter dated 2.9.1991 advised all the scheduled commercial banks that the incidence of interest tax should pro rata be passed on to borrowers wherefore a uniform practice should be followed in consultation with the Indian Banks Association (IBA). The IBA purporting to be acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said circular as also with a view to formulate a structure of uniform interest rate chargeable after including the interest tax payable, which was passed on to the borrower’s by the banks concerned, and advised them that the rate of interest will be loaded with the interest tax of 3% and rounded up to the next higher 0.25%. Such rounding up was found necessary allegedly on account of the grossing -up involved in calculating the incidence of tax. RBI purportedly gave its approval to the proposal of the IBA in terms of its letter dated 22.4.1993. The aforementioned action on the part of the IBA came to be questioned by the respondents in a public interest litigation filed before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that such purported rounding up was illegal and without jurisdiction as there by the tax element came to be increased and as a result thereof the banks concerned had collected additional sum of ` 7 23.79 crores annually. The High Court found the action on the part of the IBA illegal, arbitrary and untenable. A command was issued interalia to all the banks to submit an account of the excess interest collected by them from the borrowers and deposit the same with RBI to be debited in the account of the Union Bank of India. The appellants i.e. the IBA approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition against the said order. The first objection was about the locus standi of the petitioner before the High Court, the petitioner being a Chartered Accountant’s Firm. The observations of the Supreme Court on this issue in the impugned case are interesting and are directly applicable to the GSTPAM case.

INDIAN BANKS’ ASSOCIATION, BOMBAY AND OTHERS vs. DEVKALA CONSULTANCY SERVICE AND OTHERS (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases

‘The writ petitioner before the High Court was a firm of Chartered Accountants. As an expert in accountancy and auditing, it must have come across several cases where its client had to pay a higher amount of interest to the banks pursuant to and in furtherance of the impugned action of the appellants. By reason of such action on the part of the appellants and also RBI the citizens of India had to pay a higher amount of tax as also a higher amount of interest for no fault on their part. The same had been recovered from them without any authority of law.’ (Para 32)

‘In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of his personal grievance, the court in furtherance of public interest may treat it as a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as public interest case. (Para 34) (Underlining Supplied).

There are many decisions on the subject. All those decisions need not be cited. These two judgments are sufficient to say that even if the Bombay High Court felt that the GSTPAM case was a private interest case, they could have treated it as public interest case. However, they chose not to do so. Reasons are not known. Possibly, the precedential law was not brought to the notice of the court. In fact, Bombay High Court always welcomed the associations. When the author was arguing Abicor’s case, it was a private case, however, Hon’ble Justice Dharmadhikari himself invited the GSTPAM to put forth it’s grievances.

Lastly, to avoid such verdicts, we suggest the following:

  • The petition itself should in clear words bring out the relationship of the petitioner with the cause of action and the sufficiency of the interest of the petitioner in the proceedings;

  • The injury which is being caused by the act or omission of the State should be clearly brought out in the petition;

  • Most importantly, the court should not get the impression that the petitioner has approached the court for his personal gain or private profit. Personal gain or private profit need not be in terms of money. If the Court suspects that the petition has been filed for self-emulation, it will reject the petition at the threshold.

  • Many a times the Court gives indication if they were to decide against the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is prudent to withdraw the case, unless the petitioner is ready to approach the higher court.

  • Such judgments should necessarily be challenged in Supreme Court otherwise those become a hurdle for others.

To conclude, the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of GSTPAM is not a correct judgment so far it relates to locus standi. In my view, on future occasions, the other associations should request the Bombay High Court to revisit its views on the basis of the law declared by the Supreme Court. However, suggestions made above should also be scrupulously followed.

Posted in May.

Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate

Accountability is an essential part of a healthy law enforcement agency. Like any organization, every law enforcement agency needs a strong healthy work culture to operate effectively.

Constitution & Accountability

Constitution of Republic of The Philippines, in Article XI states that “Public office is a public trust hence, public officers must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty & efficiency, act with patriotism and justice & lead modest lives”.

There is no similar provision in our Constitution. However, Part-IV of our Constitution enumerates certain directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country & are mandatorily to be applied by the state in making the laws. Article 38 makes it obligatory on the state to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing & protecting a social order in which justice, social economic & political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life Article 39 prescribes certain specific principles of policy to be followed by the state & Article 39A mandates that the state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunity also ensuring that any citizen of India is not denied opportunity for securing justice by reason of economic or other disabilities.

Part-III of the Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to the citizens of India and article 13 (2) states that the state shall not make any law which takes away or a abridges the rights conferred by this part and law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. Our government is formed by the people, of the people and for the people and therefore, it is implicit that it is accountable to the people of India. However, there is nothing in our Constitution which makes the public officers accountable for their acts of omission or commission in contravention of law.

Article 261 contained in Chapter-II of Part-XI states that full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every state.

Citizen’s Charter

It has been recognised world over that good governance is essential for sustainable development both economic and social. The three essential aspects emphasized in good governance are transparency accountability and responsiveness of the administration. The Citizens’ Charter initiative is a response to the quest for solving the problems which citizen encounters day in and day out while dealing with the organization providing public services.

The concept of Citizens Charter enshrines the trust between the service providers and its users.

In India for the first time, in conference of chief minister of various states and union territories held on 24/5/1997 in New Delhi presided by the Prime Minister of India an action plan “for effective and responsive government” at the Centre and state levels was adopted and it was decided to formulate Citizen Charter starting with those sectors that have large public interface. On March 2005, 107 Citizen Charters had been formulated by various agencies of state government and union territories.

The first Citizen Charter Bill 2011 was proposed by the Indian Central Legislation in Lok Sabha in December 2011 but it was lapsed due to dissolution of 15th Lok Sabha.

The first Citizens Charter was formulated by Income Tax Department in July 2010 which was their declaration of mission, vision, values and standards of delivery of various services to achieve excellence in service delivery to its taxpayers. This charter substantially talked of obligation of taxpayers and did not utter a word on accountability of tax administrators though timelines in disposing various applications was suggested. The charter was revised on 24/04/2014 which for the first time talked of accountability and transparency in their mission.

Hon’ble Finance Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, in her first budget 2020 speech, had stated that the tax system requires trust between taxpayers and tax administrators. This will be possible only when tax-payers’ rights are clearly enumerated. In order to enhance the efficiency of the delivery systems of the Income Tax Department, amendments were proposed in the Income Tax Act 1961, as a result of which new section 119A was inserted in the Income Tax Act which mandates that the board shall adopt and declare a Tax-payers’ Charter and issue such orders, instructions, directions or guidelines to other Income Tax Authorities as it may deem fit for the administration of such Charter.

Unlike earlier charters, which were largely administrative, the present charter is the first one having statutory backing. It is simpler and has only two parts – the tax departmental commitments and tax-payers expectations. The Tax departmental commitments include a specific commitment to hold its authorities accountable for their action.

The new tax-payers charter launched by the Hon’ble Prime Minister on 13.08.2020 promises to maintain privacy and confidentiality of taxpayers and to reduce the cost of compliance with the tax laws. It aims for clean and corruption free governance. The objective is to end taxpayers harassment or undue scrutiny from the tax officer. While unveiling the “transparent taxation- honouring the honest taxpayers” Prime Minister aimed at easing the tax compliance with the help of technology, data analytics and artificial intelligence. The main objects are :-

  1. To move away from power centric towards people centric administration.

  2. The faceless assessment/appeals having technology driven interface.

  3. Outlining the responsibilities and duties of tax officers.

  4. To decrease in complexity/taxes/litigation and increase in transparency /compliance trust by removing physical interface between the department and taxpayers.

In the new Charter, there is an interesting change with respect to accountability. Though the term “Accountability” finds mention in the earlier charter as well, there is a difference in the way it is expressed. The charter commits to hold its authorities accountable for their action.

Now the question arises as to how the officers would be made accountable and for what actions? Accountability ensures efficiency in many ways by improving standards of delivery systems. If the tax administration violates rules they lose credibility and break public trust which results in non-compliance of law- Change in the behaviour of the officers is the most important factor in creating the culture of accountability. Tax officials have the perception that every taxpayer is thief or is tax evaders. This mindset is to be changed because the tax-payers are substantially contributing in the welfare of state. Hence the values like integrity and ethics are to be fostered amongst the officials – to hold the officials accountable CBDT must create and enforce policies, procedures and other rules. These policies are to be regularly reviewed so as to be compatible with the passage of time.

When can accountability provisions be invoked? Department is supposed to deliver quality services in transparent and efficient manner and in a time bound framework. If such act is not committed or omitted in the manner prescribed under the law and the great prejudice is caused to the assessee then the Income Tax Officers may be made accountable though there is a provision in the Income Tax Act being section 293 which says that “no suit shall be brought in any civil court to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under this act and no prosecution, suit or other position proceeding shall lie against the government or any officer of government for anything done in good faith or intended to be done under this Act”. Thus how the accountability of the officers can be invoked is a matter of great concern.

There are many provisions under the Income Tax Act, which requires fairness in actions of officers say –

  1. making adjustment in the intimation u/s 143(1)(a)

  2. issuing refunds promptly,

  3. giving fair opportunity before passing assessment order

  4. to pass the assessment order in a fair and reasonable manner based on material

  5. issuing notice u/s 148

  6. special audit u/s 142A

  7. disposing application for stay of demand and granting of installments

  8. disposing applications for rectification.

  9. giving effect to appellate/revision orders

  10. giving approval or granting registration under various provisions of Income Tax Act e.g. section 12AA, section 10(23C), etc.

  11. decision for transfer of cases from one place to another,

  12. taking actions u/s 263 or to decide filing of appeals I the Court of Law

  13. initiation of proceeding u/s 132 or 132A or 133A etc.

  14. assessment u/s 153A/153C

  15. Imposing of penalty

  16. launching of prosecution

  17. attachment of property

  18. withholding of refunds

Many of these provisions involve subjective satisfaction on the part of The Income Tax Authorities. Some of the provisions confer discretion on the Income Tax Officials, but this discretion has to be exercised in a judicious manner else, the actions of the officers can be redressed before the grievance cell, here comes the accountability.

Now a days, Courts are also vigilant to the rights and obligations of the citizens. Where it is explicit that the action of the officer has caused grave injustice to the citizens or their rights are infringed, then the Courts come to the rescue of citizens. On many occasions, in over enthusiasm, Department attaches the bank accounts of the assessee before expiry of the prescribed time for paying the demand or curtail the statutory time of 30 days for paying demand, rejects the application for stay of demand despite having refund payable to the assessee or issuing search warrants or 148 notices without having any reasonable belief based on material, making additions ignoring the judgements of the Apex Court or Jurisdictional High Courts, all these acts are being held arbitrary and Courts take no time to quash the same and even impose the cost on the Revenue and that to be collected from the pocket of concerned officer. In some cases Courts have awarded interest on interest to the assessees. These are some instances where Courts have made the officers accountable. Courts have also quashed the prosecutions launched by the officers for ulterior motive or in an arbitrary manner.

GST Act – Special Mention to the judgement of Supreme Court

The provisions similar to Income Tax Act are also contained in GST Act. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the contours of the powers of provisional attachment of property including bank accounts to protect Revenue under HPGST Act 2017 has commented upon the accountability of the proper officer under the GST Act. This is a case locus classicas. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Radhakrishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors (Civil Appeal No.1155 of 2021 decided on 20.04.2021) observed that Section 83 of the said Act provides that where during the pendency of any proceedings under the Act. The Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting interest of Government Revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may by order in writing, attach provisionally any property including the bank account belonging to the taxable person. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that before Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of the “opinion” and that too on the basis of “tangible material” that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting interest of Revenue.

Hon’ble Court opined at the outset that the power to levy a provisional attachment is draconian in nature. And the conditions which are prescribed by the statute for a valid exercise of the power must be strictly fulfilled. Formation of opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to the purpose of protecting interest of Revenue. “Necessity” postulate a more stringent requirement than a mere expectancy. Order in writing does not mean that the order should be like a judgement but it must be shown an application of mind. Doctrine of proportionality demands that a balance has to be maintained between protecting the interest of Revenue and protecting genuine business of the assessee. To allow the Commissioner to get away without passing a reasonable order will make his decision subjective and defeat the purpose of subjecting it to judicial scrutiny.

Hon’ble Court criticized the exercise of power of provisional attachment as a “Pre-emptive Strike”. Where there is a likelihood that Revenue will not be able to enforce the assessment order, there may be an order of provisional attachment. Department cannot just go and attach the property because there is an assessment order. Even where huge tax is paid, just because some part of tax is still due, Revenue cannot start attaching the property. If there is an alienation of assets or assessee is winding-up or going into liquidation, it is understandable but just because the Department has the account numbers of the assessee, it cannot start attaching and even block receivables.

Justice Chandrachud in this case, in the anguish spoke of introducing a mechanism of “assessment of Tax Officers” with a view to inculcate “accountability” stating that where huge demands are arbitrarily created after assessment but are drastically reduced by the higher authorities or Courts then it must go into the assessment of the Tax Officer. Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the Parliament had intended the GST to be a citizen-friendly tax structure but its purpose is lost by the manner in which it is enforced.

Conclusion

In the nutshell, it is concluded that it is not only the tax legislation but the tax administration, fair and impartial, is also important. The country needs to come-out of the tax culture that “businesses are all fraudulent”. Now as per the new tax-payers’ charter, the Tax Department is committed to treat every tax-payer as honest, unless proven otherwise and provide fair, courteous and reasonable treatment. To shape a healthy culture it is important to have core values like ethics and integrity. Culture can’t be dictated, it has to be lived out. Tax administrators and the tax-payers both are the wheels of the chariot of tax system. Hence, honesty and accountability are required from the both the sides. Higher the transparency, honesty and accountability, better the stability of the country’s economy.

Posted in May.

I hope you and your family members are safe and healthy as I write to you amidst a lock down in most of the states on account of the second wave of the COVID Pandemic, however we are getting positive news that daily positive cases are on the decline and the recovery rate is high.

Friends it is important that we get vaccinated and hence I would like to appeal to all movers to get yourselves and your families vaccinated and also don’t let your guard down and always be masked up, this will help us deal with the purported third wave as us being stated by some medical experts.

Friends, we at AIFTP are equally concerned about the health and well being of our members as we have also lost quite a few members to this pandemic, we pray that their souls get eternal peace at the lotus feet if the almighty.

We have initiated a COVID Relief Fund with an initial contribution of ` 20 Lakhs from the Head Office, under the Chairmanship of our Past President Dr. Ashok Saraf to provide relief to needy members, who have suffered on account of hospitalisation on account of COVID and also to the family members of the members who have lost their lives on account of the pandemic. The details of the scheme are given on the third Cover Page. I also would like to thank the North and East Zone for Contributing ` 10 lakhs each to the fund and other zones are following, I am also thankful to the members who have shown their largesse and donated handsomely, and helping us in achieving the initial target of ` 1 Crore, members are also requested to donate generously for the Fund so we can help our AIFTP members in these testing times and also circulate the scheme amongst members so that they can benefit of the Scheme. We are glad to inform that at the time of writing this message we have already started disbursing amounts to the needy members, I would like to thank the COVID Relief Committee and the Office Bearers for coming to action immediately

Friends it is the time when we get busy with our annual filing works, members are requested to take due precautions while at work to ensure safety for themselves and their staff and are encouraged if possible to work from home.

On account of the pandemic it is difficult to meet physically and hence we had organised a few online Webinars and we are planning virtual conferences, details of which will be circulated to members over time

I would at the end request all of you to Stay Home Stay Safe and always be masked up.

Place: Eluru 
Dated: 19-5-2021 

M. Srinivasa Rao
National President, AIFTP

Posted in May.

The second summer vacation, in a row, is being spent by us locked up in our houses. The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has proved to be very lethal and has devastated many families. Every one of us has lost many people, near and dear ones, to this pandemic. As professionals, this is the time for us to sit back and introspect whether we have been following COVID-19 appropriate behavior or not. We have to seriously consider to change our work schedules, as well as our work pattern, with the realization that the COVID-19, how much ever unwanted guest it may be, is going to be part of our lives for at least the coming two to three years. As per the experts on the subject, the vaccination against COVID-19 also prevents one from serious consequences, once infected. But, it is not a shield against getting infected. At the same time it is not possible to suspend our professional work for several years. We have to get back to our professional work with the same dedication and diligence, as we used to attend to it, in the pre-COVID-19 times. This is possible if only we resolve to strictly adhere to the COVID-19 appropriate behavior and ensure that at our work places everyone follows the protocol. We can come out of these trying circumstances only through our alert and vigilant approach towards the highly infectious disease. No doubt, tough questions should be put to the Governments, both State and Central, about their preparedness in the wake of the surge and the staggering vaccination programme. We are well aware that the media is doing that job. However, it is very important to understand that no amount of governance will be able to protect you from getting infected or re-infected. The health infra, which is being put in place on war footing, will come in handy once you are infected. The only person who can help you from not getting infected is you yourself. So in the interest of our family, colleagues, staff and in the interest of the society in general let’s follow all possible precautions so that we avoid any future calamities.

In these times of despair I don’t want to strike a pessimistic note. As tax professionals, we are acclimatized to change our work patterns at the shortest possible period of notice. Unfortunately, this quality of our resilience is being taken for granted by our clients as well as the Government. The flexibility shown by us is being considered as our weakness. It is high time that we, professionals, send a tough message to both. In the same vein, let me discuss the vows of the faceless regime in assessments. I have come across several assessment orders which are passed, pursuant to notices issued under section 148(1) under the Income tax Act,1961. The same were challenged by filing Writ Petitions before the High Courts and stay was granted by them against the said notices. However, without bothering for the interim orders, the assessment orders have been framed, raising huge demand in these matters. It seems that this is being done deliberately to create pressure on the judiciary by the tax administration. Sheer number of orders, passed, suggests that it is not a mistake or oversight. In an appropriate matter, this should be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court. Another facet of the faceless regime is scant respect shown to the principles of natural justice. The Central Board of Direct Taxes keeps extending the time limits, applicable to the departmental authorities to pass orders. But, the faceless assessment regime refuses to grant time to the assesses without appreciating the fact that the professionals’ offices are not operational, due to infected staff or the lockdowns, announced by various State Governments. The arbitrary and high pitched assessments are fastening the assesses with huge demands, during these pandemic periods, where the businesses are struggling for the oxygen of liquidity. The assesses are not left with any other option but to knock the doors of the Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene to protect them from the arbitrary orders, passed in breach of principles of natural justice. It is high time the Hon’ble Finance Minister looks into this urgently and sees to it that all the gains, made by reducing the litigation by introducing Vivad Se Vishwas schemes both under the Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes, are nullified.

On behalf of all the professionals, it is a humble request to the Hon’ble Finance Minister to interact with us, the professionals, on a regular basis on a common platform. There is one condition, it should not be moderated by the members of the either of the Direct or Indirect taxes Board. Your Honor will appreciate that the Boards are dedicated to achieving the goals, set by you. Their presence in these meetings makes them examples of running with the hare and hunting with hounds. These interactions will be very valuable especially to roll out new schemes, such as faceless assessments. If such an interaction takes place with respect to the Faceless First Appeal, as till now, not even a single order has been passed, the assesses can be saved from the similar kind of agony which they are facing under the faceless assessment regime.

In this issue, we have collected articles on important issues, concerning both under direct and indirect taxes. Eminent professionals have devoted their valuable time to enrich our knowledge. On behalf of the Journal Committee of the AIFTP I sincerely thank the contributors to this issue of the AIFTP- Journal. Please stay at home and remain safe.

K. Gopal,
Editor

Posted in May.

Sr. No.

Name of Members

Profession

Zone

1

Harinadha Reddy Pallapolu

GSTP

South

2

Shivkumar Dhadd

Adv.

West

3

Vivek Agarwal

Adv.

East

4

Ramesh Gordhandas Kundnani

GSTP

West

5

Shrinivas Hanmant Atre

GSTP

West

6

Dharmendra Kumar Sinha

Adv.

East

7

Makarand Joshi

CA.

West

8

Jitendra Anand Manchal

Adv.

West

9

Kishore Mullapudi

GSTP

South

10

Rajamanickam Mohan Ganesh

GSTP

South

11

Mukund Laxmanrao Potnis

T.P

South

12

Vishwas S. Urade

S.T.P

West

13

Rakesh Bhandari

CA.

Central

14

Niranjan Mishra

CA.

East

15

Surya Kumar Pani

CA.

East

16

Anilkumar Kesavan

GSTP

South

17

Sameer Singh

CA.

Central

18

Ranjan Jitendra Mehta

CA.

Central

19

Devershi Vijayvergia

CA.

Central

20

Ankit Gupta

CA.

Central

21

Manish Maliwal

CA.

Central

22

Damsani Ravinder Reddy

T.P

South

23

Vikas Agrawal

CA.

Central

24

Ananthula Srinivas

T.P

South

25

Dilip Arvind Torawane

GSTP

West

26

Vilas R. Mathankar

GSTP

West

27

Kisan Dattatray Billa

Adv.

West

28

Ayush Kedia

CA.

Central

29

Anil Kumar Agrawal

CA.

Central

30

Dharmesh Parikh

CA.

West

31

Sheshgiri Joshi

T.P

South

32

Pushpesh Paliwal

Adv.

Central

33

Siddharth Jain

CA.

Central

34

Jayesh Morarji Gogri

CA.

West

35

Rahul Garg

Adv.

North

36

Dilip Kumar Mohata

CA.

Central

37

Purushothaman S. K.

Adv.

South

38

Devank Singhvi

CA.

Central

39

Jitendra Singh Chauhan

Adv.

Central

40

Gautam Bhalla

Adv.

North

41

Gourav Murarka

CA.

East

42

Daxesh R. Patel

GSTP

West

43

Vijay Shekhar Shetty

CA.

West

44

Vilas Wani

T.P

West

45

Naveen Bansal

Adv.

Central

46

Ariyamba C. R.

GSTP

South

47

Mukesh Kumar Pipara

Adv.

Central

48

P. Muthusamy

GSTP

South

49

Mohammed Idris Ibrahim Bagban

T.P

West

50

Abhishek Satishkumar Rathi

CA.

West

51

Piyush Kumar Singhi

CA.

Central

52

Dinesh Singhal

CA.

Central

53

Siddayya S. Swamy Muganoor

GSTP

South

54

Manish Agarwal

CA.

Central

55

Ashok Grover

T.P

North

56

Raveendra S. Kore

CA.

South

57

Murli Mohan Gupta

Adv.

Central

58

V. Purushothaman

T.P

South

59

Gunjan Singhal

Adv.

North

60

P. C. Muthu Kumaresen

GSTP

South

61

Vasudev Gopalkrishna Pai

GSTP

South

62

Vishnu Vankadara

GSTP

South

63

Roopesh P.

S.T.P

South

64

Arvind Singhal

CA.

Central

65

Ankit Totuka

Adv.

Central

66

Amit Tiwari

Adv.

Central

67

Jimmy Modi

CA.

Central

68

Ranjan Chavan

GSTP

West

69

Alpesh P. Upadhyay

Adv.

West

70

Divya Garg

CA.

Central

71

Geetanjali Khanna

CA.

North

72

Liona Gracias

CA.

West

73

Rajesh Kumar

CA.

Central

74

Jeetendra Jain

CA.

East

75

Praveen Godbole

CA.

North

76

Rajesh Sahu

CA.

Central

77

Sujay Iccharam Naik

GSTP

West

78

Lomesh M. Parikh

T.P

West

79

Shiv Kumar

CA.

North

80

Arpit Vijay

CA.

Central

81

Pritesh K. Nagar

Adv.

Central

82

Ajay Krishna Harit

CA.

Central

83

Arun Kumar Jain

Adv.

Central

84

Sunil Arora

Adv.

North

85

Ramesh Chandra Mehta

GSTP

Central

86

Jignesh R. Pathak

Adv.

West

87

Mukesh Indurkhya

CA.

Central

88

Manickam Selvaraj

GSTP

South

89

Shaminder Arora

GSTP

North

90

Amar Kumar

Adv.

East

91

Deepak Rastogi

Adv.

North

92

Abhay Balaji Kulkarni

T.P

West

93

Amitabh Agarwal

Adv.

North

94

S. Nilakandan

GSTP

South

95

Naresh Kumar Jain

T.P

Central

96

Prateek Jain

CA.

Central

97

Jitendra R Shah

T.P

West

98

Naresh Agarwal

Adv.

East

99

Nitin Pahariya

CA.

Central

100

Budhiraj Bhalchandra Khurape

GSTP

West

101

Ujwal N Samleti

Adv.

West

102

Vinod Kumar Yadav

Adv.

East

103

Sandeep Shamdas Shaha

Adv.

West

104

Debabrata Mukherjee

Adv.

East

105

Sarishti Sachdeva

Adv.

North

106

Amit Kumar Rai

Adv.

North

107

Haresh Lalwani

CA.

West

108

Vikram Saraf

CA.

Central

109

Jai Kumar Jain

Adv.

Central

110

Sanandan Roy

Adv.

East

111

Aditya V. Jain

Adv.

Central

112

Manoj Kumar

CA.

North

113

Sunil N. Sangle

Adv.

West

114

Meenu Chaplot

CA.

Central

115

Manish Kumar Maurya

CA.

North

116

Bhagwan J. More

GSTP

West

117

Sanjeev Khandelwal

Adv.

Central

118

Bhargav Raval

Adv.

West

119

Saritha Pushpa

GSTP

South

120

Balasubramanian S.

GSTP

South

121

Rahul Lamba

Adv.

East

122

Srinivasulu Tummalapenta

CA.

South

123

P. C. Parwal

CA.

Central

124

Mahendra Dani

CA.

Central

125

Hardik Pravin Modh

Adv.

West

126

Saral Agarwal

CA.

East

127

Ankit Kanodia

Adv.

East

128

Vanshaj Sehgal

Adv.

North

129

Pravina Nitin Oswal

CA.

West

130

Ashish Agarwal

Adv.

Central

131

Puneet Rakesh Gupta

CA.

Central

132

Swapnil Mulchand Munot

CA.

West

133

Abhishek Srivastava

CA.

North

134

Piyush Singhi

Adv.

East

135

Uttam Shankar Mohite

S.T.P

West

136

Kartikey Nema

Adv.

West

137

Navendu Bera

Adv.

West

138

Abhay Phadke

I.T.P

South

139

Kunjan Chetty Loganathan

GSTP

South

140

Rajesh Kumar

Adv.

