Whether alleged bogus sales & purchases accepted as genuine by the Departmental inquiry, disqualify the AO from adding the entire amount of purchase as the assessee's income - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

Whether it is settled position in law, that additions cannot be framed solely based on suspicions, conjectures or surmises - YES: ITAT

Whether on such grounds, rejection of deduction u/s 80O is sustainable where assessee submits requisite documentary evidence in support of such claim - NO: ITAT

Anisha R Dhanani Vs ACIT

Whether non-disclosure of complete information during the search proceeding, disqualifies a claim for deduction u/s 54F - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

Whether disagreement with the one of the plausible views taken by the AO during the scrutiny assessment is one of the twin condition to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 by the CIT- NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: SURAT ITAT

Whether revision order passed u/s 263 is sustainable where the original assessment order is not found to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - NO: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed: VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT

Sri Raghavendra Processors and Sr Transporters VsCC, CE & ST

ST - Appellant is registered with service tax department to provide business auxiliary services - Appellant also owns another proprietary firm viz., SR Transporters who are also registered with the Central Excise department for providing Goods Transport Agency services (GTA) - Upon audit, department came to the conclusion that the appellant is in fact rendering a consolidated service of both, processing the goods i.e., loading, unloading, cutting, straightening, bending of iron and steel items for the clients as well as transporting them - Therefore, it was felt by the department that the appellant is engaged in a single service which has the essential characteristics of "business auxiliary service" and service tax must be discharged as such on the entire amounts charged by both the units owned by the same proprietor - suffice to say that the only allegation of the department is that both firms are owned by the same person and are located in nearby plots - demand notice issued seeking differential service tax of Rs. 53,95,116/- and imposition of penalties and interest - Commissioner confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 42,11,213/- along with interest and penalty - assessee is before CESTAT against this order - apparently, there is no appeal by the department.

Held:  It is undisputed that the two firms have been given separate registrations by the department for different activities - There is nothing on record to show that the department has declined to give registration to one of the units holding that both the units are the same and the services rendered by both firms amount to rendition of a single service requiring service tax to be paid accordingly - It is also not in dispute that both the firms have been paying service tax and filing returns as required under the law - For these reasons, the allegation that there was suppression of facts or wilful misstatement or fraud on behalf of the appellant is unsustainable: CESTAT [para 8]

ST - Clubbing of two services, one BAS and the other GTA and demanding tax under a single category BAS.

Held: Both GTA services and business auxiliary services have separate entries in section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 - To allege clubbing of services rendered by two different firms, may be for the same client, merely on the ground that both are co-located and are owned by the same person, is not correct - Only if the contract is for a composite service rendered by a particular service provider the question of the essential character of the service comes into play - Therefore, Bench does not find any grounds whatsoever to hold that the services provided by the appellant are composite services - Bench also notes from the statement recorded by the department that some of the clients require the services of both the registrants while the some other require services of only one registrant only, therefore, there is no ground, whatsoever, for clubbing the value of services rendered by the two firms - consequently, the demand, interest as well as penalties are required to be set aside - impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 9, 10]

- Assessee's appeal allowed : HYDERABAD CESTAT

 

 

 

 

CUSTOMS

Meticulous Forwarders Vs CC

Cus - During the relevant period, an SCN was issued to the importer-assessee, pursuant to proceedings initiated against it - The SCN culminated into an O-i-O, whereupon the importer was called upon to pay penalty u/s 112(a) of the Act - Thereafter, the assessee's license was suspended and such findings were confirmed vide another order - On the date of passing such O-i-O, an SCN was issued under Regulation 10 of the CBLR 2013 - Hence the present writ.

Held: Though the decision of the Bombay High Court in Principal Commr. Of Cus. Vs Unison clearing Pvt. Ltd gave a different interpretation to the effect that the limitation prescribed in Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013 is directory and not mandatory, the court is bound to follow view taken in the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Another & in Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - Since the SCN was issued beyond the 90-day limitation period, the order in question is liable to be quashed: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-290-CESTAT-AHM

PCL Oil And Solvent Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The assessee-company manufactures goods & availed benefit of imports Duty Free Advance Authorization (DFIA), as per which the assessee is allowed to import certain quantity of goods, subject to value limits, for export of finished goods - The quantity of goods which can be imported is determined by the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) - As a result, while the assessee is permitted to import certain quantity against advance authorization duty free, they actually needed the lesser quantity to manufacture the goods meant for export - During the relevant period, the Revenue raised duty demand in respect of quantity of material imported by the assessee and not used by them in manufacturing goods for entire export obligation in terms of advance authorization - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The entire case of Revenue is based on Para 4.28 (f) of Handbook of Procedure, 2004-09 - The said Para relates to regularization of bona fide default by exporters - Such provision is applicable only in cases of regularization of default and cannot be applied straightaway to normal imports when export obligations have been fulfilled, as in the instant case - Thus it cannot be said that the provisions of Para 4.28 of the HBP are applicable to all advance authorization - The foundation of the Revenue's case is based on Para 4.28(v) of the HBP 2004-09 and the Revenue is seeking to apply such provisions in cases when there is no default - The same apparently was overlooked by the Revenue - Besides the policy prescribed in Para 4.1.5 permits use of left-over material for manufacturing goods and clearing the same in Domestic Tariff Area - Hence the appeal merits being allowed: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT