Deepak Petrochem Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether furnishing of false addresses & failure to establish genuineness of cash transaction from share applicants attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with 274 of the I-T Act – YES: ITAT

- Assessee's Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether if the issue arising in the current AY regarding post-retirement medical expenses is no longer res integra the principal of consistency requires same treatment be given as has been specified in the preceding AY - YES: ITAT

Whether if the recoverability of the interest accrued from the NPAs is itself in doubt, then no addition is called for in respect of such notional interest - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd Vs PR CIT

Whether if the tax liability under the normal provisions is below the liability u/s 115JB, it amounts to zero loss to the Department & therefore occasion to exercise revisionary powers of the CIT does not arise - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

Thermax Surface Coatings Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether the norms displaying that certain components not being fabricated or directly supervised by an assessee's company, tantamounts to not setting up of a fresh industrial undertaking - NO: ITAT

Whether rejection of a claim u/s 80IA without making a detailed factual analysis about the nature of manufacturing activity of the new industrial unit constitutes a non-speaking order & merits remand before the CIT(A) - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeals allowed: PUNE ITAT

Sudha Agro Oil And Chemical Industries Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether if the penalty order makes an apparent distinction between the concealed income calculated under the general provisions & the income from which tax liability is computed u/s 115JB, a rectification application requesting to cancel the imposition cannot be entertained - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

2019-TIOL-543-SC-GST

UoI Vs AAP and Co

GST - Press Release dated 18 th October 2018 clarifying that the last date for availing ITC, in relation to invoices or debit notes relating to such invoices and issued by the corresponding supplier(s) during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, is  the last date for the filing of GSTR-3B return for the month of September, 2018 i.e. 20 th  October, 2018 is contrary to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with Section 39(1) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with Rule 61 of the CGST Rules/GGST Rules; paragraph 3 of the Press Release is illegal to the extent of its clarification - The issue before the High Court was as to whether the return in Form GSTR-3B is a return required to be filed under Section 39 of the CGST Act/GGST Act; whether the aforesaid press release is valid and in consonance with Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/GGST Act only if Form GSTR-3B is a return required to be filed under Section 39 of the CGST Act/GGST Act - The High Court held that the impugned press release dated 18th October 2018 could be said to be illegal to the extent that its para-3 purports to clarify that the last date for availing input tax credit relating to the invoices issued during the period from July 2017 to March 2018 is the last date for the filing of return in Form GSTR-3B (for the month of September 2018) - It also held that the clarification could be said to be contrary to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with Section 39(1) of the CGST Act/GGST Act read with Rule 61 of the CGST Rules/GGST Rules.

Held - Notice issued in respect of prayer for interim relief, application for condonation of delay and in respect of the present SLP - Two weeks' time granted to the respondent's counsel to file affidavit in reply - Matter be listed for hearing in two weeks' time - Meanwhile, operation of the High Court's judgment to be stayed: SC

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-2891-HC-P&H-GST

Hans Raj Sons Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner, a proprietor, is engaged as a works contractor, registered under the CGST Act - Before the introduction of the GST regime, it was registered under the Punjab VAT Act 2005 - During the relevant period, the petitioner claimed to be unable to upload details of unutilized ITC as per the account books to the electronically generated Form TRAN-1, which is required as per the CGST Act for availing benefit of previous un-utilized ITC accrued - Hence the present writ.

Held - The issue at hand stands settled by the decision of the High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Versus Union of India and others wherein relief similar to that being sought by the petitioner herein, had been allowed - Hence the present petition is disposed off in similar terms, with the petitioner being permitted to file or modify the Form TRAN-1 by Dec 31, 2019 - Moreover, in case the petitioner is hampered from availing benefit under this judgment due to non-opening of portal by the Revenue, the petitioner shall be permitted to claim benefit of unutilized credit in GST-3B Form filed for the month of January 2020: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-542-SC-ST

Ircon International Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee provided taxable services of 'Consulting Engineer' - The issue in the appeal before the Tribunal was whether agency fee received by assessee is bundled alongwith cost of road project or is a separate fee received by them for providing consulting engineer service - There was a Tripartite Agreement dated 31.08.2004 for construction/up-gradation/commissioning and maintenance of different road projects in state of Bihar under PMGSY - From tripartite agreement, activity of assessee, by virtue of tasks handled by them, is in nature of technical assistance, and squarely falls in definition of "Consulting Engineer" under Section 65(31) of FA, 1994 - Assessee is neither owner of constructed roads nor did it construct the road itself - They have merely provided the technical capabilities and expertise in management and supervision of projects relating to construction of roads, for which they have received the agency fees - It is also clear from Tripartite Agreement that agency fee is not the part of project cost - The Tribunal found that from the terms of agreement it is clear that agency fee is not part of project cost - As for interest, same is compensatory in character and hence same is upheld - Assessee is liable to pay interest as has been held in Pratibha Processors 2002-TIOL-273-SC-CUS - As for penalty, receipt of consultancy fee from Govt. of Bihar for construction of rural roads was deliberately suppressed by assessee and mis-declared the value of taxable consulting engineer services provided by them - Therefore, penalty imposed is justified - Hence the Tribunal sustained the order of the Commissioner.

Held - Delay condoned - Appeal admitted for hearing: SC

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2019-TIOL-3597-CESTAT-MUM

CX - Upon audit for the relevant period, it was observed that the assessee availed Cenvat credit of service tax on outward transportation incurred for transporting final product upto the customer's premises and such credit was utilised for payment of Excise duty on goods manufactured and cleared for home consumption - The vires of such credit availment was assailed by the Revenue and demands were raised proposing to recover the credit with interest and equivalent penalty - Such demands were sustained by the Commr.(A) - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The SCN itself is indicative of the fact that transportation of final products were directly made to the customer's premises - The grounds for rejection of admissibility of such Cenvat Credit on outward GTA by the adjudicating authority and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) was the want of documents by way of additional evidence to justify that transfer of goods occurred at the customers’ place to bring the case of the appellant within the conditions stipulated in CBIC Circular dated 23-08-2007, whereas the SCN itself confirmed that the transportation of goods from the point of manufacturer up to the place of removal had occurred which went to the knowledge of the Revenue during the course of audit - Hence denial of credit on such narrow technical grounds is untenable - The O-i-A in challenge merits being quashed: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CX - During the relevant period, the assessee, a 100% EoU, paid Education Cess third time in discharging duty liability when clearance was made to DTA - It was later found that EC for third time could not be levied as per the law laid down in Sarla Performance Fibres Ltd Vs CCE Vapi as later upheld by the Apex Court - Meanwhile, the assessee paid the amount under protest, following issuing of SCN - When the issue was settled in favor of the assessee, it claimed refund - Such refund was denied by the adjudicating authority as being barred by limitation - On appeal, while the Commr.(A) disagreed with the findings pertaining to limitation, the refund was nonetheless barred on grounds of unjust enrichment - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The Commr.(A) held that the EC was paid for the third time under protest, therefore, not barred by limitation under Section 11B the CEA 1944 - However, it was concluded that since the assessee did not establish that burden of duty was not passed on to the customer, the assessee was ineligible for refund - The documents referred to the Commr.(A) were not examined by the adjudicating authority while analysing the refund claim - The Commr.(A) only dwelt upon the issue of limitation, without going into the other issues - Hence the matter warrants remand so as to enable the adjudicating authority to analyse the relevant documents relating to unjust enrichment and quantum of admissible refund: CESTAT

- Case remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

 

2019-TIOL-3593-CESTAT-BANG

CC Vs JM Baxi And Company