East

141

Seema Phadke

I.T.P

South

142

Suman Agrawal

Adv.

Central

143

Hitesh Gada

GSTP

West

144

Sukanta Basak

GSTP

East

145

Sukhjit Khanna

CA.

North

146

Rakesh Gupta

Adv.

Central

147

Kavita Jain

Adv.

East

148

Shiji P. George

GSTP

South

149

Vikas Jain

CA.

Central

150

Rohit Kumar Choudhary

CA.

East

151

Bharat Bhushan

CA.

Central

152

Avnish Khan

CA.

North

153

Mahesh Kumar Ameta

Adv.

Central

154

Gurdeep Singh Ahluwalia

Adv.

West

155

Obilisetty V. R. S. Satyanarayana Murthy

T.P

South

156

Satya Prasad Sripathi

GSTP

South

157

Bareddi V. M. Narasimharao

GSTP

South

158

Pushkar Mandal

Adv.

East

159

Deepak Rameshrao Kattekar

T.P

West

160

Sandeep Sadashiv Sawant

I.T.P

West

161

Krishan Kumar Khandelwal

CA.

Central

162

Bhavesh Mittal

CA.

Central

163

Pradeep Kadavil

GSTP

South

164

John Kurian

GSTP

South

165

Mahesh Kumar Dudhoria

CA.

East

166

Mukesh Kumar Ruwatia

CA.

Central

167

Amit Anil Shende

CA.

West

168

Sahina Khan

CA.

Central

169

Rupesh Gujrati

CA.

North

170

Meenakshi Gujrati

CA.

North

171

Shailendra Gupta

CA.

North

172

Ram Avtar Agrawal

T.P

Central

173

Chandra Prakash Gupta

Adv.

Central

174

Shreyas Shrikant Kakirde

CA.

West

175

Abhishek Agarwal

CA.

East

176

D. Durga Prasad

Adv.

South

177

B. Balagokulkumar

CA.

South

178

G. Balaji

S.T.P

South

179

G. S. Kulkarni

Adv.

South

180

Himanshu Gupta

Adv.

Central

181

Girish Pai R.

GSTP

South

182

Manas Dash

CA.

East

183

Purnendu Bhusan Mohanty

CA.

East

184

Vedant Agrawal

Adv.

Central

185

Khaleel Abubakar Sayed

Adv.

West

186

Sanket Sanjay Amate

Adv.

West

187

Rajesh Shah

CA.

Central

188

Vipul Kachardas Nabariya

Adv.

West

189

Krishanu Upadhyay

Adv.

East

190

Ashwini Anant Bidkar

GSTP

West

191

Keshaw Kumar Harodia

CA.

East

192

Chandesh Kumar

Adv.

North

193

Arvind Kumar Bapna

CA.

Central

194

Ramesh R.

T.P

South

195

Noratan Sharma

Adv.

Central

196

Sarankhawala Mohammed Uvesh

GSTP

West

197

Pavan Ved

Adv.

Central

198

Pankaj Baid

Adv.

East

199

Akash Bhandari

Adv.

East

200

Zalak Sohilkumar Dalal

Adv.

West

201

Rohit Aggarwal

Adv.

Central

202

Om Prakash

Adv.

North

203

Aashish Agrawal

CA.

Central

204

Dinesh K Agarwal

CA.

East

205

N. Madhusoodhanan

GSTP

South

206

S. Senthamil Selvan

GSTP

South

207

C. Subramoniam

T.P

South

208

Sanket M. Shah

T.P

West

209

Devang Gargieya

Adv.

Central

210

A. Kumar

T.P

South

211

Prashant Deepakkumar Deshaval

Adv.

West

212

Priyanka Gargieya

Adv.

Central

213

Yashvi Gargieya

Adv.

Central

214

Yashika Verma

CA.

North

215

Paras Verma

Adv.

North

216

Manish Dharnidharka

CA.

Central

217

Godavari Srinivas

CA.

South

218

Devendra Saraf

Adv.

East

219

Piyush Kumar Kamal

Adv.

North

220

N. Nithiya Sahaya Dhas

TP

South

221

Gunjan Agrawal

CA.

Central

222

Sudhir Kumar Banthiya

CS.

East

223

Amrish Agrawal

Adv.

North

224

Sundaresan Balasubramanian

GSTP

South

225

Mahendra Kumar Pandey

Adv.

North

226

Aayush Sadani

CA.

Central

227

Vineet Agrawal

CA.

Central

228

Krishna Sadani

CA.

Central

229

Gopalbhai Chandubhai Bhatt

Adv.

West

230

Vijoy Shankar Mishra

Adv.

East

231

Venu R. Prabhu

TP

South

232

Shishir Kumar Singh

Adv.

North

233

Gangadharan K. K.

GSTP

South

234

Abhishek Jain

CA.

Central

235

Anirudhan V.

GSTP

South

236

Vikas Jain

CA.

Central

237

Siddharth Agarwal

CA.

East

238

Sachidanand Parida

Adv.

South

239

Mufazzal Husain Johar

CA.

Central

240

Nimisha Meghwani

CA.

Central

241

Rajan Jain

CA.

Central

242

Nitin Sharma

CA.

Central

243

Abhinav Agrawal

Adv.

North

244

Devendra Kumar Agarwal

CA.

Central

245

Rajesh Kumar Golchha

CA.

Central

246

S. Karthikeyan

TP

South

247

Akash Singhal

CA.

Central

248

K. S. Bhat

Adv.

South

249

Vivek Mehrotra

CA.

North

250

Supriya Bose

Adv.

East

251

Prince Mohan Sinha

CS.

North

252

Ritesh Dulehraj Mehta

CA.

West

253

Priyesh Anand

Adv.

East

254

Jitendra Pal Garg

Adv.

Central

255

S. Kanagaraj

ITP

South

256

Vinay Kumar

Adv.

North

257

Dinkar Bansal

CA.

Central

258

Deepak Anand

CA.

North

259

M. R. Hiremath

TP.

South

260

Anupam Kumar Dey

Adv.

East

261

Manoj Fadnis

CA.

Central

262

Gopalachar Balaji

GSTP

South

263

Mahendra Singh

Adv.

East

264

Subarna Podder

Adv.

East

265

R. Kumaresan

TP

South

266

Shreeram Agiwal

CA.

East

267

Prasanta Kumar Sahu

TP

West

268

N. Sathish

TP

South

269

Sanjay Kumar Sharma

Adv.

East

270

Govind R. Batra

CA.

West

271

Sajith V. G.

GSTP

South

272

Qasim Mehandi

Adv.

North

273

Ram Prakash Goyal

CA.

North

274

Deepak Mehta

TP

Central

275

Rajeev Sharda

Adv.

North

276

Divya Chandra

CA.

North

277

S. Prasath

TP

South

278

Kumar Anand

Adv.

East

279

Vivek P. N.

GSTP

South

280

Dron Bharadwaj

CA.

North

281

Arimardan Raut

Adv.

East

282

Anurag Nema

CA.

Central

283

K. Balaji

Adv.

South

284

Sankalp Pitaliya

CA.

Central

285

Amit Gurnani

CA.

Central

286

Sanjay Soni

CA.

Central

287

Deepak Nawrange

GSTP

West

288

Sandip Subhash Somawanshi

Adv.

West

289

B. Syed Alferdheen

GSTP

South

290

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra

CA.

Central

291

Jaish Joshi

Adv.

East

292

Ajay Kumar Sain

CA.

Central

293

Piyush Agarwal

CA.

Central

294

Gopal Krishan Mundra

CA.

Central

295

Kumar Vaibhav

Adv.

East

296

M. Madanraj

Adv.

South

297

Chandaluri Venkateswara Rao

Adv.

South

298

Venkatesh Dattusa Bakale

GSTP

South

299

Chirag Ashwinbhai Mistry

Adv.

West

300

Arif Beig

Adv.

North

301

Nilesh Hiralal Rajai

Adv.

West

302

Ajay Jain

CA.

North

303

K. G. Kannan

CA.

South

304

Vishal Kumar Mittal

Adv.

North

305

Anil Kumar Yadav

CA.

Central

306

Rakesh Cajla

Adv.

North

307

Saurabh Agarwal

CA.

Central

308

Balaji Gupta

Adv.

South

309

Hardik Taneja

Adv.

North

310

Kamalesh Sanghani

CA.

West

311

Sudhir Agrawal

CA.

Central

312

Ritesh Agarwal

CA.

Central

313

Shekhar Madhukar Kulkarni

CA.

West

314

K. B. Marakana

Adv.

West

315

Shalinta D. Sharma

CA.

North

316

Kaushal Kumar Agarwal

CA.

Central

317

Mukesh Garg

CA.

East

318

Sandeep Kumar Nema

Adv.

Central

319

Visakhan E. K.

GSTP

South

320

Vikas Garg

CA.

Central

321

Milan Pareek

CA.

Central

322

Mahesh Kumar Kaushik

Adv.

East

323

Vivek Khandelwal

CA.

North

324

Sunil Kumar Gogra

CA.

Central

325

Maheshwar Nagayyaswami Hiremath

GSTP

South

326

Abhishek Kumar

CA.

North

327

Paras Jain

CA.

Central

328

Adapaka Prakasa Rao

TP

South

329

Niraj Vimal Punmiya

Adv.

West

330

Verendra Singh Nahar

CA.

Central

331

Rajesh Surana

CA.

Central

332

Pawan Mittal

CA.

Central

333

Yogesh Gautam

GSTP

Central

334

Dheeraj Borad

CA.

Central

335

Purva Mittal

CA.

Central

336

Shailendra Agarwal

CA.

Central

337

Ch. N. V. S. Ramana Murty

CA.

South

338

Ajay Jain

CA.

Central

339

Pawan Garg

CA.

Central

340

Sanjay Jain

CA.

Central

341

Pankaj Bansal

CA.

Central

342

Naveen Sharma

CA.

Central

343

Suresh Solanki

CA.

Central

344

Suresh Kumar Pati

Adv.

East

345

Bharat Lohiya

CA.

Central

346

Satyam Agrawal

CA.

North

347

M. N. Akhilesan

GSTP

South

348

Suresh Kumar P.

STP

South

349

Tendulkar C. S.

CA.

South

350

Madhusudanan P.

TP

South

351

S. Kannan

Adv.

South

352

Karmveer Bansal

CA.

Central

353

M. Selvamani

GSTP

South

354

Subrahmanian P.

GSTP

South

355

Suresh K.

GSTP

South

356

Harvinder Singh

Adv.

North

357

Amit Grover

Adv.

North

358

Pradeep Sharma

Adv.

Central

359

Lokesh Gupta

Adv.

Central

360

Nitin Garg

CA.

North

361

Udai Raj Tiwari

Adv.

North

362

Mohinder Kumar Chopra

Adv.

North

363

Aditya Shah

CA.

East

364

Rajeev S.

GSTP

South

365

Salil Chopra

Adv.

North

366

Nazeerhusen Shamshuddin Jamadar

GSTP

West

367

Amit Madan

Adv.

North

368

Rakesh Nahar

CA.

Central

369

Rajesh Kumar Mahajan

Adv.

North

370

L. N. Dayananda

GSTP

South

371

Ashwani Kumar Verma

CA.

North

372

Amol S. Patil

Adv.

West

373

R. Panner Selvam

GSTP

South

374

B. Chidambaram

TP

South

375

Gurmeet Singh Chawla

Adv.

North

376

Subramanyeswara Rao S.

TP

South

377

Shiv Rohit Prajapati

CA.

West

378

Shri Gopal Soni

CA.

Central

379

Pawan Kumar Soni

CA.

Central

380

Rajeev Kamboj

Adv.

East

381

Pavan Kumar Agrawal

Adv.

North

382

Kapot Ranjan Banerjee

Adv.

East

383

Ashish Trivedi

Adv.

Central

384

Kunal Nagpal

Adv.

North

385

Hariom Kalra

Adv.

North

386

Himadri Soni

Adv.

Central

387

Sundeep Kumar Chandarana

CA.

South

388

Kailash Goyal

CA.

Central

389

Mahesh Chawla

Adv.

North

390

Ashish Kanoria

Adv.

Central

391

Bisu Naskar

Adv.

East

392

Younus Ahamad

Adv.

North

393

Vipin Kumar Dhiman

Adv.

North

394

Kuldeep Gupta Kd

CA.

Central

395

Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay

Adv.

North

396

Rajinder Sharma

Adv.

North

397

Mayank Sharma

Adv.

North

398

Vinay Garg

CA.

Central

399

M. Varalakshmi

GSTP

South

400

P. V. Sai Saketh

Adv.

South

401

Cily Jose

CWA

South

402

Naman Maheshwari

Adv.

Central

403

Pitamber Adwani

CA.

Central

404

Vinod Suresh Shah

STP

West

405

Ravi Mishra

Adv.

North

406

Sanjeev Choudhary

Adv.

East

407

Naresh Kumar Janveja

CA.

Central

408

Parashuram T. Miskin

CA.

South

409

Ajay Srivastava

Adv.

North

410

Rameswar Routray

Adv.

East

411

Atul Deshmukh

CA.

West

412

Debojyot Das

Adv.

East

413

Krishna Kishore Mantriraju

GSTP

South

414

Mayur Ashok Gujarathi

TP

West

415

Naresh Kumar Karwa

CA.

Central

416

Neerav Dad

CA.

