2021-TIOL-30-SC-IT-LB

Pr.CIT Vs Gujarat State Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Apex Court adjourns the matter for four weeks' time, on request of the Respondent.

- Case deferred : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-29-SC-IT-LB

CIT Vs Gujarat Cricket Association

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court condones the delay and directs that notice be issued to the parties. It also directs that the matter be listed for hearing in the first week of February 2021 after obtaining requisite directions from the CJI.

- Notice issued : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-28-SC-IT-LB

ACIT Vs Gayatri Microns Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court observes that the tax effect involved in the present matter is below Rs 25 lakhs as prescribed in the relevant CBDT Circular. Hence the present SLP cannot be entertained.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-27-SC-IT

DCIT Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd

In writ, the Supreme Court condones the delay and dismisses the Revenue's SLP along with pending applications.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed : SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-158-HC-MUM-IT

Slum Rehabilitation Authority Vs UoI

Whether waiver of pre-deposit can be given merely because, the assessee is a Government institution - NO: HC

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-153-HC-DEL-IT

Anil Singhal Vs DITI

Whether Tax Evasion Petitions filed by a person cannot be sustained where they are aimed at coercing the respondent therein to settle claims involving the petitioner - NO: HC

Whether the machinery & process of the High Court can be invoked for settlement of personal scores by litigants - NO: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-139-ITAT-JAIPUR

Amrapali Exports Vs DCIT

Whether addition on account of bogus purchases can be made when AO has also allowed benefit u/s 10AA to the assessee on the same transaction - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2021-TIOL-138-ITAT-DEL

Dish TV India Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether TDS liability can be attached to any payments without examining the nature & characterstic of same - NO: ITAT

- Case remanded: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-50-AAR-GST

Wilhelm Fricke Se

GST - A pplicant is working as the Indian Office of M/s. Wilhelm Fricke SE which is established as a Liaison Office with the prior permission of RBI - Except proposed liaison work, this office in India would not undertake any activity of trading, commercial or industrial nature nor would they enter into any business contracts in its own name without RBIs prior permission - There is no commission/ fees being charged or any other remuneration being received/income being earned by the office in India for the liaison activities/ services rendered by it - HO in Germany reimburses the expenses incurred by the applicant for their operations in India which are in the nature of salary, rent, security, electricity, travelling etc. - The applicant does not have any other source of income and it is solely dependent on the HO for all the expenses incurred by the applicant, which are subsequently reimbursed by the HO - Therefore, the HO and Liaison Office cannot be treated as separate persons - Since HO and Liaison Office cannot be treated as separate persons, there cannot be any flow of services between them as one cannot provide service to self and, therefore, the reimbursement of expenses made by the HO cannot be treated as a consideration towards any service - The amount received from HO are the funds for payment of salary, reimbursement of expenses like rent, security, electricity, travelling, etc. - Further, the liaison office is strictly prohibited from undertaking any activity of trading, commercial or industrial nature or entering into any business contracts in its own name - As there are no taxable supplies made by the Liaison office, they are not required to get registered: AAR

- Application disposed of : AAR

2021-TIOL-49-AAR-GST

Khatwani Sales And Services LLP

GST - Applicants are authorised dealers of KIA cars for sales and services of vehicles in Jabalpur - Applicant seeks to know as to whether Input Tax Credit is available on the Motor vehicle purchased by them for demo purpose - Period is post 01.02.2019 - Inasmuch as applicant purchases vehicles from the supplier against tax invoices after paying tax and capitalises the demo vehicles in the books of accounts - Applicant further submits that every model of the car is used for demonstration for a limited period and is usually replaced every two years or 40000 kms or up to continuation of model, whichever is earlier; that the vehicles used for demo purpose are sold in subsequent year(s) at WDV; that they would comply with the provisions of s.18(6) of the Act at the time of sale of demo vehicle and they will not claim depreciation on tax component of the capitalised demo vehicles.

Held: For deciding the eligibility of ITC on Demo vehicles, the provisions of s.17(5)(a) of the GST Act, 2017 is relevant and which debars the applicant from taking ITC except in the situations described in clause (A), (B) and (C) - A reading of s.17(5)(a) indicates that ITC shall be available in respect of Motor vehicles which are further supplied as such or which are used for transportation of passengers or which are used for imparting training for driving of such vehicles - Subsequent sale of Demo vehicle after one or two years cannot be said to be further supply inasmuch as sale of demo vehicle in subsequent year on which depreciation has been charged is to be treated as a sale of used second-hand vehicle and not sale of a new vehicle - Demo vehicle used for demo and trial to the customers are not covered in the exception clause (A) i.e for further supply of such vehicle or in clause (B) i.e. for transportation of passengers or in clause (C) i.e. for imparting training for driving - Therefore, although the demo vehicles are for furtherance of business of the applicant, even then they are not eligible for ITC in view of provisions of s.17(5)(a) of the Act - Furthermore, eligibility for ITC on Demo vehicles cannot be decided on the basis of their capitalisation or payment of GST at the time of their sale in the subsequent year(s) since what is essential is compliance of the provisions of s.17(5)(a) of the Act: AAR

