Sumit Mittal Vs DCIT

Whether if any element of income is observed in documents seized from the assessee, then there is no requirement to bring any corroborative material on record – YES : ITAT

Whether if the documents seized do not show any income earned by the assessee, then AO cannot invoke provisions of section 292C without bringing any corroborative material on record – YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Vardhman Automobiles Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) can arise in respect of similar transaction being made where the transaction of receipt and payment were made on the same date itself by both parties – NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Veolia India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether maintenance activities can be clubbed with construction activity – NO : ITAT

Whether application of the standard to separately identifiable components of single contract is allowable while determining the percentage completion of the project – YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Vidal Health Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT

Whether where tax due had been paid by the deductee, demand u/s 201(1) of the Act can be enforced on assessee – NO : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

Dr V Anand (HUF) Vs DCIT

Whether the AO is required to show basis for estimating percentage of expenditure for the income from coconut trees and mango trees – YES: ITAT

Whether without making any physical verification of the number trees of coconut and mango, usage of water for irrigation purposes, the AO was justified in treating the agricultural income as excessive and proceed to make estimation – NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI ITAT

Thadukkassery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Petitioner seeks quashing of order issued by the first respondent and also directing the respondent to grant validity for Ext.P2 registration from 01.07.2017 - Prima facie, the orders are appealable under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - however, the petitioner submits that the order is without jurisdiction and it is on that account extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.

Held: Petitioner was granted two permanent account Nos. (PAN) as AAEAT6828L and AACTT3061G - On realizing the mistake, the Income Tax Department vide communication dated 13.7.2016, Ext.P1 informed the petitioner that only PAN No.AAEAT6828L will be active and the other PAN No. AACTT3061G would not be operational and accordingly the PAN Number AACTT3061G was deactivated - Petitioner, a dealer, migrated to the new tax system under GST from the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Act by giving the deactivated PAN No. AACTT3061G - It is evident that the alleged error is attributed to the human but not an omission or bonafide - There was a clear cut information from the Income Tax Department to use the one PAN No.AAEAT6828L - Despite that the petitioner had been filing particulars of the invalidated PAN Number on the basis of the Registration Number obtained - The cancellation was with effect from 30th November 2019 and not from 29.9.2018 - For all this period, there were no returns, which necessitated the assessing officer to assume the role of best assessment under Section 62 of the Act - Instant case is not of such nature where the petitioner, for the sake of repetition, was in 2016 informed with regard to use the PAN No. AAEAT6828L - Thus for all intends and purposes, there cannot be any bonafide omission or mistake - Petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed: High Court [para 7]

- Petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1063-HC-AHM-GST

Om Sai Traders Vs State Tax Officer

GST – Vehicle and the goods were seized only for the discrepancy in the e-way bill that the vehicle number was not correlated - proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act came to be initiated and the authority concerned determined the amount towards penalty and tax which comes to around Rs.9,94,000/- - It also appears that simultaneously the authority concerned issued a notice under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why the goods and the vehicle should not be confiscated as prima facie the intention of the writ applicant was to evade the payment of tax – at this stage, the writ applicant has approached the High Court and prayed for various reliefs.

Held: Bench is of the opinion that it should not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by the authority under Section 130 of the Act and the authority should be permitted to adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with law - However, Bench deems it fit to take into consideration the fact that the goods involved in the present litigation is a consignment of Tobacco and with the onset of monsoon, the goods are likely to get damaged – Therefore, Bench directs the writ applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with the authority concerned towards tax and penalty - To secure the interest of the State, Bench also directs the writ applicant to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs.7,00,000/- that is the value of the goods and on deposit of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and furnishing of a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- of a nationalized bank, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest - The deposit of bank guarantee shall abide by the final outcome after adjudication – Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 13, 14]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1062-HC-AHM-GST