West

417

Puneet Mallikarjun Biradar

TP

South

418

Rajkumar A.

TP

South

419

Hitendra G. Manghani

GSTP

South

420

Santosh Arun Patil

TP

West

421

Suhas Bhat

GSTP

South

422

Surbhi Ranka

CA.

Central

423

Mahesh S. Gadekar

Adv.

South

424

Yogesh Sharma

CMA

Central

425

Neha Sultania

CA.

East

426

Chinmay Agarwal

Adv.

East

427

Ashish Sogani

CA.

Central

428

Raj Kumar

Adv.

North

429

Binesh Balakrishnan

TP

South

430

Venkatasubramanian N.

GSTP

South

431

Satish Kumar Gupta

Adv.

North

432

Sagar Tripathi

CA.

North

433

Pravin Kumar Gupta

CA.

North

434

Bhavin Mehta

STP

West

435

Palanimurugan S.

TP

South

436

Vikas Kumar Vishwakarma

CA.

North

437

Pradeep Agarwal

CA.

Central

438

Ramesh Bhat K.

Adv.

South

439

Jagrut Harivadan Shah

CA.

West

440

Manoj Kabra

Adv.

East

441

Prachi Sharma

CS.

North

442

Dennis George V.

TP

South

443

Sunny Katesaria

CA.

East

444

Gauravkumar Jayantibhai Patel

Adv.

West

445

Niyaz Ahmad Khan

Adv.

North

446

Prakash Chandra Pathak

Adv.

North

447

Ishita Gupta

CA.

North

448

Gopal Sharma

Adv.

East

449

Rajni Kant Verma

Adv.

North

450

Jay Kishorchandra Modi

Adv.

West

451

Purushothama K. L.

CA.

South

452

Mohit Cholera

CA.

West

453

Anil Khandelwal

CA.

Central

454

Vishnu Bhardwaj

Adv.

Central

455

Sharad Dargar

Adv.

East

456

Jewesh Manuja

Adv.

North

457

V. Raghavendran

TP

South

458

Pankaj Kumar

Adv.

North

459

V. C. Mutgekar

GSTP

South

460

Pallavi Daryani

Adv.

West

461

Deshnidhi Gupta

CA.

Central

462

Rashmikant Chandrakant Modi

CA.

West

463

Dinesh Kumar Ramapati Tiwari

TP

West

464

Girish Kallappa Nadagadalli

Adv.

South

465

Vishal Bhatnagar

Adv.

North

466

Anandd Babunath

CA.

South

467

Santosini Padhy

Adv.

East

468

Mangal Singh Dhaker

Adv.

Central

469

Soumen Sadhukhan

Adv.

East

470

Vivek Vikram Jain

Adv.

Central

471

A. Hamath Basha

GSTP

South

472

Santosh Kumar

Adv.

Central

473

Anshuman Jyotiprakash

Adv.

East

474

Anitha Viukumar

Adv.

South

475

Ravichandran K.

Adv.

South

476

S. Karunakar

Adv.

South

477

Prashant V. Munot

CA.

West

478

Ravindra Rajnikant Manek

CA.

West

479

Ayush Gupta

CA.

Central

480

Shaishavi R. Kadakia

Adv.

West

481

Shravan M. S.

GSTP

South

482

Savita A. Hiremath

GSTP

South

483

Amol Navanitlal Shaha

GSTP

West

484

Chaitanya Pandey

CA.

Central

485

Ketki Sudheer Rajeshirke

CA.

West

486

Dinesh Kumar Laddha

CA.

Central

487

Prakash C.

CA.

South

488

Abhishek Sharma

CA.

Central

489

Shalender S. Gupta

Adv.

North

490

Kadiyam Gangadhararao

GSTP

South

491

Pragati Jaiswal

CA.

North

492

Babulal Chajed

Adv.

South

493

Girdhar Lal Harlalka

CA.

East

494

Dinesh Kumar Jain

CA.

Central

495

P. Narasimha Rao

GSTP

South

496

Kirankumar Komaravolu

CA.

South

497

Suresh Singh

Adv.

North

498

Vishrut M. Jain

Adv.

West

499

Manoj Chopra

Adv.

North

500

Ajinkya Sanjay Abhyankar

TP

West

501

Kamal Jain

CA.

Central

502

Uma Shankar Agarwal

CA.

East

503

Nagendra Jogi

TP

South

504

Sanjay Kumar Gautam

Adv.

North

505

Narayan Kr. Agarwal

CA.

East

506

Shrawan Kumar Sahu

Adv.

North

507

Sudha Kakra

Adv.

East

508

Anirudh R. Garga

Adv.

South

509

Manikonda S. Lakshmana Rao

TP

South

510

Syed Dilshad Iqbal

Adv.

Central

511

Goutham Kumar S.

CA.

South

512

Nimish Gami

CA.

West

513

Sanjit Saha

Adv.

East

514

Ritesh Kabra

Adv.

East

515

Rushikesh Manikrao Gadhave

TP

West

516

Pritesh B. Dholakia

CA.

West

517

D. G. Venkatesh Babu

GSTP

South

518

Mayur Sarda

CA.

East

519

Dinesh Kumar Natani

CA.

Central

520

D. Satheeshkumar

GSTP

South

521

Sooraj N. G.

TP

South

522

Manjunatha B. P.

GSTP

South

523

Arpit Ashok Agrawal

CA.

West

524

M. Dorairajan

TP

South

525

Sachindra Misra

CA.

Central

526

Vinod Jain

Adv.

North

527

Sumanta Acharya

Adv.

East

528

Avinash Devappa Pattankude

GSTP

West

529

Sanjive Kumar Sharma

Adv.

North

530

Sunil Kumar Jain S.

CA.

South

531

Subrham

Adv.

North

532

M. Manikandan

TP

South

533

Shivakumar Patil

GSTP

South

534

Ashok Kumar Jain

CA.

Central

535

Prateek Agrawal

CA.

Central

536

Santosh Kumar Mohta

CA.

East

537

Parveen Kumar Wadhwa

Adv.

North

538

Gireesh. M

GSTP

South

539

Rajat Barjatya

GSTP

Central

540

Santosh Muchhal

CA.

Central

541

Kailash Nath Seth

Adv.

North

542

Shruti Agrawal

CA.

North

543

Prakash Chandra Gupta

CA.

Central

544

Neti Agarwal

CA.

East

545

Omprakash Jain

CA.

South

546

Anand Bihari Singh

CA.

North

547

Paras B. Jain

CA.

West

548

Gaurav Mayur Parekh

GSTP

West

549

Mridul Mertia

Adv.

Central

550

R. Balaji

TP

South

551

Vinit Jain

CA.

Central

552

Anand Ramkishan Partani

CA.

West

553

Rohit Kumar

Adv.

North

554

Sawaraj Garg

Adv.

North

555

Shridhar S Patil

TP

South

556

Aanchal Gupta

CA.

East

557

Gyan Chandra Mishra

CA.

North

558

Yogesh Ramesh Angadi

CS.

South

559

Tirtha Sarathi Paul

Adv.

East

560

Jayesh T. Vithlani

TP

West

561

Abhijeet Anil Hasbe

TP

South

562

Chithiram R.

TP

South

563

Nayan Babu Prajapati

CA.

West

564

N. Phaneendra

GSTP

South

565

Neeraj Gupta

Adv.

North

566

Rashmeet Kaur Hora

Adv.

Central

567

Ajitsinh Anandrao Mohite

Adv.

West

568

Dhiraj Ghai

CA.

Central

569

Venkatesh Bandigi

TP

South

570

Manoj Saparia

CA.

East

571

Ashwani Mundra

CA.

Central

572

Sagar Ramesh Jagtap

TP

South

573

Amit Joshi

CA.

East

574

Supriya Mukherjee

Adv.

East

575

Divya P.

GSTP

South

576

Amit Kumar Jhawar

CA.

East

577

Debendra Banthiya

Adv.

East

578

Pawan Kumar Kanungo

CA.

Central

579

Manmohan Mahipal

CA.

Central

580

Uday Dhopeshwarkar

GSTP

South

581

Kushal Shah

CA.

West

582

Preethylatha Somasundaran

STP

South

583

Rameshwar Prashad Karal

CA.

Central

584

Ajay Kumar Aggarwal

CA.

Central

585

Pawan Kumar Nirola

Adv.

North

586

Shashank Shrivastava

Adv.

Central

587

Sunil D. Jaithwar

CA.

West

588

Radesh Jambigi

GSTP

South

589

Ramesh Chand Garg

Adv.

Central

590

Ganesh Rajgopalan

CA.

West

591

Sanjay Dhingra

CA.

North

592

Sunil Agrawal

CA.

East

593

Ramasamy E.

TP

South

594

Amal Mukherjee

Adv.

East

595

John Frankline

GSTP

South

596

Manoj Gupta

Adv.

Central

597

Dinesh R. Patil

GSTP

South

598

Ambresh Kumar Pandey

Adv.

North

599

Rishi Sharma

CA.

North

600

H. Nagararajarao

TP

South

601

Panav P. Khandelwal

CA.

Central

602

B. Srinivasan

TP

South

603

Tapan Kumar Roy

Adv.

East

604

Sudarshan Kumar

STP

North

605

Jay Prakash Singh

CA.

North

606

Raj Kumar Kabiraj

Adv.

East

607

Jai Prakash Yadav

CA.

North

608

Sunil Kumar Ghosh

TP

East

609

N. Ganesh

CA.

South

610

Mahesh C. Kalyanshettar

GSTP

South

611

Ajay Kant Khandelwal

Adv.

Central

612

N. Srinivasan

GSTP

South

613

Rajesh Mangal Agrawal

CA.

Central

614

Kuldip R. Chauhan

CA.

South

615

S. Arul Murugan

GSTP

South

616

Anadi Ram Mishra

Adv.

North

617

A. P. Rajesh

CS.

South

618

Shahnawaz Rizvi

CA.

Central

619

Ramesh Kumar L. S.

GSTP

South

620

Pratik Anil Joshi

CA.

West

621

Punit Sood

Adv.

North

622

Rashi Verma

CA.

North

623

Amit Gupta

Adv.

North

624

S. Karthikeyan

GSTP

South

625

Virendra Vijay Gheware

TP

West

626

Likhilesh D. Mistry

Adv.

West

627

Ram Manohar Gupta

CA.

Central

628

Yash Marda

CA.

East

629

Lokendra Jain

Adv.

Central

630

Supragya Ram Mishra

Adv.

North

631

Santosh Pattanashetti

GSTP

South

632

C. J. Praveen Kumar

CA.

South

633

Sneha Dinesh Vithlani

CA.

West

634

Shilpa M. Patil

GSTP

South

635

M. Mohanbabu

GSTP

South

636

Subrata Ray

Adv.

East

637

Vishwanath M. Maddinmath

TP

South

638

Jaffin Jacob

CA.

South

639

Nidhi Agarwal

CA.

North

640

Mohit Gupta

CA.

Central

641

Biraja Prasad Rout

Adv.

East

642

Rakesh Rasiklal Mehta

Adv.

West

643

Manoj Pattanashetti

GSTP

South

644

Nadeem Ahmad Khan

Adv.

North

645

Rajani Kanta Sahu

CA.

East

646

Siddharth Mohanlal Jain

CA.

South

647

Pushpa Venkatesan

TP

South

648

Basavaraja M. C.

GSTP

South

649

M. Rajeshkumar

CA.

South

650

Subhash Chandra Garg

Adv.

Central

651

Chandan S. Singh

Adv.

West

652

Anup Kumar Luharuka

CA.

East

653

Munindra Madhur Singhal

Adv.

North

654

Ramesh Babu K.

CA.

South

655

Kailash Chandra Agrawal

CA.

Central

656

Bal Krishan Dad

CA.

Central

657

Vikas Vasantrao Patil

GSTP

West

658

Shiddhalinganagouda Rudragouda Patil

Adv.

South

659

S. Premraj Jain

CA.

South

660

S. Ramesh

GSTP

South

661

S. P. Chidambaram

TP

South

662

Suguneswaran N.

GSTP

South

663

Piyush Tiwari

Adv.

Central

664

Deepak Kumar Shrivastava

Adv.

North

665

Kishore Chandra Nayak

Adv.

East

666

Yoganarasimha H. M.

GSTP

South

667

Ayush Saraf

CA.

East

668

Pawan Kumar

Adv.

North

669

Chitradevi R.

GSTP

South

670

Konathala Adi Ganeswara Rao

Adv.

South

671

Amit Jain

CA.

North

672

Anuj Bhardwaj

Adv.

North

673

Ashwini Kumar

TP

East

674

Krishna Kant Chaubey

Adv.

East

675

P. Kaliyaperumal

GSTP

South

676

Prakash Sannaveerappa Benakanal

TP

South

677

R. P. Tewari

CA.

North

678

B. S. Bangaru Setty

CA.

South

679

Ajay Kumar Singh

Adv.

North

680

Ganeshwar Ralhan

Adv.

North

681

Kapil Surendra Demapure

CA.

West

682

K. Subramanian

GSTP

South

683

Anuj Gupta

CA.

North

684

Pawan Kumar Garg

CA.

Central

685

Hardik D. Makhecha

GSTP

West

686

Rashmi Bihani

CA.

East

687

P. Krishnankutty

TP

South

688

Dhaneswar Barik

Adv.

East

689

Shiddalinganagouda B. Kallanagoudar

Adv.