- Application disposed of : AAR

2021-TIOL-159-HC-KAR-ST

CCE & ST Vs Vathika International Travels

ST - Tribunal, by a final order dated 21.01.2016, dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue holding that the tax amount involved was less than Rs. 10,00,000/- and the appeal is not maintainable in view of the Circular dated 17.12.2015 - Thereafter, the revenue filed the Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal seeking restoration of the appeal - However, the aforesaid applications were rejected by an order dated 21.01.2016 - In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed - Counsel for revenue points out that the decision of the Delhi High Court in Travelite (India) Vs. Union of India and Ors . ( 2014-TIOL-1304-HC-DEL-ST ) relied by Commissioner(A) while allowing appeal of respondent has been stayed by an order dated 18.12.2014 and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeal) be quashed and the matter be remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal in the light of the decision which may be rendered by the Supreme Court.

Held : In the factual situation of the case, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending before this Court - In the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are hereby quashed and the Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to await the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition pending before it and to decide the appeal in the light of the decision which may be rendered by the Supreme Court - Appeal is disposed of: High Court [para 8]

- Appeal disposed of : KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-48-CESTAT-KOL

Aditya Birla Chemicals India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The assessee is engaged in manufacture of Caustic Soda Lye, Liquid Chlorine and allied goods on which Central Excise duty is being paid - Dispute was raised by revenue on the ground that assessee's contracts with its buyers were at FOR prices and the possession of goods after clearance from factory was given to buyers only at destination and that sale in such cases has taken place when delivery was given at destination and, therefore, destination was the 'place of removal' - It was also contended that assessee was liable to pay Central Excise duty on the amount charged from their customers which would be 'transaction value' as defined in Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Accordingly, a SCN was issued by invoking extended period of limitation - The Supreme Court in Ispat Industries 2015-TIOL-238-SC-CX after taking note of its earlier decisions in Roofit Industries 2015-TIOL-87-SC-CX as well as Escorts JCB 2002-TIOL-05-SC-CX , and the various amendments introduced in Section 4 of the Act from time to time, has categorically observed that the buyer's premises can never be the "place of removal" as has been defined in Section 4 of the Act - The Court also made a very important observation that the words used in Section "place or premises from excisable goods are to be sold" can only be the manufacturer's premise and if the contention of Revenue is accepted, the said words will have to be substituted by words "have been sold" which would only then have possibly have reference to buyer's premises - The Court also gave a specific finding with regard to the decision in Roofit Industries case , wherein it observed that the attention of the Court was not drawn to Section 4 as originally enacted and as amended to demonstrate that the buyer's premises cannot, in law, be the place of removal under the said provisions - The issue, whether or not place of removal can be manufacturer's premises or buyer's premises has since been settled by Apex Court in Ispat Industries 2015-TIOL-238-SC-CX , which has to be respectfully followed for the purpose of assessment of duty as per law - Since the instant case is being decided on merits, Tribunal is not inclined to go into the aspect of limitation - The impugned order thus cannot be sustained and hence set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : KOLKATA CESTAT

2021-TIOL-46-CESTAT-KOL

Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The assessee is engaged in handling and processing of slag mixture generated by steel companies (clients) during manufacturing process undertaken by them - They had entered into agreements with different steel plants of Steel Authority of India Limited - The scope of work that is being undertaken by assessee is for recovery of scrap from steel skull at melting shop by lancing, breaking, cleaning and screening through magnetic separator, loading, unloading and dispatching the slag and scrap at different sites within the steel plant, handling of slag pit by breaking the slag mass mixed with scarp and feeding the metal free slag to the screening plant - Since the rates have been separately mentioned, the department has classified the activity of recovery and processing of scrap and slag under BAS and transportation and loading/ unloading of scrap and slag within the plant under Cargo Handling Services - The issue already stands decided in favour of assessee - The Principal Bench in assessee's own case, as relied by assessee, has already observed in identical set of facts that there is no third person in the instant case, whereas the tax can be levied under BAS only in case the service is provided on behalf of client i.e. there would be involvement of three parties - Further, for the period after 16.06.2005, the Tribunal in their own case 2019-TIOL-1775-CESTAT-KOL , has held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Notfn 8/2005 - The issue is no longer res-integra, since decided in favour of assessee - No reason found to take contrary view and therefore, the demand raised vide impugned adjudication order cannot be sustained and hence, the same is set aside - Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue to dispute the cum tax benefit is liable to be rejected: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT