ITO Vs Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Apex Court condones the delay and declines to intervene in the matter. Hence the Revenue's Special Leave to Petition and pending applications are dismissed.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-20-SC-IT

DCIT Vs Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Apex Court condones the delay and directs that notice be issued to the parties.

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-88-HC-MAD-IT

Pr.CIT Vs A Lalichan

Whether appeals having low tax effect than what was prescribed by way of CBDT Circular, merits dismissal per se - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-87-HC-MAD-IT

Anjli Infra Housing LLP Vs ITAT

Whether order for recovery of demand merits to be stayed till disposal of appeal, if assessee had already complied with pre deposit - YES: HC

- Case disposed of : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-84-ITAT-DEL

Shiv Shakti Creations Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

Whether reassessment order passed without proper inquiry into evidence recovered during search operation is erroneous - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT

2020-TIOL-83-ITAT-BANG

Anjaneya Filling Station Vs ITO

Whether an assessee who accepts transfer of jurisdiction for assessment can at a later stage challenge such assumption of jurisdiction - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE ITAT

2020-TIOL-82-ITAT-AMRITSAR

Rajinder Kumar Chadha Vs ITO

Whether a specific provision in the Wealth Tax Rules for valuation of the rented properties can be overridden by the guidelines of the CBDT - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: AMRITSAR ITAT

Raju K Thomas Vs State Tax Officer

GST - 2nd respondent (Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Pathanamthitta) has awarded two separate works to the petitioner and as against the said contracts Rs.8,11,206/- and Rs.2,98,848/- were deducted by the 2nd respondent herein under Sec.51 of the Act, but the petitioner was not extended credit against the above, by the respondents inspite of repeated reminders - Ultimately the petitioner had to file the returns for the respective periods by satisfying the tax due from out of his own resources - Petitioner requested before the 1st respondent (State Tax Officer) for refund of the tax deducted at source - Alleging that no positive steps are being taken in the matter, the present petition is filed praying inter alia that the first respondent be directed to refund the tax deducted at source u/s 51 of the Act - Petitioner informs that they have made an application for grant of refund in respect of the subject matter of his claims, which was not in the prescribed format and later on advice, the petitioner has now already submitted the requisite application in the prescribed form for claiming the benefit of the refund of the amounts as provided under Sec.51 (8) read with Sec.54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before the 1st respondent on 30.10.2019.

Held: It is ordered in the interest of justice that in case the petitioner has filed requisite application for grant of refund as abovestated before the 1st respondent and the same is pending consideration, then the said authority will take the said plea for consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and will take a considered decision thereon in accordance with law, without much delay preferable within a period of three weeks - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-96-HC-AHM-GST

ABB India Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Goods and conveyances detained and seized - Applicant informs that in the order received in GST-MOV-09, the total liability towards the tax and penalty plus interest as fixed comes to around Rs.1,00,81,944/- - Legal issues would be heard and decided on the returnable date viz. 12.2.2020 - An interim order for release of the electrical goods and vehicles is passed by directing the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.50,40,972/- towards the tax with respondent no.2 and balance amount of Rs.50,40,972/- towards the penalty shall be in the form of a bank guarantee of any nationalized bank - on deposit of the amount and bank guarantee, respondent authority concerned to release the goods and vehicles forthwith: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-95-HC-AHM-GST

Arya Traders Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner seeks quashing the MOV-11 being order passed u/s 130 of the act and directing the respondents to release the goods and vehicle without demanding any security.

Held: In view of the decision in Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - 2019-TIOL-2950-HC-AHM-GST , Bench had suggested to the AGP to recall the impugned order passed in MOV-11 and decide the matter afresh keeping in mind the principles of law as explained by the Court in the above referred decision - AGP makes a statement, after obtaining necessary instructions from the officer concerned, that the impugned order passed under Section 130 of the Act dated 19th July, 2019 shall be recalled and fresh proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with law and a fresh order shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants, keeping in mind the principles as explained by the Court in the referred decision - in view thereof, Bench need not now adjudicate this application on merits - Since the Bench has directed the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings with regard to confiscation, the writ applicants are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,15,800/- towards the tax and penalty as determined under Section 129, 130 of the Act and on deposit of which amount, the goods and the conveyance shall be released forthwith subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings - Writ Application disposed of: High Court [para 4, 6, 8]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-104-CESTAT-MUM

Mankeshwar Enterprises Vs CCE

ST - Appellant is providing services to various educational institutions belonging to D.Y.Patil group - alleging that the appellant had provided Manpower Supply Services, demand was issued for non-payment of service tax for the period 2005-2008 - demand was confirmed and in appeal the CESTAT remanded the matter for re-adjudication with observation to ensure compliance of the principles of natural justice - in denovo proceedings, demand again confirmed and, therefore, appellant is before the CESTAT - appellant submits that the terms of the agreement dated 27.07.2005 clearly reveals that the appellant was providing cleaning services through the Manpower engaged by it, who were under the administrative and supervisory control of the appellant and, hence, same cannot be treated as Manpower recruitment or supply services; that services provided to D Y Patil Hospital and Research Institute is not taxable since service is provided to education institution which is neither a commercial or industrial establishment.