South

690

Akash Maheshwari

CA.

North

691

Bhavesh Gupta

CA.

South

692

Mukesh Gupta

CA.

Central

693

J. Raman

GSTP

South

694

Krishnakumar Billapati

TP

South

695

Varun Singh

Adv.

North

696

Shivanand S. Kalshetty

GSTP

South

697

Rajesh Kumar Wadhwa

Adv.

North

698

Vaishali B. Kharde

CA.

West

699

Kota Santosh Kumar Choudhry

TP

East

700

Garima Bagrecha

CA.

Central

701

Pankaj Narendra Mehta

Adv.

West

702

Amit Ashok Jain

CA.

West

703

Deepak Kumar Singal

Adv.

Central

704

K. Arjunan

GSTP

South

705

Sujeet Kumar Singh

CA.

North

706

Siddu C. Surapuramath

GSTP

South

707

Ashok Kumar

Adv.

Central

708

Shelesh Singhvi

CA.

Central

709

Deepak Kumar Kalotia

Adv.

East

710

V. Sugavaneswaran

CA.

South

711

Ashwinikumar G. Patil

GSTP

South

712

L. R. Venkataramani

TP

South

713

K. Visahan

CA.

South

714

Biraja Kamakhi Prasad Brahma

Adv.

East

715

Satya Prakash Sarda

CA.

East

716

Shirish P. Majmundar

Adv.

West

717

Mamta Gupta

Adv.

North

718

Shalin Chokhany

CA.

East

719

Amarjyoti Dhal

GSTP

East

720

Pinki Kumari

GSTP

North

721

Krishan Kant Goyal

CA.

Central

722

Nagarajan N.

TP

South

723

Grishma Saiya

CA.

West

724

Somashekharayya Sirwarmath

Adv.

South

725

Kapil Dua

Adv.

North

726

Karan Deepak Dani

CA.

West

727

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal

Adv.

North

728

Manish Gokhroo

CA.

Central

729

Dilip Kumar Srivastava

Adv.

North

730

Vinod Chittora

CWA

Central

731

Nitin Gupta

CA.

North

732

Mukesh Daluka

CA.

Central

733

Aman Kumar Jain

CA.

North

734

GST Bar Association Varanasi

Association

North

735

Nirmal Jain

CA.

Central

736

J. V. A. N. Jogarao

CA.

South

737

Sunil Garg

GSTP

North

738

S. Prabhakar Rao

CA.

South

739

Joseph Xavier

GSTP

South

740

Binesh Babu M. K.

TP

South

741

Rakesh Bhanvarlal Sanghavi

GSTP

West

742

Basudeb Kabiraj

Adv.

East

743

Tatyaso Virbhadra Koshti

Adv.

West

744

Sunil Thakur

TP

Central

745

Piyush Kadawat

CA.

Central

746

Abhishek Damani

CA.

East

747

Shailesh Jain

CA.

Central

748

Vijay Kumar Pansari

CA.

Central

749

Vinay Guttal

GSTP

South

750

Ajimon Krishnankutty

GSTP

South

751

Varun Mittal

Adv.

North

752

Naren Maheshwari

CA.

Central

753

Mahantesh B. Dadibhavi

GSTP

South

754

Barun Kumar Mukhopadhyay

Adv.

East

755

Ashok Kumar Sharma

Adv.

East

756

K. Ranganathan

STP

South

757

Shreya Jain

CA.

Central

758

Amol Jadhav

CA.

West

759

Raj Gangdev

Adv.

West

760

Mukti Nath Sinha

Adv.

East

761

Shashidhar Jatti

GSTP

South

762

Kishore Hemraj Bardia

CA.

Central

763

Manas Ranjan Samal

Adv.

East

764

Vipin Khandelwal

Adv.

Central

765

Shiddaveerappa S. Huddar

GSTP

South

766

Mayuresh Laxman Gaikwad

TP

West

767

Sushil Kumar Gupta

Adv.

North

768

Mahantesh S. Huddar

GSTP

South

769

Dipesh Makhijani

CA.

North

770

Sanjai Jaiswal

Adv.

North

771

Dalip Kumar Goyal

CA.

Central

772

Bhuvnesh Lashkari

CA.

Central

773

V. Paranitharan

GSTP

South

774

Vikas Kumar Jain

CA.

Central

775

Birendra Saraf

Adv.

West

776

Harshvardhan Nankani

Adv.

West

777

Ashishkumar R. Trivedi

Adv.

West

778

Nitesh Malhotra

CA.

North

779

Raj Kumar Malhotra

Adv.

North

780

Ashish Bansal

Adv.

North

781

Ashok Khasgiwala

CA.

Central

782

Alphius Linus Kantharia

Adv.

West

783

Siddi Ramulu Kammari

Adv.

South

784

Ashok Roy

Adv.

East

785

Jinesh Jain

CA.

West

786

Nand Kishore Garg

CA.

West

787

Vinay Gandhi Billapati

CA.

South

788

Ragini Rajendra Shah

TP

West

789

Sunil Kumar

Adv.

North

790

Anish Arora

Adv.

North

791

Rupender Kansal

Adv.

North

792

Rajinder Kumar Ahuja

Adv.

North

793

Sanjay Madan

Adv.

North

794

Akshaya Kumar Dehury

Adv.

East

795

Rishabh Goel

CA.

North

796

Rakesh Hansa

Adv.

North

797

Subhash Aggarwal

STP

North

798

Pranjali Ambike

Adv.

West

799

Mohinder Singh

Adv.

North

800

Aditya Daga

CA.

Central

801

Abhishek Goar

GSTP

Central

802

V. Rajan

I.T.P

South

803

Chirag M. Shah

CA.

West

804

Davis Pottokaran

GSTP

South

805

C. Prabhakar

CA.

South

806

Anupama Gandhi

Adv.

North

807

Noushad A.

GSTP

South

808

Harshadbhai Chaudhari

GSTP

West

809

Ashok Kumar Parija

Adv.

East

 

  1. The wages should be more than 50% of the gross wages. Thereby, the employer may fix at least 50% as basic wages + DA + Retention Allowance (If Any) & rest 50% can be fixed other components as enumerated. However, no bifurcation of the minimum wages, either notify by the Central Government or the State Government, should be done for reducing the further statutory benefits of the employees.

  2. Increase in Provident Fund Contribution from Employer and Employee’s, due to increase in Basic+ DA+ Retention Allowance (Minimum 50% of Gross Salary)

  3. Increase in liability of Payment of Gratuity, since increase in Basic+ DA+ Retention Allowance (Minimum 50% of Gross Salary)

  4. Increase in liability of Payment of Bonus, since increase in Basic+ DA+ Retention Allowance (Minimum 50% of Gross Salary) and also code does not specify upper limit for applicability of Bonus Act.

  5. Now, Leave Encashment will be payable on Gross Salary, hence liability of employer for payment of leave encashment will be increase.

  6. Employee definition includes Supervisory, Administrative and Managerial employees too.

  7. 24K sealing for employee definition dissolved.

  8. Schedule Employment abolished. Thus now almost everyone will be covered under the definition of Employee.

  9. OT double of normal wages VS current practice of double of Basic + DA

  10. Consent of Employees for OT required.

  11. There will be a National Floor wage. No state to have MW less than this.

  12. F&F payment within 2 days after reliving

  13. Inspector Vs Inspector-cum-Facilitator. Advisory role to Employer and Workers

  14. Related Rules and Implementation date is pending. We need to wait.

  15. Digital compliance enhanced

  16. Basic + DA must be min 50% of gross wages

  17. Wages paid in Kind cannot be more than 15% of the Gross wages.

  18. Bonus shall be applicable to all even if the Basic + DA exceeds 21K. Need to wait for the rules for more clarity.

  19. There is no gender discrimination in this code.

  20. Conviction for Sexual Harassment stands as disqualification for Bonus applicability.

  21. Web based inspection process introduced

  22. Employee and Worker defined separately.

  23. Electronic payments encouraged

  24. Penalties will increase 10x

  25. Now even an Employee and Trade Union can file a complaint against an Organisation. Earlier only the Inspector had this right.

  26. Minimum Wages = Basic + DA + Retention Allow (Eg – Sugar Mills)

  27. Minimum Wages will be revised every 5 years by Govt. Periodical revisions of DA will continue as it is.

  28. Deductions from wages to be only as per prescription of law. No other deductions will be allowed.

  29. 4 Central acts merged in this code, namely Minimum Wages, Payment of Wages, Bonus Act and Equal Remuneration Act. It has 9 Chapters.

Please note that final rules are yet to be notified.

R. L. Soni has acted as faculty for Labour Laws at various Seminars as under:

  • Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) (in this seminar various corporates participate)
  • Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) (Western Region)
  • Nasik Branch of WIRC of ICAI;
  • Bhilai Branch of CIRC of ICAI
  • The Institute of Company Secretaries of India.
  • The Bombay Chartered Accountants Society
  • The Chamber of Tax Consultants
  • Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) Broker’s Forum
  • Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies (MILS- Government of Maharashtra) [Given training to Asst. Labour Commissioners and Govt. Labour Officers, and Shops & Estb Inspectors of Maharashtra State]
  • AMAZON
  • Larsen & Toubro Limited
  • The Tata Power Company Ltd.
  • Hindustan Unilever Field Services Pvt. Ltd
  • Vodafone Essar Limited
  • Bajaj Electricals Ltd
  • Anchor Electricals Pvt Ltd (By Panasonic)
  • Polycab Wires Pvt Ltd
  • Gammon India Ltd.
  • 3i-Infotech Limited
  • Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
  • Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd
  • Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd
  • Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India Pvt. Ltd
  • ABN AMRO Central Enterprise Services Pvt Ltd
  • Bharatratna Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Management & Legal Research
  • IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited
  • Lodha Group of Companies
  • Ajmera Group of Companies.
  • Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd
  • JMC Projects (India) Ltd
  • Oberoi Realty Limited
  • OMKAR REALTORS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
  • National Academy of Indian Payroll (NAIP)
  • V. O. Chartered & Cost Accountants Association
  • Borivali (Central) CPE Study Circle of WIRC of ICAI,
  • Ghatkopar CPE Study Circle of WIRC of ICAI
  • J B Nagar C.A. Study Circle, Andheri,
  • Dahisar CA Study Circle of WIRC of ICAI
  • Pune Camp CPE Study Circle, of WIRC of ICAI
  • Shri Kutchi Advocate’s Welfare Association
  • Princeton Academy (in this seminar various corporates participate)
  • Satvam Consulting Pvt. Ltd (in this seminar various corporates participate)
  • Sharp Facility Management Pvt Ltd (in this seminar various corporates participate)
  • STEPS Management Services Pvt. Ltd, UTTARKHAND (in this seminar various corporates participate)
  • IEEMA (Indian Electronics & Electrical Manufactures Association)
  • Bombay Management Association (BMA)
  • Bombay Master Printers Associations
  • Raishabh Academy Pvt Ltd
  • Shree Vagad Kala Kendra
  • Kutch Corporate Forum
  • Association of System Integrators & Retailers in Technology (ASIRT)
  • Paper Traders Association
  • Smart Edge, Goa
  • Sampat & Mehta (Chartered Accountants)
  • Computer Media Dealers Association, Fort, Mumbai.
  • Ahmedabad Branch of WIRC of ICAI.
  • VAPI Industries Association.
  • VAPI Branch of WIRC of ICAI.
  • Carnival Group
  • Masjid CPE Study Circle of WIRC of ICAI
  • Highway Concessions One Pvt. Ltd.
  • Trade Association of Information Technology (TAIT)
  • Gowalis Industries Association (Vasai, District- Palghar)
  • Foundation for Education of Girls
  • The Borivali Diamonds Cutters & Polishers (Owners) Associations.
  • Snacks Food Association of Maharashtra
  • SMS Limited (Nagpur)
  • Pramod Ram Ujagar Tiwari Saket Institue of Management (Kalyan)
  • Lions Club of Bombay Mandvi (East)
  • Vile Parle CPE Study Circle of WIRC of ICAI
  • V Giri National Labour Institute (An Autonomous Body of Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India.)
  • Idemitsu Lube India Private Limited
  • Burns & McDonnell (India)
  • Chetana’s Institute of Management & Research (CMIR) in association with (SIIOD)
  • Mumbai Port Trust in association with (SIIOD)
  • Anglo Eastern Ship Management (India) Private Limited
  • Meher Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
  • Impresario Handmade Restaurants.
  • Bloomasia Incorporated
  • Lions Club of Bombay Mandvi East
  • Rotary Club of Mumbai Downtown Sealand
  • Chamber of Small Industry Associations (COSIA, Nagpur)
  • The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council
  • E.S.I., P.F. & Other Industrial Law Practitioners’ Association (EPILPA) ……

    and many more

Query 1

Donation received by Trust

A Charitable Trust receives donations from public. The amount of donations is more than Rs.20 lakhs in a year. Trust uses the amount so received towards its charitable activities including medical and educational help to needy persons. Whether donation received will form part of aggregate turnover and whether trust liable to obtain registration under GST Act?

Reply:- Under GST, a person is liable for registration if it is carrying on business and turnover exceeds the limit of Rs.20 lakhs . The relevant statutory provisions can be noted as under:-

Section 22(1) provides for registration by every supplier in following words.

“22. (1) Every supplier shall be liable to be registered under this Act in the State or

Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees:

Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakh rupees.”

Thus, there should be supply of goods or services to make up the aggregate turnover. The meaning of ‘supply’ in section 7 can be noted as under:-

“Section 7(1): For the purposes of this Act, the expression “supply” includes––

  1. all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;

  2. import of services for a consideration whether or not in the course or furtherance of business and

  3. the activities specified in Schedule I, made or agreed to be made without a consideration;

  4. The activities to be treated as supply of goods or supply of services as referred to in Schedule II.”

It can be seen that the transactions made in the course of or furtherance of business against consideration are covered in the category of ‘supply’ for the purpose of GST Act.

The term ‘business’ is defined in section 2(17)

as under:-

“(17) “business” includes––

  1. any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit;

  2. any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sub- clause (a);

  3. any activity or transaction in the nature of sub-clause (a), whether or not there is volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such transaction;

  4. supply or acquisition of goods including capital goods and services in connection with commencement or closure of business;

  5. provision by a club, association, society, or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of the facilities or benefits to its members;

  6. admission, for a consideration, of persons to any premises;

  7. services supplied by a person as the holder of an office which has been accepted by him in the course or furtherance of his trade, profession or vocation;

  8. services provided by a race club by way of totalisator or a licence to book maker in such club ; and

  9. any activity or transaction undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities;”

Thus, the cumulative effect of above provisions is that the receipts should be for supply in course of business. There are number of judgments in which the meaning of ‘business’ is discussed. However, they are not referred here for sake of brevity. The primary thing will be to see whether Trust is engaged in any business activity as per GST Act.

Further, in relation to donations, it is required to be seen whether the donations are against supply of goods or services. Only if such receipts are against supply of goods or services, then only the receipts can be said to be supply and can be included in aggregate turnover. The ordinary meaning of ‘donation’ is very clear that it is voluntary payment by the donor without any expectation of receipt of any goods or services. If the donation is paid against any agreed goods or services like advertisement by

Trust, then it cannot be termed as a donation. It will be consideration for concerned goods or services obtained from the Trust. The meaning of ‘donation’ in dictionary can also be referred to as under:-

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

money or goods that are given to help a person or organization, or the act of giving them:

donations of food and money

I’d like to make a small donation in my mother’s name.”

“https://www.dictionary.com/browse/donation

an act or instance of presenting something as a gift, grant, or contribution.

a gift, as to a fund; contribution.”

It can be seen that donation is an act of giving something. It is not in exchange of goods or services. Therefore, such receipts cannot be considered as for supply. The Trust is also not giving any goods or services to the donor.

Similar issue is also dealt with in Flyer issued by CBIC and circular issued by CBIC bearing no.116/35/2019-GST dt.11.10.2019. In this

circular, the issue about receipt of donation against putting name plate is dealt with. While dealing so, it is clarified that such donations which are against promise of putting name plate etc. are not under any obligation or agreement and hence not liable as supply. However, if putting such name etc. amounts to advertisement then the issue about supply will arise. The said principle will apply with more force when the donations are received even without such commitments, in the sense they are blank donations without any corresponding commitment by the Trust.

Therefore, the donations cannot be considered in the aggregate turnover and no liability for registration can arise based on receipt of donations.

HIGH COURTS GUJARAT HIGH COURT FORMATIVE TEX FAB

V/S

STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 OTHER [J.B.PARDIWALA & ILESH J. VORA, JJ]

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.

14059 of 2020

Date of Decision: January 18, 2021

Provisional attachment u/s 83 of GST — Cash credit account attached—on instructions for attachment of cash credit account, the bank attached all other accounts of the petitioner on its own—writ filed—Held, said order attaching cash credit account is not sustainable

Where the cash credit account was ordered to be attached u/s 83 of the Act, the concerned bank attached all other accounts on its own. It is pleaded that all the accounts could not be attached. Moreover, attaching cash credit account is not within the scope of S 83 of GST Act,2017. The Hon’ble court has held that the impugned order attaching cash credit account u/s 83 is quashed.

DELHI HIGH COURT

RCI INDUSTRIES AND TECHNOLOGIES LTD

V/S COMMISSIONER DGST DELHI & ORS.

[RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW & SANJEEV NARULA, JJ]

W.P.(C) 121/2021

Date of Decision: January 7, 2021

Search under SGST Act—validity of—absence of signatures of independent witnesses will not render the search invalid.

Reason to believe—while exercising writ the court cannot go into the sufficiency of grounds leading to reason to believe on part of officer to conduct search.

Statement given by the petitioner was not retracted soon after which indicates that indicating that it’s a way to wriggle out of the liability admitted during search.

Facts:

Search conducted u/s 67 of DGST Act has been challenged on the grounds that no signatures of independent witnesses have been attained. That the premises are already searched by central GST Authorities and there can be no parallel enquiries by two independent authorities on the same issue. That the statement was taken coercively during search .That the officer has no reason to conduct search as required by law.

Held:

  • The statement if taken with coercion ought to have been retracted soon after but it was never done indicating that the petitioner has challenged the search action as an attempt to wriggle out of the commitment of paying tax and penalty made in the statement during the search action.

  • The authorities are dealing with different years hence there is no overlapping of enquiries by the two authorities.

  • There is no merit in the contention that absence of signatures would render the search illegal. No Panchnama was drawn. There is no such provision supporting this contention that the signatures of witnesses are required.

  • Regarding the ‘reason to believe’ to conduct search, the Hon’ble court cannot go into sufficiency of grounds while exercising writ. The reasons to believe shown to the Court demonstrate that the Appropriate authority had the reasons, as per mandate of Section 67(2) of the DGST Act along with relevant Rules, for formation of belief to carry out the search. Therefore, writ is disposed of.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT NIPUN A. BHAGAT, PROPRIETOR OF

STEEL KRAFT INDUSTRIES

V/S

STATE OF GUJARAT

[J.B. PARDIWALA & ILESH J. VORA, JJ]

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14931 OF 2020

Date of Decision: January 4, 2021

Recovery of dues—Scope of S. 86A of CGST Act—ITC available in credit ledger of the director of public company blocked to recover dues—S. 86A held wrongly invoked—director’s credit ledger cannot be blocked for recovery of dues in case of public company

The respondent had blocked the ITC available in the credit ledger of the director of the private company to recover dues. A writ is filed in this regard. It is contended that under section 18 of the Central sales tax Act, 1956, the recovery can be made from directors. It is held that S 86 A could not be invoked as S.18 deals with private company. In the present case, the company in question is a public company. Therefore, the respondent is directed to unblock it.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT MEGA JEWELS PVT LTD

V/S ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

[INDRAJIT MAHANTY & SATISH KUMAR SHARMA, JJ]

CWP No. 6575/2020

Date of Decision: January 27,2021

Refund—Input tax credit—Scope of circular No 14/14/2017 dt 6/11/2017—Refund of ITC u/s 54 (3) of CGST Act claimed—denied in view of circular dated 6/11/2017—writ filed—Held: the said circular is prospective and will not apply on transactions entered prior thereto— transaction in instant case pertains to period between July to October 2017, therefore there is no lawful impediment in justifying denial of refund of ITC—interest to be paid alongwith— writ allowed

The petitioner has filed a writ seeking refund of ITC u/s 54 (3) of the CGST Act 2017 which stood denied in view of circular dated 6/11/2017 . The Hon’ble court has allowed the writ directing the respondents to grant refund alongwith interest since the said circular is prospective and does not apply to transactions entered prior thereto

DELHI HIGH COURT PERNOD RICARD PVT. LTD.

V/S

AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING GST

[RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW & SANJEEV NARUL, JJ]

W.P.(C) 2064/2021

Date of Decision: February 16, 2021

Advance Ruling Authority—Direction given by Hon’ble court to adjudicate the application filed within 4 weeks after quorum is complete—request to Lt. Governor to process the nomination received on priority basis

The petitioner had filed an application before the Advanced Ruling authority in order to start its new business. Even after 2 ½ years no orders are passed as the quorum of 2 members is not complete. The Hon’ble court has directed that the application be decided as soon as the quorum is complete and request to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor to take up the matter on priority basis and process the nomination received from the CBIC at the earliest.

GAUHATI HIGH COURT BARAK VALLEY CEMENTS LTD

V/S

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS

[ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J] WP(C) 4334/2020

Date of Decision: February 15, 2021

EWB portal—blocking of—failure to file returns for two financial years—respondent to block the EWB portal of petitioner under Rule 138E(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017 in consequence thereto—writ filed contending that the petitioner defaulted in filing returns as refund not granted to it in terms of new industrial policy—Hon’ble court directed the petitioner to make representation before the Principal commissioner justifying reasons for refund within 3 days failing which interim order barring respondents from blocking of EWB Portal shall not hold good.

The petitioner’s EWB portal was to be blocked on account of failure to file GSTR returns for two financial years. The petitioner has contended that since it was entitled to a huge amount of refund under the new industrial policy which was not refunded by the department it had not filed returns. The Hon’ble court has directed the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent justifying the reason for refund. Till the order is passed by the Principal Commissioner, the earlier interim order requiring the respondents not to block the EWB Portal of the petitioner shall continue. If the representation is not made within the time given, the interim order shall not hold good.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ANANDESHWAR TRADERS

V/S STATE OF UP

[SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J]

W.P NO. 503 OF 2020

Date of Decision: January 18, 2021

Appeal—Additional evidence—whether can be added by respondent at time of appeal— penalty imposed for failure to cancel E-Way bill when movement did not take place— appeal filed—respondent added further ground that the same E-Way bill was used twice for movement of goods—appeal rejected—High Court observed in favour of petitioner that Rule 112 of CGST Rules does not permit additional evidence by respondent at time of appeal—amount deposited by petitioner to be returned.

The goods were seized and penalty was imposed on the ground that the E way bill was not cancelled within 24 hours of generation when the movement had not started after its issuance. Rule 138 does not prescribe that the E-way bill ought to be cancelled when the movement does not take place. On appeal by petitioner it was rejected on further added grounds by respondent that the e way bill in question had been used twice. It is held Rule 112 of CGST Rules does not permit respondent to place an additional evidence at the time of appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is to be returned the amount deposited by it.

HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT SKF FINEST ADVISORY PVT. LTD

V/S UNION OF INDIA

[JB PARDIWALA and ILESH J VORA, JJ] SCA 457 of 2021

Date of Decision: February 19, 2021

Provisional Attachment—bank account attached creating difficulty in functioning of business—Hon’ble High court has enquired if any tangible property can be furnished for uplifting bank attachment—applicant ready to maintain balance of 22 Lakhs as existed on day of attachment provided it be permitted to operate the account—matter decided in favour of assessee

After the search u/s 67 was conducted, the bank account of the applicant was provisionally attached which caused impediment in conducting its business. Enquiry still being under process, the Hon’ble High court asked for any other tangible security equivalent to the demand raised. The applicant is ready to maintain a balance of ` 22 Lakhs which was the amount available in the account when attachment was done provided it may operate its account. The applicant is ready for the undertaking, therefore the matter is decided in favour of the assessee.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAM NIGAM LTD

V/S UNION OF INDIA

[INDRAJIT MAHANTY, CJ & DINESH MEHTA, J]

CWP No 9397/2018

Date of Decision: February 5, 2021

Exemption—can exemption granted by government be taken away by way of circular—Held no—services exempted by way of notification by central government cannot be taxed by the revenue by way of issuing circular under the cloak of clarification.

The services of distribution and supply of electricity in districts of Rajasthan had been declared in negative list by the Central Government vide notification dated 28/6/2017. However, the revenue carved out an exception vide circular dated 1/3/2018 and excluded some of the services provided by the DISCOMS although the said services were themselves exempted. The Hon’ble High court has held that the respondent s have levied tax on some of the services by carving them out that too by way of circular under the cloak of clarification. The impugned paragraph of the circular is thus quashed.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI LUPITA SALUJA

V/S

DGGI AND ANR [SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J] APPLICATION NO 319/2021

Date of Decision: February 11, 2021

Anticipatory bail—enquiry under CGST Act—bogus invoices—fake suppliers and wrongly availed ITC alleged—anticipatory bail is granted on the observation that the idea of fake suppliers is misconceived by department as per documents on record— GSTR returns duly filed—applicant never called upon for investigation for one year, only after she challenged the investigation she is called—therefore, no custodial interrogation is required—anticipatory bail is granted.

Anticipatory bail is sought by the directors of the company for the enquiry initiated under the CGST Act. Allegedly the applicant has availed bogus ITC by creating fake firms and that the applicant has siphoned the funds from company accounts. It is contended by the revenue that the applicant is not merely a housewife, but an active involved in financial affairs and had been absconding after her husband was arrested.

Records show that it is misconceived that suppliers are nonexistent. The PAN cards and bank accounts are valid and the registration has been granted by the respondent itself. GSTR returns are duly filed. The applicant has been called for the first time after she challenged the whole investigation. Therefore, No custodial interrogation is required. Anticipatory bail is granted.

