I-T - Merely based on sworn statement contained in caveat petition filed before a Civil Court, addition cannot be sustained: ITAT

Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt Ltd Vs Asst / Deputy Commissioner Of Goods & Services Tax

GST - the present writ petition was filed to challenge the validity of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules.

Held - In a similar issue arising in the case of Sare Realty Projects Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors. and connected matters the court granted relief to the petitioners therein - Considering relevant findings of the case, a similar approach needs to be adopted in the present case - Hence the petitioner is directed to approach the Nodal Officer concerned in terms of the Grievance Redressal Mechanism - Such officer would pass a speaking order: HC

2018-TIOL-104-HC-KERALA-GST

Renji Lal Damodaran Vs State Tax Officer

GST - The assessee purchased some tiles in Gujarat & was transporting them to its home state - In transit, the vehicle was intercepted and the goods were detained - Duty demand was raised upon the assessee & penalty was imposed - Hence the present writ.

Held - The assessee had an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal u/s 107 of the CGST Act - Nonetheless, it is willing to provide bank guarantee for the value of the goods - Hence the Department is directed to release the detained goods upon furnishment of such bank guarantee: HC (Para 1,3,5)

- Writ petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

2018-TIOL-103-HC-KERALA-GST

Renji Lal Damodaran Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Certain goods belonging to the assessee were detained, pursuant to inspection - Notice was issued u/s 129 of the Kerala GST Act & Rule 140 of the CGST Rules - When the assessee first approached the High Court, the Single Judge passed an order, against which the assessee filed the present writ appeal.

Held - The assessee agreed to furnish a bank guarantee as directed by the Single Judge - Hence no interference is needed in this regard - Further, considering the mandate of Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules, the detained goods be released upon furnishing of bank guarantee for the tax and penalty which is payable - Further, the a bond be furnished for the value of the goods, as per provisions of Rule 140(1): HC (Para 1,2,4)

- Writ appeal partly allowed : KERALA HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

2018-TIOL-2582-CESTAT-MUM

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Vs CCE

ST - By an order dated 26.10.2017 - 2017-TIOL-4268-CESTAT-MUM in the matter of appeal filed by PCMC, the Tribunal had inter alia held that activity of PCMC of providing their own property such as land, building to the advertising agency for advertisement purpose is clearly covered under the provisions of Section 65(105)(zzzm) of FA, 1994, therefore, whatever space of land, building was provided by PCMC to the advertising agency it is liable for service tax but as there is no bifurcation of both types of receipts, matter remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for correct quantification of demand - Appellant filing ROM application contending that tax is applicable only from 01.07.2010 since the imposition of levy came into force only from that date; that cum-tax benefit sought was not considered; that ground of demand being hit by limitation was also not considered.

Held: As regards rent collected in respect of vacant land, Bench has given a categorical finding and, therefore, there is no error apparent on record; however, since in the matter of cum-tax benefits and limitation, no finding has been given in the order, the adjudicating authority is directed to consider the same while requantifying the demand - Order is modified to the extent mentioned and Application is disposed of in above terms: CESTAT [para 3]

- Application disposed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Q Source Global Consulting Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - The assessee was engaged in recruitment of manpower for software companies and call centres - During the period in dispute, it was noticed that assessee paid service tax only partly, no service tax return was furnished and there was non-payment of duty with respect to few goods - Duty demand was raised along with interest and penalty - The Original Authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equal penalty u/s 78 and penalty u/s 77 - Hence, the present appeal against the equal penalty u/s 78 of the Act.

Held: The penalty u/s 78 is deleted on grounds that on being pointed out regarding short-payment of service tax, the assessee raised funds and tried to pay entire amount of service tax due - Moreover, apart from non-payment of service tax, the Department has not been able to point out any deliberate act on the part of the assessee to evade payment of service tax - Following the decision laid down by the Tribunal in case of C.C.E., Visakhapatnam Vs. M/s. Tirupathi Fuels Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held that the law is held that the law does not treat all cases of suppression alike - Hence, the Order-in-Appeal is modified in respect of penalty u/s 78, remaining order is unchanged : CESTAT (para 2, 5)

- Appeal partly allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

CENTRAL EXCISE