Priya Traders Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 129 of the CGST Act determining the amount to be paid towards the tax and liability, the requisite amount has been paid by the writ applicant and the conveyance and the goods have been released - later on, a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ applicant to show cause why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated - As the matter is now at the stage of MOV-10, the writ applicant shall appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply to make good his case that the notice issued in GST-MOV-10 deserves to be discharged - Applicant may place reliance on the decision in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST - application disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 5]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-289-HC-AHM-GST

SVP Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Coordinate Bench, by way of interim relief had directed the respondent to forthwith release the conveyance together with the goods contained therein subject to the petitioner paying the tax and penalty leviable thereon - Writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed and got the vehicle along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST and rely on the observations made in paragraph Nos.99 to 104 and make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - writ application disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 7]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-288-HC-AHM-GST

Vivek Ramvilas Bansal Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

GST - Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 129 of the CGST Act determining the amount to be paid towards the tax and liability, the requisite amount has been paid by the writ applicant and the conveyance and the goods have been released -- later on, a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ applicant to show cause why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated -- As the matter is now at the stage of MOV-10, the writ applicant shall appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply to make good his case that the notice issued in GST-MOV-10 deserves to be discharged - Applicant may place reliance on the decision in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd - 2019-TIOL-546-HC-AHM-GST - application disposed of: High Court [para 3 to 5]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-287-HC-AHM-GST

Panchhi Traders Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Writ applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the notice for confiscation in form MOV-10 and release of seized goods along with truck.

Held: Bench notes that Form GST MOV-10 has been issued, calling upon the writ-applicant to show cause why the goods in question and the conveyance used to transfer the goods, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and why the penalty and fine shall not be recovered - Bench is of the view that as the matter is at the stage of show-cause notice, under Section 130 of the Act, 2017, the writ-applicant should appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply - Insofar as the release of the goods and the conveyance is concerned, it shall be open for the writ-applicant to prefer an application, under Section 67(6) of the Act, 2017, for provisional release and the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of filing of such application - Application disposed of: High Court [para 2 to 5]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

High Range Coffee Curing Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Karnataka

Sales Tax - Supreme Court had in the case of Malnad Areca Processing and Marketing Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment) and Others", (2008) 11 SCC 536 opined that the Industrial Policy, 1996 provides for exemption only in respect of sales tax and not for purchase tax as such - Bench is in agreement with the opinion recorded that the Government Order No.CI 30 SPC 96 dated 15th March, 1996, namely, the Industrial Policy merely provides for sales tax concession and incentives and nothing more - fact that the appellant/assessee's industry has been included or added in Appendix- IV does not mean that the substance of the policy has undergone any change since the purport of amendment is only to include more industries which were left out in the first notification of 15th March, 1996 - As observed in the case of Malnad (supra), the State can levy tax both at the sale point and/or at the purchase point - That distinction being clear, the question of assuming that the purchase tax was also part of the industrial policy under consideration cannot be countenanced - No reason to deviate from the view taken by the High Court in following the principle expounded in the decision of Malnad (supra) - Appeals fail: Supreme Court [para 5, 7, 9, 11]

- Appeals dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2020-TIOL-291-HC-MAD-CT

RPG BTP India Pvt Ltd Vs DCCT

Whether benefit under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 can be denied merely because the assessee is also covered under the Interest Free Sales Tax Deferral Scheme - NO: HC

Whether therefore the assessee is entitled for benefit under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 for that period for which it was not covered under the Deferral Scheme - YES: HC

- Writ petitions partly allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-286-HC-MAD-CT

State of Tamil Nadu Vs ABY Engineers And Consultants Pvt Ltd

Whether where the stock transfer memo proves that the turnover in question is branch transfer, merely because the goods received by the branch office have been sold on the day of the receipt, the transaction does not become inter-state sale taxable under the CST Act - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-259-CESTAT-ALL

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The assessee had centralized Service Tax Registration for providing services such as erection commissioning and installation service etc - The assessee provided various services to customers like NTPC, NHPC, Nuclear Power Corporation etc - They used to get contract through competitive bidding - The assessee was issued an SCN separately for the relevant period which were subject matters to two appeals - Through the said show cause notice, service tax demand was raised - The contention of the Revenue was that all these services which were separately provided by the assessee were part of the same service - Therefore, abatement availed by the assessee was not admissible to them.