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND TURRET INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PVT LTD

V/S

UNION OF INDIA & ORS [APARESH KUMAR SINGH & ANUBHA

RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ]

W.P. (T) No 2661 of 2020 Date of Decision: February 4, 2021

Registration—cancellation of—show cause notice issued—subsequent cancellation on account of failure to reply to show cause notice—High Court has observed that since show cause notice was short of date and time, petitioner couldn’t be expected to reply to it— cancellation resulting from such incomplete show cause notice cannot be sustained being violative of principles of law

The GST Registration was cancelled on account of non filing of returns for a period of six months. A notice was issued by the revenue in this regard to which no reply

was filed by the petitioner. It is held that the impugned notice lacks date and time for replying due to which it stands quashed. Cancellation of registration resulting from such an incomplete show cause notice also cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION

V/S UNION OF INDIA

[UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ] WRIT PETITION (L) NO.5172 OF 20021

Date of Decision: February 26, 2021

Returns—Extention for filing — time limit was already extended once—no extinguishment of right by not extending it further—Annual returns for the period in question had been made optional if turnover is upto 2 crores and 5 crores with respect to the financial years mentioned in the notification by Central Government—Petition dismissed

The writ is filed by GST Practitioners’ Association seeking a direction to the respondents to extent the periodicity of filing of annual returns in Maharashtra due to the prevailing COVID situation. They have also sought extension of limitation period for filing of annual returns for the year 2019-20 under Section 44 of CGST Act r/w Rule-80 of CGST Rules 2017 upto 30.6.2021. The court has held that the time limit had been extended from 31.12.2020 to 28.2.2021. Perusal of Section 42 of the CGST Act reflects that non extension of the time limit beyond the sought after date would not leave to any extinguishment of right. The Central Govt. notified that annual turnover upto Rs.2 Crores for financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-2020 may be filed as an option; and for business with annual turnover upto Rs.5 crores for the above mentioned latter to financial years has been waived off.

It is the professional body of GST practitioners and not an individual taxable person finding it difficult to adher to the time line of 28.2.2021. Petitioner is dismissed.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY JSK MARKETING LTD & ANR.

V/S

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

[UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N JHADAV,JJ] WP No 5000 of 2020

Date of Decision: February 16, 2021

Arrest—apprehension of—summons issued allegedly on account of circular trading—writ filed by petitioner apprehending arrest seeking protection against coercive action—Summons observed to be indicative of only demanding oral evidence or documents by the petitioner— No arrest signified—Petitioner to appear in response to summons and respondent to refrain from coercive action if the former cooperates in investigation.

Multiple summons were issued to the petitioner allegedly involved in circular trading to which the petitioner did not respond apprehending its arrest. A writ is filed for protection against coercive action. The Hon’ble Court has held that the summons have been issued to petitioner calling him upon to tender oral evidence and produce documents. No threat of arrest is indicated therein. There is no reason to apprehend arrest on presenting himself before the investigating officer in response to summons issued. The respondents are directed not to take any coercive action if the petitioner co-operates investigation.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT RAMESWAR UDYOG PVT. LTD.

V/S UNION OF INDIA

[J.B.PARDIWALA & ILESH J. VORA, JJ]

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17688

of 2019

Date of Decision: March 18, 2021

Refund on exports—amendment in GST portal—exports of goods—errors in outwards supplies in GSTR 1—amendment of 28 invoices permitted accordingly to assist exporters—albeit refund not granted on 14 invoices on account of mismatch in GST portal and ICEGATE customs portal due to technical error—Respondent is directed to sanction the refund.

The exporter applicant had exported goods under payment of IGST. However there was a mismatch between GST portal data and data on the ICEGATE customs portal and hence, the refund of the IGST was not granted.

Steps were taken for permitting amendment of invoices. 28 invoices were amended but 14 were still pending, the amendment of which was not allowed on account of technical error.

The respondent is directed by the Hon’ble court to sanction the refund, in accordance with law, as claimed by the writ applicants within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In case of any further difficulty, it shall be open for the writ applicants to revive this writ application.

DELHI HIGH COURT MRIDUL TOBIE INC.

V/S

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL,

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS

AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE & ORS.

[RAJIV SHAKDHER & TALWANT SINGH, JJ]

W.P.(C) 2420/2021

Date of Decision: March 17, 2021

Stay of investigation—search by Commissionerate and Intelligence simultaneously—The Hon’ble court has held that in view of the circular dated 5/10/18, if the search is commenced by the Commissionerate, the other intelligence units should have held their hand as it is both practical and sensible— while respondents file their reply to the captioned application, no coercive measures to be taken against the petitioner—search officers to ensure no privacy is invaded.

As per the earlier orders passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner was relegated to Allahabad High court since few issues were overlapping with issues raised in writ petition in Allahabad High court. The respondent was given some time to file a response in this regard. Within two days of the passing of the order, authorization was given for a search being carried out by the DGGI, Delhi Zonal Unit 1. The record shows that search has been carried out not only by the Commissionerate but also by various Intelligence Units. Thus the applicant has approached for a stay in investigation.

The Hon’ble court has held that that since investigation was commenced, in the first instance, by the Commissionerate, the other Intelligence units should have held their hands in view of the circular dated 05.10.2018. Therefore, no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioner. If, in the interregnum, investigation is necessitated, in line with the circular dated 05.10.2018, it shall be carried out only by the Commissionerate. The search officers will ensure that there is no invasion of privacy.

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT NAVNEET R. JHANWAR

V/S

STATE TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

[SANJEEV KUMAR & SANJAY DHAR, JJ] WP(C) No. 443/2021

Date of Decision: March 17, 2021

Refund—improper show cause notice— principles of natural justice—show cause notice served to explain delay in claiming refund of ITC—refund rejected on merits without hearing the appellant in this regard—Held by Hon’ble Court that writ is maintainable since order passed is fundamentally flawed being violative of principles of natural justice—fresh show cause notice to be served—petition allowed.

In response to the show cause notice served, the petitioner had explained that the delay in claiming refund was on account of the pandemic. Subsequently, the respondent rejected the refund on grounds of merit without hearing the petitioner on that. The Hon’ble Court has held that writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite there being efficacious remedy of appeal since the impugned order is passed in violation of natural justice making it fundamentally flawed. Therefore, the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication after service of proper show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT SACHDEVA COLLEGES LTD.

Vs

UNION OF INDIA & ORS [RITU BAHRI & ARCHANA PURI, JJ]

CWP NO.5605 OF 2021

Date of Decision: March 10, 2021

Natural Justice—Rejection of Application u/s 97 of CGST Act—application rejected at stage of omission contending counsel of petitioner being absent—Entry Dispatch Register being proof of presence of counsel on the day of hearing – order passed in favour of petitioner by Hon’ble High court—matter remanded for fresh hearing.

ORDER

Application for AAR is filed contending that the application filed U/s 97 of the CGST Act was rejected at the stage of admission itself without giving an opportunity of hearing. On the other hand the department contends that the Counsel for the petitioner was absent. It is observed by the Hon’ble Court that the lawyer was present as per the Entry Dispatch Register. Hence, no application could be rejected without hearing the appellant in view of the provision of Sec.98(2) of the above act which is mandatory. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and remanded back to the authorities for passing a speaking order after hearing.

KERALA HIGH COURT USMAN M.

V/S

THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST TAX TOWERS & ORS.

[A.M. BADAR, J] WP(C) NO. 8319 of 2021

Date of Decision: March 30, 2021

Bank Guarantee — Invoking of — goods released on furnishing bank guarantee— guarantee invoked before filing of appeal — Held: Respondent cannot invoke the bank guarantee if petitioner files appeal challenging the order within the limitation period.

The goods were released on foundation of bank guarantee. The final order was passed by the respondent directing payment of IGST tax. However, before an appeal could be filed against the said order the respondent invoked the bank guarantee which was furnished. The Hon’ble Court has held that the respondent should not invoke bank guarantee furnished if the petitioner files statutory appeal challenging the order passed by them within the prescribed period of limitation.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT JIGAR CARS PVT. LTD.

V/S UNION OF INDIA

[J.B. PARDIWALA & ILESH J. VORA, JJ]

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15631 of 2019

Date of Decision: March 23, 2021

Transitional credit—denial of on account of typographical error in GSTR-2 returns— respondents directed to open online portal for rectification of error or accept manual returns for the period in question.

A writ is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to allow them to file returns in form GST TRAN-2 and claim transitional credit for the period concerned. The Hon’ble Court has observed that the transitional tax credit was not allowed on account of an inadvertent and bona fide typographically error made in form GST TRAN-2. In view of the ratio given in the case of Jakap Metind Pvt. Ltd. it is held that the respondents shall open an online portal to file rectified firm of GST TRAN-2 electronically for the period concerned as well as for the subsequent months, or accept manual filed returns for the months with corrections.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS VECTRA COMPUTER SOLUTIONS

V/S

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

[G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J]

W.P. No. 9531 of 2020

Date of Decision: March 25, 2021

Natural Justice—Levy Of Tax And Penalty— SCN Served—Tax And Penalty Imposed— Writ Filed Alleging Violation Of Natural Justice-Contention By Respondent To Avail

Remedy Of Appeal Under Section 107— Held That Impugned Order Being Passed Without Hearing The Appellant Is Set Aside— Respondents To Pass Fresh Orders.

The petitioner received notice proposing to levy tax in response to which no reply was submitted. A writ is filed challenging the order passed in consequence to said notice. The respondents contend that the impugned order can be challenged by way of appeal.

The Hon’ble court observed that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the matter is remitted to pass fresh orders.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

H.R. ENTERPRISES, GURPREET SINGH S/O SUBA SINGH

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN [DINESH MEHTA, J]

Civil Writ Petition No. 5266/2021 Date of Decision: April 1, 2021

Jurisdiction Of Officer—Power To Conduct Inquiry U/S 67—Check Post Officers Cannot Be Permitted To Carry Rowing Enquiry As It Would Retard Free Flow Of Trade—In Addition Thereto, The Documents Were Found In Accord—Scope Of Anti Evasion Officer Squad Ends There Itself

The requisite documents were produced in respect of goods in transit. Extension to complete inspection from the competent authority was sought to conduct inquiry relating to alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit.

The petitioners contends that such fishing and rowing inquiry in relation to availment of ITC and suspicion about the purchase transaction is not within the domain of check post officer while exercising powers under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 i.e. while goods are in movement.

It is held that the circular dated 13.04.2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs lays down guidelines for inspection and release of the goods in transit, but the same has not been adhered to by the respondent. If a Check Post Officer or Anti Evasion Officer is permitted to carry on such fishing and rowing inquiry it would retard free flow of trade resulting in unnecessary and unwarranted harassment to the carrier of goods, so also to the consignor/consignee. Even, genuineness of the goods in transit per se is not in dispute and the nature of goods on physical examination was found to be in accord. Therefore, the scope of inquiry under Section 68 of the Act of 2017 by Anti Evasion Officer/ Check Post Officer or flying squad ends. The respondent is directed to release the goods and vehicle in question forthwith, in case of furnishing two solvent sureties executed by dealers. Furnishing of bank guarantee or cash security will not be insisted upon.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

JAI MAA JAWALAMUKHI IRON SCRAP SUPPLIER

V/S STATE OF U.P.

[SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.] WRIT TAX No. 614 OF 2020

Date of Decision: March 17, 2021

Concealment Of Turnover—Couple Of Purchases Allegedly Concealed To Escape Turnover—Respondent Does Not Deny Issuance Of E Way Bill And Invoice—Alleged Transaction Cannot Be Held To Be Falling Under Undisclosed Turnover Merely Because Of Certain Discrepancies.

ORDER

The appellate authority upheld tax and penalty in respect of two alleged loose purchases holding that the turnover was concealed. A writ has been filed contending that the said purchases were covered by Tax invoice, E-way bill. As a matter of fact the respondent has not denied the issuance of these documents. It is held that once revenue authority admits that the invoice and e-way bills relied upon were genuine, it is difficult to imagine how it reached a conclusion that these invoices were unaccounted for. The alleged discrepancy in GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A referred by the Assessing Authority did not find favour by the appellate authority, therefore, the transaction cannot be held falling under category of undisclosed turnover merely because there were certain discrepancies. Petition is allowed.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT INM TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.

V/S

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

[SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.]

WP No.226277/2020 (T-Res)

Date of Decision: February 3, 2021

On Account Of Mere Technical Glitch In The Web Portal, Benefit Of Carrying Forward Of Central Credit To CGST Regime Cannot Be Denied

ORDER

Where the petitioner was permitted to carry forward Central Credit to CGST regime through TRAN-1 but the electronic credit ledger on the website of the respondent did not reflect the same, grievance was filed but no action was taken. It is held by the Hon’ble Court that merely on account of glitch in the website a registered dealer cannot be denied the benefit of credit available under the provisions of Act.

  1. Interpretation of Statutes – Intention of legislature – Is best evidenced by text of statutes itself :

First and best method of determining the intention of the legislature is the very words chosen by the legislature to have the force of law. In other words, the intention of thelegislature is best evidenced by the text of the statute itself. However, where a plain reading of the text of the statute leads to an absurd or unreasonable meaning, the text of the statute must beconstrued in light of the object and purpose with which the legislature enacted the statute as a whole. Where it is contended that a particular interpretation would lead to defeating the very object of a legislation, such an interpretative outcome would clearly be absurd or unreasonable.

Council of Architecture v. Mukesh Goyal And Others: AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1736.

  1. Trust property – Sanction to sale by Charity CommissionerApplication for revocation of sanction on ground that sanction was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and by concealing material facts- Charity Commissioner is not denuded of his jurisdiction under S. 36(2) on ground that sanction granted has been acted upon or exhausted :

The power of revocation of sanction under Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or by concealing the facts, material for the purpose of giving sanction can be exercised even after the execution of a sale-deed or the multiple sale-deeds on the basis of the sanction granted under Section 36(1)(a) of the said Act. Charity Commissioner is not denuded of his jurisdiction under S. 36(2) on ground that sanction granted has been acted upon or exhausted Sale of trust property during pendency of application for revocation of sanction . The subsequent purchasers have no right to claim hearing or an opportunity to show cause in respect of the proceedings under Section 36(2) of the said Act. Obviously, their rights or defences available in law are not concluded by the order passed under Section 36(2) of the said Act by the Charity Commissioner.

Shri Avinash Kishorchand Jaiswal v. Shri Rammandi Deosthan, Pavnar AIR 2020 BOMBAY 153

  1. Foreign judgment – Conclusiveness – Judgment of High Court of Fiji as regards due execution of Will in probate proceeding – All defendants were not parties before High Court of Fiji – Judgment per se cannot to be held to be binding qua defendant who is not shown to be party before that Court – Civil P.C. of 1908, S.13

The lower appellate court dealt with section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which relates to the foreign judgment and has recorded that although this Section makes the foreign judgment as binding, however, there are certain exception to it. Since there is nothing in the judgment passed by the High court of Fiji to suggest that the will has been proved in accordance with law as applicable in India, therefore, the said judgment being not in conformity with the law, as applicable in India, cannot be held to be binding upon the courts in India.

A bare perusal of the Section itself shows that the foreign judgment is declared to be conclusive qua the matter involved therein. However, it is binding upon the same parties which were before the foreign court or which may be claiming under them. First of all; there is nothing on record to suggest that all the defendants were parties before the High Court of Fiji. Hence this judgment per se cannot be held to be binding qua defendant No. 7, who is not shown to be a party before that court.

Karnail Singh v. Lashmir Kaur alias Kashmir Kaur and others AIR 2020 PUNJAB AND HARIYANA 88

  1. Benefit of concessional stamp duty – Availability – Sister – in-law intending to convey her individual property in favour of brother-in-law by virtue of settlement deed – Concessional stamp duty would be applicable to legal heirs, who succeed to estate of persons referred to in ‘family’ – Benefit of concessional stamp duty cannot be granted.

A person may hold property either as a legal heir or as an individual. If the person is not holding the property as a legal heir, mere family relationship with the person to whom right is being conveyed will not qualify him to claim the concessional rate. The term ‘legal heir’ is an assigned norm under law with a qualification attributable in the context of the succession to an estate. A legal heir has a distinct character in his personality Independent of being a legal heir in relation to a property. That independent property with a legal heir will not be related to others based on the rule of cognation under law of inheritance. Concessional stamp duty would be applicable to legal heirs, who succeed to estate of persons referred to in ‘family’ . If person is not holding property as legal heir, mere family relationship with person to whom right is being conveyed would not qualify him to claim concessional rate Kunjithomman E.T. v. State of Kerala AIR 2020 KERALA 110

  1. Maintenance– Claim against daughter-in-law – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007 Ss.2(a), 2(f), 5 :

In order to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons, who are neglected by their family, and lack physical and financial support, and to provide them simple, inexpensive and speedy justice, Parliament introduced the Act, and the Bill in this regard, further proposes to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives.He object of the enactment is to cast an obligation not only on the family, but also on the ‘persons’ who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives. Family has larger connotations and the same is also defined under the Act. If the persons like son-in-law and daughter-in-law and such other persons, who would be entitled in law, to inherit the property of such where the daughter-in-law has squat over the property of the parents- in-law and made them to reside in a rented accommodation, she would also come within the sweep of the definition of ‘children’ and ‘parents’ in law are entitled to maintain application against ‘daughter in law’.

H. Deepika v. Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Others AIR 2020 TELENGANA 69

  1. Right of pre-emption – Availability:

The right of pre-emption is a preferential right to acquire the property by substituting the original vendee. The transfer or sale of an immovable property is a condition precedent to the enforceability of the right. The right of pre-emption is attached to the property and only on that footing can it be enforced against the vendee. Though the right is recognised by law, yet it can be rendered imperfect by the vendor when he transfers the property to another person who also has a superior right to the plaintiff pre-emptor.

Suresh Chand and another v. Suresh Chander (D) Thr LRs and Others: AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1144

  1. Compensation – Doctrine of notional extension – Employee’s Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S.3

Death of driver of truck due to slipping in canal while bathing, during trip. Causal connection between death of workman and his employment established. Doctrine of “notional extension” of employment applicable. Claimants entitled to compensation. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now christened as Employees Compensation Act, 1923) is a piece of socially beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of the legislation, rather than to stultify it. In case of a direct conflict, when no reconciliation is possible, the statutory provision will prevail only then.

Poonam Devi and another v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1305

  1. Freedom of trade and commerce and freedom of speech and expression – Through medium of internet is constitutionally protected under Art. 19(1)(g) and 19(1)(a), subject to restrictions under Art. 19(6) : Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g),(6)

Internet is also a very important tool for trade andcommerce. The globalization of the Indian economy and the rapid advances in information and technology have opened up vast business avenues and transformed India as a global IT hub. There is no doubt that there are certain trades which are completely dependent on the internet. Such a right of trade through internet also fosters consumerism and availability of choice. Therefore, the freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of the internet is also constitutionally protected underArticle 19(1) (g), subject to the restrictions provided under Article 19(6).

Poonam Devi and another v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1305

  1. Will – Rule of last intention – Applicability – Succession Act of 1925, Ss. 74, 95, 96

First clause of Will providing for sale of property during lifetime of wife of testator. Latter clause providing distribution of sale proceeds between children . First clause creating absolute right in favour of wife of testator shall prevail over later clause . Later clause cannot be treated as bequest in favour of children as it was mere desire expresses by testator . No intention of testator to compel wife to sale property during her life time . Rule of last intention, not applicable. The assertive language used in Will in favour of wife of testator shows clear intention of absolute bequest in her favour, while using of non mandatory words such as desire indicate that the testator did not wish to compel hiswife to sell the suit property testator intended to create an absolutely unfettered right in favour of his wife by virtue of the Will. Reading in other clauses that are merely expressive of his desire as compulsory dictates on such absolute ownership goes against the clear wording of the Will, and would amount to rewriting it.

M. S. Bhavani and another v. M. S. Raghu Nandan AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1441

  1. Complaint – Locus standiComplainant, voluntary recognised association – Can file composite complaint on behalf of more than one consumers.: Consumer Protection Act S.12(1) (b)

From a reading of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act read with Explanation to Section 12 it is clear that voluntary registered association can file a complaint on behalf of its members to espouse their grievances. There is nothing in the aforesaid provision of the Act which would restrict its application to the complaint pertaining to an individual complainant. If a recognised consumer association is made to file multiple complaints in respect of several consumers having a similar cause of action, that would defeat the very purpose of registration of a society or association and it would result only in multiplicity of proceedings without serving any useful purpose. Thus finding of the NCDRC that recognised consumer association can file complaint on behalf of a single consumer, but cannot file complaint on behalf of several consumers in one complaint, is erroneous.

Subhechha Welfare Society v. M/s. Earth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2020 Supreme Court 1449

The Limitation Act , 1963

  1. S.18 : Effect of acknowledgement in writing. – The principle of S. 9 of the Limitation Act, namely, that when time begins to run, it cannot be halted, except by a process known to law, has to be strictly adhered to. S. 18 of the Limitation Act, which extends the period of limitation depending upon an acknowledgement of debt made in writing and signed by the corporate debtor, is also applicable to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code since S. 238A uses the expression “as far as may be” governing the applicability of the Limitation Act. An entry made in the books of accounts, including the balance sheet, can amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The notes annexed to or forming part of the balance sheet, or the auditor’s report, must be read along with the balance sheet. [S.9, 14, Companies Act, 2013 , S. 2(40), 92, 128, 129, 134, 137, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , S,238A ]

Under S. 18 An Acknowledgement Of Liability Signed By The Party Against Whom The Right Is Claimed Gives Rise To A Fresh Period Of Limitation. Under Explanation (B) To The Section The Word ‘Signed’ Means Signed Either Personally Or By An Agent Duly Authorised. A Company Being A Corporate Body Acts Through Its Representatives, The Managing Director And The Board Of Directors. Under S. 210 Of The Companies Act It Is The Statutory Duty Of The Board Of Directors To Lay Before The Company At Every Annual General Body Meeting A Balance Sheet And A Profit And Loss Account For The Preceding Financial Year. S. 211 Directs That The Form And Contents Of The Balance Sheet Should Be As Set Out In Part I Of Schedule Vi. The Said Form Stipulates For The Details Of The Loans And Advances And Also Of Sundry Creditors. The Balance Sheet Should Be Approved By The Board Of Directors, And Thereafter Authenticated By The Manager Or The Secretary If Any And Not Less Than Two Directors One Of Whom Should Be The Managing Director. (See S. 215). The Act Also Provides For Supply Of Copies Of The Balance Sheet To The Members Before The Company In General Meeting. Going By The Above Provisions, A Balance Sheet Is The Statement Of Assets And Liabilities Of The Company As At The End Of The Financial Year, Approved By The Board Of Directors And Authenticated In The Manner Provided By Law. The Persons Who Authenticate The Document Do So In Their Capacity As Agents Of The Company. The Inclusion Of A Debt In A Balance Sheet Duly Prepared And Authenticated Would Amount To Admission Of A Liability And Therefore Satisfies The Requirements Of Law For A Valid Acknowledgement Under S. 18 Of The Limitation Act, Even Though The Directors By Authenticating The Balance Sheet Merely Discharge A Statutory Duty And May Not Have Intended To Make An Acknowledgement. (Ca. no 3228 Of 2020 Dt 15-4 – 2021

Asset reconstruction company (India) limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr . www.itatonline.org (SC)

The Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881

  1. S.138 : Dishonour Of Cheque For Insufficiency , Etc , Of Funds In The Account – Courts are inundated with complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cases are not being decided within a reasonable period and remain pending for a number of years. This gargantuan pendency of complaints filed under s. 138 of the Act has had an adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases. Concerned with the large number of cases pending at various levels, a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has examined the reasons for the delay in disposal of the cases. The Bench has issued important directions which will expedite the hearing and disposal of the cases[ S. 140, 141, 142]

Chapter XVII inserted in the Negotiable Instruments Act, containing Sections 138 to 142, came into force on 01.04.1989. Dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds was made punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque as per Section 138. Section 139 dealt with the presumption in favour of the holder that the cheque received was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. The defence which may not be allowed in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act is governed by Section 140. Section 141 pertains to offences by companies. Section 142 lays down conditions under which cognizance of offences may be taken under Section 138. Over the years, courts were inundated with complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act which could not be decided within a reasonable period and remained pending for a number of years. ( In Re: expeditious trial of cases under section 138 of n.i. act 1881. (cr.l) no.2 of 2020 dt. 16 -4 -2021

Suo Motu Writ Petition www.itatonline.org (SC)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

  1. Art. 32 : Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part – COVID -19 -Waiver of interest – Economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a field where Judges should encroach upon very warily as Judges are not experts in these matters. In assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the government. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.

The present Petition had been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association, Haryana for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Union of India and others to take effective and remedial measures to redress the financial strain faced by the industrial sector, particularly MSMEs due to the Corona Virus Pandemic.

The reliefs of the Petitioners has been summarised as under:

  1. a complete waiver of interest or interest on interest during the moratorium period;

  2. there shall be sector wise relief packages to be offered by the Union of India and/ or the RBI and/or the Lenders;

  3. moratorium to be permitted for all accounts instead of being at the discretion of the Lenders;

  4. extension of moratorium beyond 31.08.2020;

  5. whatever the relief packages are offered by the Central Government and/or the RBI and/or the Lenders are not sufficient looking to the impact due to Covid 19 Pandemic and during the lockdown period due to Covid 19 Pandemic;

  6. the last date for invocation of the resolution mechanism, namely, 31.12.2020 provided under the 6.8.2020 circular should be extended.

Held:

In catena of decisions and time and again this Court has considered the limited scope of judicial review in economic policy matters. It is further observed that in the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting an enquiry or investigation and must be more reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.It is further observed that it is not the function of the Court to amend and lay down some other directions. The function of the court is not to advise in matters relating to financial and economic policies for which bodies like RBI are fully competent. The court can only strike down some or entire directions issued by the RBI in case the court is satisfied that the directions were wholly unreasonable or in violative of any provisions of the Constitution or any statute. It would be hazardous and risky for the courts to tread an unknown path and should leave such task to the expert bodies. This Court has repeatedly said that matters of economic policy ought to be left to the government.

Economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a field where Judges should encroach upon very warily as Judges are not experts in these matters. In assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the government. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.

Even the government also suffered due to lockdown, due to unprecedented covid 19 pandemic and also even lost the revenue in the form of GST. Still, the Government seems to have come out with various reliefs/packages. Government has its own financial constraints. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the Government/RBI to announce/ declare particular relief packages and/or to declare a particular policy.

That there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium from any of the borrowers and whatever the amount is recovered by way of interest on interest/ compound interest/ penal interest for the period during the moratorium, the same shall be refunded and to be adjusted/given credit in the next instalment of the loan account. (WP (C) 476 of 2020 dated March 23, 2021)

Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association (Regd.) v. UOI and others (2021) 125 taxmann.com 336 (SC) / LL 2021 SC 175.www.itatonline.org