Recovery Action Against Company Directors Cannot Be Initiated If Status Of Assessee Is Non-Existent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that recovery actions against the directors of a company cannot be initiated if the status of the assessee is non-existent. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “while in the case of amalgamation, it is only the apparent and outer shell of the company which is destroyed…. However, in the case of dissolution, the entity wholly ceases to exist.” In this case, the assessee company was ordered to be wound up, and an...

Cross-Examination Requests In Show Cause Proceedings Cannot Be Allowed Without A Reply From Noticee: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that a request for cross-examination of a witness in a Show Cause proceeding cannot be allowed if no reply on merits has been provided by the noticee. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “………the question of entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.” Under Section 28(9) of the...

[Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax] Assessee Liable For Tax On Proceeds From Sale Of Unredeemed Articles By Auctioneers: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that assessee is liable to tax on consideration received from sale of unredeemed articles by auctioneers. The Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan observed that “the levy of penalty under Section 12(3)(a), in the case of non-filing of returns, is, automatic. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the returns and hence, the basis of assessment would be irrelevant.” Under Section 12(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,...

Amount Received In Advance For Services To Be Treated As Income Of Assessee, Chargeable Under Income Tax: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court ruled that any amount received in advance for services should be treated as the income of the assessee and is, therefore, subject to income tax. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan observed that “if “Accounting Standards” are properly applied by an assessee, the “accounting income” for the payment of income tax will be available. However, if an assessee fails to adopt “Accounting Standards” properly for computation of income, the...

Construction Of Contract's Terms Is Task Of Arbitrator, Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Unless Construction Is Unreasonable: Madras HC

The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is justified. Brief Facts This is an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Award Must Not Be Set Aside On Ground Of Mere Erroneous Application Of Law Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34: Madras HC

The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of the evidence until and unless it suffers from patent illegality. Brief Facts This is an Appeal under...

Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award

The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.Brief Facts M/s. Sunwin Papers (Respondent)...

PMLA | Enforcement Directorate Is Well Within Rights To Challenge Closure Report In Predicate Offence: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that once a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was registered, the Enforcement Directorate was within its right to challenge the closure report filed in the Predicate Offence if the same resulted in miscarriage of justice.“During the pendency of complaint under PMLA, if the predicate offence is closed, in the present case, it resulted in miscarriage of justice, the Enforcement Directorate is well within its rights to place the facts before...

Award Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality If Decision Of Arbitrator Is Perverse Or Irrational: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator is not even a possible view. Brief Facts The Award Debtor is a company established under the...

Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction In Schedule Offence Not Bar For Proceeding With PMLA Trial: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that pendency of a criminal appeal against the conviction in a schedule offence is not a bar to proceed wit trial in the PMLA case. The court stressed that the schedule case and the PMLA case are distinct and different and thus the trial in money laundering case could not be postponed merely on the pendency of a criminal appeal in the schedule case. “In any angle, pendency of a criminal appeal cannot be an absolute bar for proceeding with the PMLA...

Income Tax Assessee Who Failed To Avail Option To Request Personal Hearing Can't Claim That Personal Hearing Was Not Provided: Madras HC

The Madras High Court ruled that if an assessee does not take advantage of the opportunity to request a personal hearing from the department, they cannot later claim that they were denied a personal hearing. The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “……though the department has given liberty to the assessee to request for personal hearing, the assessee failed to avail such an option. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice will not arise.” Section 148A(b)...

Goods Shall Be Released Provisionally If Assessee Demonstrates Inclusion Of Transaction In GSTR-1 Return: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally. The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the assessee to submit a copy of the GSTR-1 report, as it would reveal whether the subject transaction was disclosed as a zero-rated sale. Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to persons who have paid a tax or any other amount, such as...