- GST applicable on Composite Supply of Sale of Application, Registration, Inspection with ‘affiliation’ of institution as the ‘Principal Supply’: AAR [Read Order]
- Waste Collection, Segregation, Treatment, transportation and Disposal Services under the Service Agreements not exempted from GST: AAR [Read Order]
- ICAI kicks off Virtual International Conference 2020
- CESTAT quashes demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1.67 Crores with interest and penalty against Involute Engineering [Read Order]
- Share Application Money is ‘Capital Asset’ for the purpose of Income Tax Act: ITAT [Read Order]
- Honda R&D (India) wasn’t involved in R&D activity and rather was providing market support services to its AE: ITAT [Read Order]
- CBIC issues the Instructions for time bound processing of Duty Drawback claims [Read Circular]
- ITAT disallows Depreciation on Non-Competition Fee [Read Order]
- Recovery of Tax in Advance by inspecting officials is illegal: Madras High Court [Read Order]
- CBDT allows One-time relaxation to update UDIN for the Audit Report / Certificates
Recovery of Tax in Advance by inspecting officials is illegal: Madras High Court [Read Order]
The Madras High Court while quashing the impugned order held that the recovery of tax in advance by inspecting officials is illegal.
The Petitioner, M/s. Sri Ganesh Lubricants, challenged the demand of the Commercial Tax Officer calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.21,33,005 towards dishonored cheques totally amounting to Rs.21,33,005, which was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent authority, on the date of inspection, at their premises, by the Enforcement Wing Officials.
The primary ground for challenge was that the spot collection of taxes is wholly illegal and unwarranted, when the assessment for the respective year is still pending.
The counsel, Mr. S. Rajasekar for the petitioner contended that the notice of the demand is bereft of the legal sanctity. Further, coercive steps taken by the respondents for recovering the alleged tax due from the petitioner is illegal. According to him, without any assessment order, the same cannot be recovered from him.
The Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, would also admit that till date no assessment order has been passed against the petitioner which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.
The single-judge bench of Justice Abdul Qudhose clarified that It is settled law that recovery of tax in advance by inspecting officials (Enforcement Wing) is illegal.
The court observed that the respondent has admitted that four cheques given by the petitioner on the date of inspection was only towards the payment of tax even though in the impugned demand, they have mentioned that it is towards compounding fees. Since the collection of cheques from the petitioner is admittedly, towards payment of tax, as per the settled law, the said collection by the second respondent on the date of inspection from the petitioner is illegal without there being any assessment order.
However, liberty is granted to the respondents to complete the assessment against the petitioner in accordance with law, and if it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay tax or penalty or other charges, the same shall be recovered from him after completion of the assessment proceedings in accordance with the