Held: It is agreed by counsels for both sides that the matter stands settled in the assessee's own case for a previous period, namely in Final Order No.72715/2018 dated 01 November, 2018 - The proceedings therein had been dropped - As such findings therein are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the order passed in the present case merits being set aside: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-260-CESTAT-MUM

Sigma Laboratories Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Valuation - Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P&P Medicines on their own account and on loan license basis for other parties viz. M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Lab on job work basis - The entire quantity of goods manufactured on job work basis was sold to the Appellant, being the sole selling agent of M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Lab at a discount of 30% of the sale price at which the said goods are ultimately sold to the sub-distributors/in the market - Alleging that M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Lab are related to the Appellant in terms of Section 4(3)(b)(iv) of CEA, 1944 as they were having mutual interest in the business of each other, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant demanding differential duty of Rs.25,73,350/- along with interest and penalty, taking into consideration the price at which the goods are sold by the Appellant to the sub-distributors as the transaction value - demand confirmed along with imposition of penalties and interest, therefore, appeal before CESTAT - Short issue involved is whether the Appellant is related to M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Lab in terms of Section 4(3)(b)(iv) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the price at which the P&P medicines sold by them to sub-distributor be considered as the transaction value for the purpose of determination of duty under Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules,2000.

Held: Mutuality of interest between the Appellant M/s Sigma Laboratories and other two proprietary-ship concerns viz. Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Laboratories is apparent inasmuch as the proprietors of these two companies are also the Managing Director and Director of the Appellant company, the family as a whole control the shareholding of the Appellant Company - Besides, the important factor is that the P&P medicine manufactured on job work basis using the brand names of loan licensors viz. M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Laboratories are sold to the Appellant at a price which is fixed by the Appellant after extending 30% discount from the said price - The said discounted price is considered in arriving at the transaction value between the Appellant and the loan licensors viz. M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Laboratories - This itself shows that the quantum of profit and benefit had been mutually shared by the two companies viz. M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Laboratories with that of the Appellant, therefore, the price at which the Appellant sold the manufactured goods to the sub-distributor be considered as a transaction value as per Sec.4(1)(b) of CEA,1944 read with Rule 9 of The Central Excise Valuation Rules,2000 - Commissioner has rightly confirmed the differential duty short paid by the Appellant - appeal rejected: CESTAT [para 11]

CX - Limitation - Appellant could not show that the agreement between them and M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Laboratories had been disclosed to the Department indicating that the fixation of price for the sellers M/s Adelphi Pharmaceuticals and M/s Heilen Laboratories was within the domain of the Appellant - Therefore, invoking of extended period in confirming duty is justified - Consequently, imposition of penalty on the company and also on the Managing Director who is involved in fixation of price and discharging appropriate duty is also justified, however, penalty on Managing Director reduced to Rs.25,000/- - no justification in imposing penalty on Mrs. Nayana D. Culogi - appeal filed by Managing Director is partly allowed and that filed by Nayana D. Culogi is allowed - Appeal of the Company is rejected: CESTAT [para 13]

- Appeals disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-258-CESTAT-DEL

Kanchan India Ltd Vs CCGST & CE  

CX - Error in mentioning the proper address of the assessee is not a good reason for rejection of the cenvat claim as the invoice is in the name of the appellant company only, and subsequently they have got the error rectified by the supplier of the capital goods - It is also not disputed that the machinery in question although being used for manufacture of cotton yarn and cotton fabrics is also capable for manufacturing PV yarn, as certified by the manufacturers/supplier of the machinery - fact of export is also not disputed of the cotton yarn/fabrics, which were removed from the factory without payment of duty as the appellant have led evidence by producing copy of shipping bills - there is no concept of 'pre-dominant use' of the capital goods for availment of cenvat credit - Even if the capital goods have been partially used for manufacture of dutiable goods cleared on payment of duty or have been exported, the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on the capital goods in question - Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules as substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2016, provides that no cenvat credit shall be allowed on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods for a period of two years from the date of commencement of commercial production - In other words, even if the capital goods are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods, still the statute by substituting Rule 6(4) have provided cenvat credit after expiry of two years from the date of commencement of commercial production - provision of Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules are not attracted, as Rule 6(6)(v) provides that the provision of sub rule (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty, are cleared for export under bond in terms of provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - it is settled principle of law that only the goods are exported from the country and not the taxes - As the export of goods is not doubted, Tribunal is of the view that the benefit of Rule 6(6)(v) is required to be extended to the appellant - Accordingly, it is held that the appellant manufacturer is entitled to cenvat credit on capital goods, used partially for export even though domestic clearance are exempt - appeals are allowed with consequential benefits: CESTAT [para 30, 32]

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

TP - AMP expenses incurred without arrangement between AE and assessee is termed as international transaction: ITAT

I-T - Receipts towards IT services not realised as royalty & FTS in previous AY are treated similar in subsequent AY: ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

IBC, 2016 - Short term loans devoid of time value for money are not financial debt defined u/s 5(8)(f) & no section 7 application is maintainable from such debt: YES: NCLAT

IBC - Lease of immovable property is not supply of goods or rendering of services & thus landlord cannot assume place of operational creditor to file insolvency application: NCLAT