The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease holders, licence holders, or persons granted mining rights. Compounding fees collected from illegal miners were held outside its scope.
The High Court held that investment-linked tax incentives under the 2012 industrial policy could continue unless specifically withdrawn or rescinded. The ruling directed authorities to reconsider the claim in light of Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hero Motocorp.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that alleged low production yield and power consumption variations could not justify addition without supporting evidence of unaccounted sales. The Court ruled that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or mathematical assumptions alone.
The High Court distinguished contracts of other government departments that contained clauses for reimbursement of new taxes and held that no such parity could be claimed in the present case.
The issue was whether addition based on assumed production yield is valid. The Court held that without supporting evidence, such additions are unsustainable and cannot justify rejection of books.
The court set aside the conviction after finding inconsistencies in key witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence. It held that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court allowed the CBI’s delayed appeal, emphasizing that serious criminal allegations should be examined on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. The ruling highlights a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure justice.
Considering the duration of custody and the likely delay in trial, the Court found continued detention unnecessary. It granted bail while noting that the case would be decided on merits later.
The court directed payment for restoration costs after authorities admitted using private land. It held that such use affecting land fertility warrants compensation.
The Court permitted the taxpayer to obtain a stay by following the procedure under Section 112 and relevant CBIC circulars. It emphasized that compliance with pre-deposit and undertaking conditions is mandatory. The decision highlights the role of procedural compliance in securing relief.