Hari Om Company Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - A consignment of arecanut was transported from Kerala so as to reach to Ahmedabad - While the goods were in transit, on 07.03.2020 in the Vehicle No.GJ-25-U-8721, the same came to be intercepted by the mobile squad of the GST at the Jambusar Padra Road, Vadodara - It appears that at the time of seizure and thereafter upon further inquiry many discrepancies were noticed by the authority as regards the documents etc. - at the time of detention, an order under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 came to be passed determining the amount of tax and penalty to be paid by the writ applicant - Simultaneously, a notice was issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated - Thereafter a final order came to be passed of confiscation of the goods and vehicle under Section 130 of the Act - As the final order of confiscation was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant, the same came to be quashed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant - the adjudication of the confiscation proceedings is going on – Petitioner submits that the goods and the conveyance came to be detained way back in the month of March, 2020 and continues to be under detention as on date – They, therefore, pray that the detention order dated 12.02.2020 in the Form GST MOV-6 and the confiscation notice dated 12.03.2020 in the Form GST MOV-10 may be quashed and set aside and the goods and the conveyance may be ordered to be released.

Held: Bench is of the view that it should not interfere at the stage of adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act and which adjudication proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law - However, Bench is inclined to grant some relief to the writ applicant so as to protect the goods getting damaged, but at the same time keeping in mind the interest of the State also – Bench, therefore, directs the writ applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- towards tax and penalty with the authority concerned and also furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/- of any Nationalized bank - On deposit of Rs.4,20,000/- towards tax and penalty along with the bank guarantee of Rs.22,00,000/- of any Nationalized bank, the authority concerned should release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest; the deposit of bank guarantee shall abide by the final outcome after adjudication – Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1061-HC-AHM-GST

Associated Road Carriers Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - While the goods were in transit, the vehicle/conveyance came to be seized on the ground that the driver of the conveyance was not able to produce a valid E-way bill - Ultimately, a show cause notice was issued by the authority concerned and an order has been passed in MOV.09 dated 07.06.2020 calling upon the writ applicant to pay a particular amount of tax and penalty – Petitioner challenges this order before the High Court.

Held: In view of the fact that there is a statutory appeal provided against the impugned order, Bench is of the opinion that the writ applicant should avail the alternative remedy and prefer an appropriate appeal, if he deems fit – It is clarified that if the statutory appeal under Section 107 is preferred by the writ applicant and if the appeal is not disposed of at the earliest or in near future, it is always open for the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for interim release of the conveyance pending the final adjudication of the statutory appeal – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1055-HC-DEL-GST

Zones Corporate Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST

GST - IGST - Refund - Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to refund Rs.1,40,99,149/- due to the petitioner along with interest which the respondents have failed to release despite two orders dated 23rd July, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Delhi, which have attained finality - Petitioner submits that refund is due on account of exports made by the petitioner and supplies of computer hardware goods made to SEZ units - which are termed as 'zero rated supplies' in GST; that withholding of refund due to the petitioner is violative of Section 16 of IGST Act as well as Sections 54 and 56 of the CGST Act.

Held: Issue Notice - Matter to be listed on 03rd July, 2020: High Court

- Matter listed : DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1053-HC-KERALA-GST

Pazhayidom Food Ventures Pvt Ltd Vs Superintendent Commercial Taxes

GST - According to the revenue, the petitioner did not file the return and this resulted into a show cause notice for cancellation of registration dated 9th January 2020 - The aforementioned notice was replied and thereafter cancellation order dated 11.01.2020 was issued - Petitioner submits that the show cause notice in Form GST REG-17 did not mention about the date, month and year as well as the time for appearance of the petitioner; that, therefore, the contents of the same are vague and are not commensurate with the format prescribed in CGST Rules, 2017 where a column of day, month and year has been prescribed - Counsel for Respondent Revenue submits that petitioner was called upon to submit a reply within 7 days and in case of any failure or personal appearance would entail into an exparte order; that the petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

