2019-TIOL-206-SC-IT

PR CIT Vs Devendranath G Chaturvedi

Having heard the parties, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the SLP preferred by the Revenue Department, thus concurring with the opinion of High Court on the issue of 'requirement of statutory notice u/s 143(2) for examining escaped income under block assessment.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-205-SC-IT

Alay Rakesh Shah Vs DIT

Having heard the parties, the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP preferred by the assessee, thus concurring with the opinion of High Court on the issue of remedies available to Karta of HUF.

- Assessee's SLP dismissed : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ACIT Vs Dinesh Kumar

Whether addition for drawings should be made if search has not yielded any material to show that there is any extravagant expenditure - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal allowed partly : CHENNAI ITAT

2019-TIOL-911-ITAT-MAD

Whether a partnership firm can own assets in the name of the partners, considering that a partnership firm is an association of persons & where the firm's name is a collective name of the individuals which comprise of such firm - YES: ITAT

Whether therefore if a car is purchased from the firm's funds or where purchase consideration is credited to the partner's current or capital account, then the firm will be construed to be the owner of the car - YES: ITAT

Whether payment made for obtaining rights to exhibit cinematographic films cannot be construed as fees for professional or technical services u/s 194J & so no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made for non-deduction of tax - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed : CHENNAI ITAT

2019-TIOL-910-ITAT-KOL

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be more than the exempt income actually earned by the assessee during the relevant year - NO : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : KOLKATA ITAT

Senco Gold Ltd

GST - CGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, 2017 do not restrict the recipient from claiming ITC when consideration is paid through book adjustment - Rule 19(8) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 had specifically provided that credit of Input Tax would be available only if the payment was made by account payee cheque or account payee draft or through electronic banking clearance when such payment exceeded rupees twenty thousand in a day - No such restriction is apparently provided under the GST Act - credit admissible subject to the conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed in the manner specified in Sections 16 and 49 of the GST Act: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2019-TIOL-03-AAR-VAT

Navneet Education Ltd

Maharashtra VAT, 2002 - A workbook cannot be the main source of learning for a student - Main source is the text book whereas exercise book, graph book, laboratory note books, drawing books and also the workbook is secondary and supportive for study - Legislature has differentiated the schedule entry for different products on the basis of purposes of its use - Textbooks are extremely thorough in nature and content and is an organised body of material useful for the formal study of a subject area whereas the term ‘workbook' is used to describe the compilations of questions and customised interactive manuals which are used to help provide structure to a particular lesson, in brief - for a student, a textbook is compulsory but the workbook is optional - workbooks cannot replace or substitute textbooks - Textbooks are naturally covered under Schedule Entry A-6 but a workbook cannot be, as it is different, it is supportive and secondary in nature - Workbooks are, therefore, exercise book covered by Schedule Entry C-32 and are liable to VAT as per the rate provided in the said Schedule from time to time - there is no strong and sufficient reason to hold this Advance Ruling to be prospective in nature - use of prospective effect as a tool to protect or to wipe off legitimate tax liability cannot be allowed: ARA

: AAR VAT

2019-TIOL-1026-HC-AHM-GST

Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner/applicant seek permission for manual filing of GSTR-3B for the month of August 2017 and also a direction to the respondents to give effect to the details contained in GSTR-3B filed manually and a further direction to indicate discharge of petitioner's GST liability for August 2017 in the electronic liability register as contemplated u/r 88(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Petitioners contend that efforts to upload GSTR 3B on 20.09.2017 on the common portal failed; that on the next day, on 21.09.2017, the system crashed; that later the system accepted the petitioners' GSTR-3B on 21.09.2017, but the information and details in all the columns of this return were shown as "zero" despite the fact that the tax liability for the month in question had been duly paid by the petitioner; that, therefore, they immediately informed the Assistant Commissioner incharge of its unit about the payment and discharge of its liability for August 2017 and also about the inability to correct the GSTR-3B return submitted on the GSTN portal; that the Asstt. Commr. advised them to approach the Help Desk forum to sort out the issue; that repeated representations were made and despite eighteen months having been passed and since there was no progress, the petitioners were constrained to file the present petition.

Held: By a letter dated 10.9.2018, the petitioners were informed that steps were being taken to refer the matter to the GSTN; by a letter dated 28.08.2018, the petitioners were informed to follow the instructions/guidelines mentioned in para 3 of the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017; and lastly, by a letter dated 07.03.2019, the petitioners were informed that they have already been requested to follow the instruction/guideline mentioned in para 3 of the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner by a letter dated 28.08.2018 - However, in none of the replies, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners have not paid the amount, as stated by them - Besides, despite such a long time having elapsed, no affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents - Under the circumstances, in the absence of proper response on the part of the respondents, the Court views that the petitioners, who have been diligently prosecuting the matter all throughout, should not be made to suffer, and hence, are entitled to the grant of interim relief as prayed for in paragraph 5(A) of the application - petitioners are permitted to file manually GSTR-3B for August 2017 with correct and true details and the respondents are directed to accept and acknowledge such GSTR-3B manually filed by the petitioners for August 2017 - Application allowed: HC [para 9, 10]

- Application allowed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

CENTRAL EXCISE

NOTIFICATION

exnt19_01

CEX Registration - Migration from www.aces.gov.in to new portal www.cbic-gst.gov.in

excircular1069

Seamless integration - CBIC lays down revised procedure for electronic filing of CE returns and electronic payment of CE duty & Service Tax arrears under new portal

CASE LAWS

2019-TIOL-1025-HC-MUM-CX

CCT & CE Vs BSNL

CX - The assessee is a leading entity engaged in providing Telecommunication services - During the relevant period, duty demand was raised with interest & penalty being imposed - On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and remanded the issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit for fresh adjudication - Hence the Revenue's appeal against such findings.

Held - The Tribunal is a fact-finding authority and is required to deal with both legal and factual issues - It cannot remand matters to the adjudicating authority unless the matter requires investigation which can be best carried out by the adjudicating authority - The Tribunal's order merely records certain decisions before concluding that such judgments were not considered by the adjudicating authority - Before the Tribunal there was no dispute in respect of the facts & the only issue was regarding the applicability of the existing facts - The Tribunal also did not record any reasons to justify why the matter had been remanded or why could the matter not be adjudicated based on the material on record - Moreover, the Tribunal deleted the penalty when the issue when the matter had been remanded - This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse - Hence the Tribunal's order remanding the matter is quashed & the assessee's appeal is restored before it: HC

2019-TIOL-1324-CESTAT-HYD

CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATION

ctariffadd19_021

Anti-Dumping - CBIC extends duty imposed on Ductile Iron Pipes imported from China PR till June 23, 2019

Trade Notice 11

Registration of contracts for Peas (HS - code 0713 10 00) under Trade Notice No.25/2018-19 dated 17th August, 2018

Trade Notice 10

Ease of Doing Business - Self-ratification scheme under FTP for AEOs - Government unhappy with low usage, seeks more participation

CASE LAWS

2019-TIOL-1024-HC-MAD-CUS

DCC Vs Max Enterprises

Cus - The assessee had earlier filed a writ petition, contesting an order directing provisional release of the goods imported by the assessee, conditional upon the furnishing of a bond for 100% of the duty as well as a bank guarantee covering the differential duty with fine & penalty - Before the High Court, the assessee had claimed such condition to be highly onerous & had been imposed without making adequate market enquiry - It was also claimed that the only dispute concerning the goods covered under the bills of entries pertained to the correctness of the value for assessment purposes - The assessee contested the need for furnishing bank guarantee as being uncalled for - The Single Bench of the High Court noted that the imported goods comprised of stationery, gift items and decoration materials - It was directed that the assessee deposit 30% of the duty demand & execute personal bond for the remaining 70%, conditional upon which the goods were to be released - The Single Bench also directed that the assessee was eligible for waiver of demurrage & detention charged - Hence the present writ appeal by the Revenue.

Held - The Revenue's apprehension is that the assessee is a trader carrying on business in Mumbai & has no permanent establishment in Chennai & there is every likelihood of the assessee becoming untraceable after release of the cargo - The Revenue need not harbor any such apprehensions since the assessee has an IEC code - In case of any non-cooperation, the assessee can be traced and legal proceedings can be initiated - Hence there is no error in the discretion exercised by the single bench of the High Court - A uniform yardstick cannot be adopted in matters where the importers approaches the Court for granting provisional release of the imported cargo - The findings of the single bench are sustained: HC

- Revenue's writ appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

TII

TP - Corporate guarantee provided to subsidiary in order to enable it to avail loans brings benefit to subsidiary & so merits compensation under Arms length principles: ITAT

TP - Presence of intangible assets renders such entity unfit for comparison to those engaged in rendering software development services: ITAT

I-T - Subscription fees paid overseas for mere usage of data do not attract TDS liability u/s 195: ITAT

TIOLCORPLAWS

IBC, 2016 - Application for initiation of resolution process u/s 9 by operational creditor is not sustainable without genuine existence of outstanding operational debt : NCLAT

FEMA, 1999 - Where no prior permission of RBI is required before routing investment under automatic route for township development, FEMA 20/2000 regulation cannot be interpreted to evade its application to foreign companies : Tribunal