Adams International Imports And Exports Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Petitioner, instead of availing alternative remedy of appeal qua limiting the claim of refund has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - It is settled law that in order to bring the case within the realm of judicial review, it is imperative for the petitioner to make out a case of gross illegality, irregularity and without jurisdiction or against the principles of natural justice - reason assigned for rejection of refund was that the petitioner had availed duty drawback on export of the goods @1% of FOB Value and this does not call for interference under writ jurisdiction - Bench refrains from commenting further with regard to the eligibility or otherwise qua claim of refund on IGST and CGST, as it would be in the domain of the appellate authority to examine issue, in case the petitioner chooses to avail the remedy, in accordance with law - Petition is without merit, hence rejected: High Court [para 1, 4]

- Petition rejected: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1303-HC-KERALA-GST

Amani Machine Centre Vs State Tax Officer

GST - It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not furnish a valid return within 30 days from the service of the assessment orders under Section 62(1) of the Act - That being the case, it would follow that the petitioner cannot obtain the benefit under Section 62(2) of the Act, for deeming the assessment orders already passed on best judgment basis as withdrawn - The writ petition in its challenge to the assessment orders, therefore, fails and is dismissed - It is directed that recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P12 to P23 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority, in its challenge against the said assessment orders, in the meanwhile: High Court [para 3]

- Petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1302-HC-KERALA-GST

Pazhayidom Food Ventures Pvt Ltd Vs Superintendent Commercial Taxes

GST - Petitioner, who is an assessee under the GST Act, is not disputing his liability to tax, or the quantum thereof, for the period in question - It only seeks an instalment facility to pay the admitted tax, together with interest thereon, in view of the financial difficulties faced by it during the Covid pandemic situation, when its business has come to a total standstill - During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has established its bonafides by effecting a payment of Rs.4 lakhs towards the tax liability for the period 2018-2019 - It is also relevant to note that, as of today, there is no demand against the petitioner for the unpaid tax amount - Since the petitioner is not disputing his liability, and wishes to put a quietus to the matter, Bench deems it appropriate to direct the respondent to accept the belated return filed by the petitioner for the period November 2018 to March 2019, without insisting on payment of the admitted tax declared therein - Respondents shall adjust the amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs paid towards the admitted tax liability and thereafter permit petitioner to discharge the balance tax liability, inclusive of any interest and late fee thereon, in equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 25th August 2020 and culminating on 25th March, 2021 - If the petitioner defaults in any single instalment, he will lose the benefit of this judgment and it will be open to the respondent to proceed with recovery proceedings for realisation of the unpaid tax, interest and other amounts – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3]

Petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1301-HC-AHM-GST

Downtown Auto Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Rule 15 of CCR, 2017 - Notification 21/2017-CX(NT) - Transitional Credit - Petitioners are not having credit transfer document (CTD) but have produced on record the copies of the invoice received from the dealers along with copies of invoice issued by the manufacturer of the cars or spare parts (as applicable) in name of the dealers showing the payment of excise duty along with the Chassis Number of cars (in case of cars) - On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of s.140 of the CGST Act, it is clear that they nowhere provide for the petitioners to submit any CTD to claim the transitional credit - Therefore, even though the petitioners are not having CTD, the respondent-authorities can very well verify the payment of excise duty on the cars purchased by the petitioners from the dealers and on spare parts on the basis of documents submitted by the petitioners - If the respondents are satisfied on basis of such documents that the excise duty has been paid by the manufacturer, the excise duty paid should be allowed as transitional credit in the hands of the petitioners - Petition is disposed of with directions to meet the ends of justice - Such exercise shall be carried within a period of three months: High Court [para 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13.2]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Director-General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Durga Marketing Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent has profiteered in respect of the supply of Duracell Battery AA/6 inasmuch as they had not reduced the selling price of the product when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017; that the price of the product had remained the same and thus the benefit of reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in the price - DGAP observed that the respondent had supplied the product in the state of Rajasthan only; that the respondent had increased the base price of the product when the rate of GST was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017; that based on the above, the amount of net higher sales realisation due to increase in the base price of the impacted goods, despite reduction in the GST rate viz. the profiteered amount comes to Rs.1,57,200/-, such computation being arrived at by comparing the average of the base price of the product sold during the period 01.7.2017 to 14.11.2017 with the actual invoice-wise base prices of the products supplied by the respondent during the period from 15.11.2017 to 30.06.2019; that the excess GST so collected from recipients was also included in the aforesaid profiteered amount - respondent in his written submissions accepted the above profiteered amount as computed by DGAP and paid the same vide challan of Rs.98,585/- in favour of Deputy Director, Consumer Affairs Department, Rajasthan and a DD for Rs.98,585/- paid in favour of Pay & Accounts Officer (Consumer Affairs) payable at New Delhi which amounts includes the interest amount of Rs.39,969/- @18% - Authority agrees with the computation of profiteered amount made by DGAP and also takes into account the payment of the entire profiteered amount along with interest and holds that in view of the same, the respondent is not liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of s.171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Order is being passed accordingly keeping in view the notification 55/2020-CT issued u/s 168A of the Act, 2017: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAA

2020-TIOL-1144-CESTAT-DEL

Navbharat Explosives Company Ltd Vs CC

ST - Appellant is a manufacturer of Explosives & Detonating Fuse – They were issued a demand notice alleging that during the course of audit of the accounts, it was revealed that in the year 2006-07, the appellant had entered into an agreement with one Shir P.Ramaiah of Khammam (AP) for providing work of de-silting of iron ore slimes including loading and transportation of the same at Kadampal Tailing Dam to the fine ore dump at M.V. Siding, Kirandul of Bailadila Iron Ore Project, which will fall under the category of "Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation & Earth Moving and Demolition" – as the order passed by the original authority confirming the demand has been upheld by the Commissioner(A), the appellant is before the CESTAT.

Held: A perusal of the agreement indicates that the work that has to be performed by the appellant is "de-silting of slimes at Kadampal Tailing Dam and transportation of the slimes to fine ore dump at M.V. Siding, Kirandul" - It is, therefore, apparent that the Dam is in existence and only the work of de-silting of slimes has to be carried out by the appellant - Thus, any activity prior to the construction of Dam, would only fall under the category of "Site Formation", as has been clarified in the Budget Letter dated 27 July, 2005 - Any activity of de-silting of slimes after the construction of the Dam would, therefore, not fall in the category of "Site Formation" - Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and committed an error in upholding the demand – Order set aside and appeal is allowed: CESTAT [para 10, 11]

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1143-CESTAT-BANG

KK Lonappan Vs CCE & ST

ST - Work order given for asphalting and pothole filling of existing roads at various locations inside the plant premises, KIOCL, Pannambur, is a Works Contract, therefore, it is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of L&T Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - Submission of AR that the road for which the work undertaken should be for use of general public in order to be eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, does not appear to be applicable in view of the special provision of Section 97 of FA, 1994 - Notification mentions that the road should be for use by general public whereas Section 97 does not mention any such condition - Notification cannot go beyond the statute and in case of ambiguity the statute shall prevail over the Notification: CESTAT [para 5]

ST - Clearing of cooling/dump pond material by engaging suitable mobile equipment such as JCB, Poclain/excavator etc, and transporting the materials in tippers form cooling/dump pond to dumping pits in laydown area, Shed I, II and III, triangular or any other place inside KIOCL's Plant premises, as per the instructions of the Engineer-in-charge also comes under the ambit of Works Contract and, therefore, not chargeable Service Tax before 01.06.2007 as held by Supreme Court in the case of L&T Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST : CESTAT [para 6]

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1142-CESTAT-ALL

Bisalpur Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellants were receiving 'Security Services' from M/s Prantiya Rakshak Dal, which is service provider of State Government - It was noticed by Revenue that as provided under Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20-06-2012, appellants were required to pay 75% of the service tax chargeable on receiving security services. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated through issuance of show cause notice dated 31.12.2015 and by invoking extended period of limitation which culminated into filing of the present appeal.

Held: Since the matter had come to the knowledge of Revenue on 16.11.2012, extended period of limitation as on 31.12.2015 is not invokable - Therefore, Revenue could demand service tax not paid for normal period as on 31.12.2015 only - Further, while computing service tax, Cum-duty/tax benefit needs to be extended - since the extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue, penalty under Section 78 of FA, 1994 is not imposable - Matter is, therefore, remanded to the Original Authority: CESTAT [para 2, 3]

- Matter remanded: ALLAHABAD CESTAT