Held: On juxtaposing of both the notices viz. notice Ext.P2 as well as actual format ie., Form GST REG-17 contained in Rule No.22 (1), show cause notice Ext.P2 is not in order - The reference of date, month, year and time is conspicuously wanting - the notice lacks the compliance of the principles of audi alteram partem - It is on that account this Court had issued notice and sought the comments thus impelling to invoke, the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as the order under challenge is without jurisdiction - Accordingly, the notice and the order of cancellation Exts.P2 and P4 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to comply with the observation derived from the Form GST REG-17 - respondent is also directed to take up the issue at the appropriate level so that the affected parties are not compelled to approach this Court on account of non-compliance of principles of natural justice - Bench directs the petitioner to appear on 30th June 2020 at 11.30 a.m before the 2nd respondent - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

Mitha Ram Vs State Of Punjab

GST - Present petition is filed inter alia praying for grant of regular bail in complaint No.2355/2019 dated 13.08.2019, under Section 132(1) a,b,c of Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, filed by respondent No.2 before Ld. JMIC, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab - Petitioner submits that he is an Income tax payee and for the previous years his income has been shown very low to the tune of Rs.3 lacs approximately per year and that he has been falsely implicated in this case - Petitioner further submits that on 02.08.2019, a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 74 of the Punjab GST Act, 2017; that out of 29 witnesses, only 01 witness has been examined till date; that because of the present COVID-19 situation and also the fact that trial is likely to take some time, detention of the petitioner in jail is dangerous to his life and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for regular bail.

Held: Considering the existing situation due to COVID-19 and the fact that trial is likely to take some time, Court deems it appropriate to direct the release of the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds - Petitioner is also directed to furnish security worth Rs. 10 lacs in the form of bank guarantee/original paper of immovable property, within 15 days - Petition stands disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

C P Marble Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner challenges vires of Rule 117(1A) of CGST Act, 2017 and seeks direction to Respondent to permit Petitioner to electronically upload form TRAN-1 or avail input tax credit in monthly return GSTR-3B - Petitioner contends that issue involved is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST , SLP filed by Revenue against aforesaid decision havine been dismissed - Petitioner also submits that Delhi High Court in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. 2020-TIOL-900-HC-Del-GST has permitted Petitioners to file TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020 and further directed the Respondents Revenue to permit all other similarly situated tax payers to file TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020; that this opinion has been approved in SKH Sheet Metals Components - 2020-TIOL-1031-HC-DEL-GST .

Held: Delhi High Court though has not declared Rule 117(1A) ultra vires the Constitution, nonetheless treated as violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India being arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable - in the instant case, the Petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 117 (1A) of Rules, however Bench does not think it appropriate to declare it invalid as it is of the considered opinion that Petitioner is entitled to carry forward Cenvat Credit accrued under Central Excise Act, 1944 - Repeated extensions of last date to file TRAN-1 in case of technical glitches as understood by Respondent vindicate claim of the Petitioner that denial of unutilized credit to those dealers who are unable to furnish evidence of attempt to upload TRAN-1 would amount to violation of Article 14 as well Article 300A of the Constitution of India - In view of decision of this Court in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. (supra) present petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed - The Respondents are directed to permit Petitioner to upload TRAN-1 on or before 30.06.2020 and in case Respondent fails to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020 - respondents would be at liberty to verify genuineness of claim(s) made by Petitioner: High Court [para 6 to 8]

- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Goods And Services Tax Network Vs Leo Distributors

GST - Single Judge had directied the appellants Revenue (in the present Writ appeal) to facilitate filing of GST TRAN-1 Forms electronically by making necessary arrangements in the web portal and in the event of the same being not possible, permitting manual filing of such returns - Being aggrieved with this order, Revenue is in appeal.