Held: It is a well settled principle that contract executed between the parties would determine the nature of work and there is no whisper of supply of manpower in the said contract dated 27.07.2005 and 01.06.2006 - A cursory reading of the entire contract would reveal that the work is confined to cleaning work of various types in the educational institution of D Y Patil Pratishthan - as per the statutory provision contained in the definition of cleaning activity undertaken in an educational institution in a non-commercial and non-industrial building or premises is not a taxable service - going by the work contract, it is clear that the appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and it did not supply manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver - in view of the consistent decisions of the Tribunal including the one in Bhagyashree Enterprises - 2017-TIOL-1113-CESTAT-MUM , the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-103-CESTAT-BANG

Doddanavar Brothers Vs CC, CE & ST

ST - Appellants have availed transport services for transporting their minerals from transport owners/operators - Revenue has not been able to establish that the consignment note was issued by the Goods Transport Agency - In view of the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Lakshminarayana Mining Co. - 2019-TIOL-1833-CESTAT-BANG , Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2134-CESTAT-MUM and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-2773-CESTAT-DEL , tax liability under "Goods Transport Agency" service cannot be sustained: CESTAT [para 6.1, 6.2, 6.3]

ST - Limitation - Extended period has wrongly been invoked because the appellant has not suppressed the material facts from the department as the department was aware of all the information and moreover, the issue was highly contentious and there were contrary decisions during the relevant time and the appellant had a bonafide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax as they had engaged the truck operators for carrying their goods by road - demand is hit by limitation - impugned order is set aside both on merit as well as limitation - appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 6.4]

-Appeal allowed :BANGALORE CESTAT

2020-TIOL-92-CESTAT-KOL

N C Paul And Company Vs CCE

ST - During the relevant period, the assessee-company provided service of transportation of coal including incidental loading/unloading to various sites of ECL (M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd.) - The assessee also provided loading of Coal into Tippers for transportation within the mines and further provided loading of coal into Railway Wagon for outward transportation - The activities of transportation of coal with incidental loading/unloading is provided by the Appellant to ECL, Sonpur Bazari, which involves loading of crushed coal into automated tippers at ground stock inside the mines, its transportation, automated unloading without human intervention inside the mines near railway siding and then loading the same into the railway wagon by pay loaders - No separate charges were collected for loading/unloading activity - Perusal of work order shows that the parties entered into contract for transporting 16.5 lakhs tons coal from CHP to Siding - For commencing work, the assessee also had to furnish tipping trucks for transportation activities - The assessee also executed work of only loading coal into tipping trucks at pit head for transportation inside the mines and also loading at railway siding into railway wagon for outward transportation - Separate rates were provided for loading of coal at pit head for transportation inside the mines and loading of coal into railway station for outward transportation - The Revenue raised duty demand under Cargo Handling Services with interest and penalties u/s 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act 1994, in respect of the loading activities.

Held - The duty demanded on contracts for transportation of coal from CHP Stock Yard to Railway Siding and loading into Railway Wagon are essentially for transportation of coal, which is evident from the intent of the parties as per the work orders - The work orders are awarded for transportation of coal - In the case of Tycoon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST it was held that the dominant activities under the contract are movement of mineral within the mining area and loading to Railway Wagon, which includes loading and unloading, are merely incidental while the activities undertaken are principally transportation of Coal within the mining area, hence, the gross amount received for the same cannot be taxed under the category of Cargo Handling Services - Hence the demand raised on the activities of transportation with incidental loading & unloading including wagon loading is principally & dominantly for transportation of coal within the mines - Hence it cannot be taxed under Cargo Handling Service - Moreover, the activities of hiring pay loaders for loading of coal at pit head within the mines for internal transportation cannot be classified under Cargo Handling Service - Hence the demand raised in this regard is quashed - Besides, the activity of hiring pay loader for loading coal into railway wagon at railway siding for outward transportation is taxable under Cargo Handling Service as held by the Tribunal in Gajanand Agarwal Vs. CCE - However, considering genuine interpretation dilemma within the trade and within the Department during the infancy of the levy, the duty demand merits being confined to normal period of limitation and the penalties merit being set aside - The matter is also remanded for separate quantification of demand in respect of hiring of pay loaders for loading of coal at pit head within the mines and hiring of pay loaders for loading of coal at railway siding for outward transportation: CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

I-T - Slot chartering being ancillary activity to operation of ship, income derived therefrom is exempt within meaining of profits from shipping: HC

I-T - No disallowance is permitted u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of overseas payments made towards IVTC charges for failure to deduct TDS u/s 195, on basis of retrospective amendment: ITAT

DTAA - Subscription charges received by non-resident entity from customers in India towards use of equipments & process, is taxable as royalty under domestic Act as well as Treaty: ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

Competition - Flipkart, Amazon practice of giving deep discounts & sell exclusive mobile phones to be investigated for unfair trade practices by DG on Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh information : CCI

SEBI - Small investment advisor cannot be imposed with heavy penalty in excess of his/its annual profit for proving HNI Services to unsuitable clients: SAT

IBC: Financial creditor under IBC proceedings can derive any benefit of action taken under 'SARFAESI Act which is guided by separate provisions of limitation - NCLAT