Held: Facts are identical to the case of Blue Bird Pure Pvt.Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-1564-HC-DEL-GST - As has been noticed in the various decisions, there arise a number of teething problems in the initial stages of a new regime and the assessees too are not well versed in the ways and means provided in the new enactment and those prescribed by rules; both on the substantive and procedural aspects - The transition from the old regime to the new one as held by the High Court of Delhi in Brand Equity Treaties Limited - 2020-TIOL-900-HC-DEL-GST poses formidable and unprecedented problems in successful migration, which could be attributed either to the failure of the system as maintained by the Department or the inexperience of the assessee in the ways and means provided by the new regime - The fact that the petitioner/1st respondent had attempted uploading of the form, within the period is more than established by the system log - The rejection of the return so submitted was due to the wrong table having been filled up, which is not with any ulterior motive; but was only for reason of inadvertence prompted by inexperience - respectfully following the persuasive precedents referred, Division Bench does not find any cause for interference with the judgment of the Single Judge - Division Bench decision of the High Court of Bombay in Nelco Limited] - 2020-TIOL-273-HC-MUM-GST is distinguishable on facts for reason of the assessee therein having not at all made an attempt to submit the form; which failure was established on the basis of the system log as available with the Department - Revenue appeal is rejected by upholding the judgment as also reaffirming the directions therein - Writ appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 9, 10]

- Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-138-AAR-GST

Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Ltd

GST - Heat Activated Ultra-Violet (HAUV) Polyester film with Adhesive coating and UV printing is appropriately classifiable under Chapter Heading 3919 @18% GST and not under Chapter Heading 4911@12% GST: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2020-TIOL-137-AAR-GST

Shalini Manish Mittal

GST - To answer the question on which the ruling is sought would require the Authority to discuss the place of supply which is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority in view of s.97 of the CGST Act, 2017 -Application is, therefore, not maintainable and thus liable for rejection: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2020-TIOL-136-AAR-GST

Lear India Engineering Llp

GST - Applicant has voluntarily withdrawn the question on which they had sought a ruling and which is allowed - Insofar as the question as to whether the design and development services provided by them to their entities situated abroad would fall under the category of OIDAR services, the same is not admitted in view of the proviso to section 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 inasmuch as the question raised is already pending before the department in view of the SCN issued to the applicant on 27.08.2018: AAR

- Application dismissed: AAR

2020-TIOL-135-AAR-GST

Panbase Resources Pvt Ltd

GST - To answer the question on which the ruling is sought would require the Authority to discuss the provisions of s.13 and s.2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 pertaining to export of services - Thus, to decide the issue, the Authority would be required to discuss the ‘place of supply' in the subject case - Questions on which Advance ruling is sought shall be in respect of matters or issues mentioned in s.97(2)(a) to (g) only - "Place of supply of service” does not find mention in s.97 of the Act, 2017 - Hence answering this question is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority in view of s.97 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Application is, therefore, not maintainable and thus liable for rejection: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2020-TIOL-1049-HC-KERALA-VAT

Raghavan E V Vs State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

VAT - Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly submits on the basis of instructions that the 1st respondent-The State Tax Officer (Works Contract), The State Goods & Service Tax Department, Malappuram is prepared to accept the request of the petitioner for revision of returns for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 - Government Pleader would also submit that consequently, the petitioner will have to appear before the 1st respondent and submit all the requisite documents to effectuate the further steps in the matter of revision of the return - Consequently, it is ordered that the 1st respondent will take consequential measures for completing the revision of returns, without much delay, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date from which the petitioner furnishes all the requisite details - Writ Petition disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-894-CESTAT-KOL

Nalco Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - The issue involved is admissibility of balance 50% Cenvat credit on capital goods in terms of Rule 57 AC (2) of erstwhile CER, 1944 r/w Rule 4 of CCR, 2002 - As per the said statutory provisions, credit upto 50% can be availed by assessee during the same financial year, when the capital goods were received in the factory and the balance credit can be availed during the subsequent financial year(s), provided the capital goods were in the possession and use by the assessee - The assessee had availed the first instalment of 50% of credit on the same financial year, in which the capital goods were received - The balance 50% credit was availed by assessee in the subsequent financial years, which was disallowed by adjudicating authority vide the impugned orders on the ground that the said credit was availed before installation/use of capital goods, as provided under Rule 57AC of erstwhile 1944 rules r/w Rule 4 (2) of CCR, 2002 - The credit taken by assessee before installation of capital goods, is not admissible in view of the principles decided by Patna High Court in case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - The said decision was rendered by Patna High Court in the context of Rule 4(2)(b) of CCR, 2002, which was effective till 09.09.2004 and the ratio of said decision applies to the facts of the present case - Therefore, the balance 50% credit taken by assessee before use of capital goods is not admissible - The capital goods were subsequently installed/put to use, the fact of which has also been acknowledged by adjudicating authority in the impugned order - No time limit is stipulated under the Cenvat Scheme, for taking credit on capital goods, since as per the scheme, the balance credit can be deferred by an assessee to be taken in any financial year or years, subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received - In terms of said provisions, the assessee would be eligible for credit on 10.09.2004 - The assessee, however, would be liable to pay interest, in respect of the period i.e. from the date of taking the credit till 09.09.2004, as per the provisions of law, as applicable: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: KOLKATA CESTAT

Berger Paints India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - SCN issued proposing denial of benefit of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 - Adjudicating authority has examined plant and machinery installed and held that the appellant has fulfilled the criteria under para 8(b)(i) of Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 viz. substantial expansion by making an additional investment in plant and machinery by more than 25% and allowed the exemption - in Revenue appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant has invested Rs.161.13 lakhs resulting in a substantial expansion of 24.46% and, therefore, there was a shortfall by Rs.3.54 lakhs and hence the benefit of exemption notification was denied - Consquent to that impugned order, the show cause notices were issued to the appellant to deny self credit taken by the appellant and recovery thereof - demand of duty confirmed, hence assessee is in appeal before CESTAT.

Held: As the order of denial of benefit of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 has been set aside by Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/60569/2019-(DB) dt.20.05.2019 , therefore, the impugned proceedings are not sustainable against the appellant - impugned order set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 5, 6]

- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1056-HC-KOL-CUS

DGFT Vs Ruia Cotex Ltd

Cus - Company, on January 14, 1999, applied before the Director General of Foreign Trade for grant of ten percent customs duty licence to import three textile machines which was approved by the said authority by a letter dated February 18, 1999 - On the basis of the said import licence, the company imported three textile machines which arrived in Kolkata Port in the same month, however, the bills of entry for the same, however, were filed by the company only on August 20, 1999 and August 23, 1999 respectively - EXIM Policy 1997-2002 was amended by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India by a notification No. 1(RE-99)/1997- 2002 effective from 1st April, 1999 allowing importation of textile machinery as capital goods for zero customs duty, subject to export obligation - However, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued the corresponding notification No. 122/99-Cus. dated November 04, 1999 - the company, therefore, made several representations before the Director General of Foreign Trade for converting the said ten per cent customs duty licence to zero duty licence - The Director General of Foreign Trade, however, turned down such prayers - Company, therefore, under protest, paid ten per cent customs duty, and the said goods were released by the customs authorities in the port at Kolkata - subsequently, the company claimed refund of a sum of Rs.12,44,509.80/- being the ten per cent customs duty, however, the claim was rejected and hence the Writ petition was filed - Director General of Foreign Trade in his order dated July 30, 2003 (passed upon directions by the Court) noted that the Policy Interpretation Committee of Director General Foreign Trade held a meeting on December 16, 2002, and viewed that the EXIM Policy could not be overruled or diluted for delayed publication of the customs notification and agreed that the company was entitled to import the textile machinery at zero duty as per the applicable provision of the EXIM Policy - Single Judge by his impugned order dated August 25, 2009 held that the customs notification being No. 122/99-Cus. dated November 04, 1999, would apply retrospectively from the date of introduction of the policy of the Central Government and directed the authorities to give the benefit of zero per cent customs duty to the company - Both, Director General of Foreign Trade and the Customs authorities have challenged this order - It is contended that that the notification issued under the Customs Act has no retrospective effect and, as such, the company cannot claim exemption under the said notification and secondly, it has been contended that the relevant goods arrived in Kolkata Port in the month of February, 1999, and as such the company was not entitled to the benefit of the amended EXIM Policy 1997-2002.

Held:

+ Question which is essentially posed for consideration in these appeals is whether the imported goods were exempted from customs duty - The company applied for ten percent customs duty import licence in the month of January, 1999 which was approved on February 18, 1999 - The imported goods admittedly reached Kolkata Port in the same month - As per Section 2(e) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, "import" means bringing into India any goods by land, sea or air from a place outside of India, therefore, importation of the said three textile machines had completed in the month of February, 1999 - In such a fact scenario, the company was not entitled to get the benefit of the amended EXIM Policy since the same was operative on and from April 01, 1999 - The Director General of Foreign Trade, therefore, was wrong in holding that the company was entitled to import at zero duty under the amended EXIM Policy - And, since the amended EXIM Policy itself did not yield any benefit to the relevant import items, the corresponding customs notification, issued to give effect to the amended EXIM Policy, was, therefore, totally inapplicable to the company - The delay in issuing such notification was also, therefore, inconsequential in the given facts: High Court [para 23 to 26]

+ It needs to be appreciated that date of filing of bill of entry in terms of Sections 15 and 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 is relevant to an exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the said Act only - Such date of filing of bill of entry is not relatable to the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 or any notification or policy promulgated thereunder - Customs notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 had no manner of application to the relevant import and the date of filing of bill of entry was, therefore, wholly irrelevant: High Court [29, 30]

+ The aforesaid notification dated November 04, 1999, was introduced for further amending the notification No. 29/97-Cus dated the 1st April, 1997 and giving a retrospective effect would mean that the same would relate back to 1st April, 1997 - When the amended EXIM Policy was made effective from 1st April, 1999, such interpretation (of the notification having a retrospective effect), therefore, leads to an absurdity where the customs notification would be made operative even before the EXIM Policy came into being: High Court [para 33]

+ Though, the word 'substitution' has been used in the amending notification 122/99-CUS, in substance, two new import items namely, 'textile' and 'chemical sectors' were introduced to exempt levy of customs duty - If the law maker, by way of amendment, introduces anything which was left out or omitted by mistake in the original provision, then such amendment may operate retrospectively with effect from the date of the original provision - The inclusion of the import items namely, 'textile' and 'chemical sectors', if construed to be operative retrospectively, then the same would entail refund of all customs duties already levied under the ten per cent customs duty regime - Such a consequence was never the intendment of the amendment: High Court [para 35, 36]

+ The order of the learned Single Judge dated August 25, 2009 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside - As a consequence W.P No. 1466 of 2004 is dismissed: High Court [para 38]

- Appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1048-HC-KERALA-CUS

Raju Savastan @ Raju Sait Vs CC

Cus - The assessee is engaged as a goldsmith and holds a license issued by the Vallachira Grama Panchayath, Thrissur - For expansion of business, the assessee availed overdraft facility for SBI and from Axis Bank - During the relevant period, the assessee's premises were searched by the Customs Department, whereupon some quantity of Gold and cash were seized - Hence the present writ.

Held - Section 110(2) of the Customs Act and proviso added thereafter enables the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to give further period of six months by informing the person after recording the reasons which, in the instant case has already been done - However, the extension would not come into play in case the goods are provisionally released under Section 110(a) - It is a matter of record that the application has been submitted by the assessee for provisional release of goods which can be adjudicated independently of the proceedings to be initiated under Section 124 of the Customs Act - Hence equity can be struck by issuing directions to the Commr. of Customs concerned to decide upon the request for provisional release of the goods after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

TII

TP - Liaisoning company can be compared with company whose profile reflects consumption of special knowledge and manpower: ITAT

TP - Only existence of close connection and more than ordinary profits is enough for re-working of profits by AO by invoking section 10A r.w.s. 80- IA(10) of Act: ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

IPC - Bail application of appellant should be accepted as charges have not been framed, trial has not commenced for very long time and economic interests of State has been protected by Arbitral Tribunal order: SC

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - There is no binding Agreement between parties to refer their disputes at first to arbitration as existing agreement between parties provides to settle their dispute through consultation, failing which, through arbitration or through Court: HC