VOLUME I

Preface

Saving Lives and Livelihoods amidst a Once-in-a-Century Crisis

Does Growth lead to Debt Sustainability? Yes, But Not Vice- Versa!

Does India's Sovereign Credit Rating Reflect Its Fundamentals? No!

Inequality and Growth: Conflict or Convergence?

Healthcare takes Centre Stage, Finally!

Process Reforms

Regulatory Forbearance an emergency medicine, not staple diet!

Innovation: Trending Up but Needs Thrust, Especially from the Private Sector

JAY Ho! PM‘JAY' Adoption and Health outcomes

The Bare Necessities

VOLUME II

Preface

State of the Economy in 2020-21: A Macro View

Fiscal Developments

External Sector

Monetary Management and Financial Intermediation

Prices and Inflation

Sustainable Development and Climate Change

Agriculture & Food Management

Industry and Infrastructure

Services

Social Infrastructure, Employment and Human Developme

STATISTICAL APPENDIX

Statistical Appendix

2021-TIOL-230-HC-MAD-IT

CIT Vs Annapurani Hariharan

Whether manual appeal filed before the CIT(A) can be reckoned as proper filing of appeal on the ground that the e-appeal was filed much after filing of the manual appeal - YES : HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-200-ITAT-DEL

DCIT Vs Ginni Devi

Whether addition on account of unexplained investment for unexplained jewellery can be made when assessee has explained the source of jewellery - NO: ITAT

Whether addition of undisclosed income on the basis of accommodation entries can be made when during the search no evidence is found proving the same - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-199-ITAT-MUM  

Meghaertz Systems Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether cessation of liability u/s 41(1) by AO is correct when AO neither recorded satisfaction for making disallowance nor made enquires on trade creditors and support same with evidence - NO : ITAT

- Case Remanded: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-233-HC-DEL-GST

National Internet Exchange of India Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has filed TRAN-1 form within the time prescribed and are holding documents evidencing payment of tax by it on such inputs / input services received under the erstwhile tax regime - It is thus eligible to carry forward the credit from erstwhile tax regime to the GST regime under Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules - Petitioner claims that error has occurred because of the introduction of new and vastly different tax regime (GST) of which the Petitioner had no prior experience whatsoever, and thus it was new to the filing of Form GST TRAN-1 as well - Inasmuch as due to the aforesaid bona fide human error, inadvertently, they failed to take into account certain invoices, on which service tax amounting to Rs. 40,36,542/- was not reflected in TRAN-1 Form - Despite representations given by the Petitioner, the Respondents took no action, therefore, petition filed before the High Court seeking directions to allow the petitioner to modify/revise Form GST TRAN-1 filed by it, either by opening the GST portal or by permitting submission of manual modified/rectified Form.

Held: In nearly identical circumstances, this Court in numerous cases has taken a view that the Respondents ought to have provided in the system, a facility for rectification of bona fide errors - The Court had also taken note that though the system provided for revision of the return, it was impractical and meaningless, inasmuch as the deadline for making revision coincided with the last date for filing the original return i.e. 27th December, 2017 - Bench is satisfied that the difficulty faced by the Petitioner was a genuine one - Due to an inadvertent human error and oversight on the part of the Petitioner, its substantive right should not be denied - Petitioner should therefore not be precluded from having its claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law - Bench has no hesitation in allowing the request of the Petitioner and accordingly the present petition is allowed - The Respondents are directed to open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioner to re-file the rectified TRAN-1 form electronically, or, accept the same manually with the corrections within a period of three weeks - Petitioner's claim shall thereafter be processed in accordance with law and Respondents shall be at liberty to verify the genuineness of the claim - Petitioner shall thereafter be permitted to correspondingly revise Form TRAN-2 - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-59-AAR-GST

Jeet And Jeet Glass And Chemicals Pvt Ltd

GST - Activity carried out by the applicant by making bullet proof body building (in addition to fixing bullet proof windshield glass, bullet proofing of engine and fuel tank) on the motor vehicles (2.5 Ton capacity) of Chapter heading 87 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, supplied by the customer (i.e. free supply) having Tarpaulin cover in the cargo compartment, is a supply of Service [under SAC 9988] attracting GST 18% (SGST 9% + CGST 9%) -CBIC Circular No. 52/26/2018-GST , dated 9-8-2018 relied upon: AAR

GST - Question related to refund of tax is outside the purview/scope of this Authority under Section 97(2) of CGST Act, 2017 hence, no ruling is given: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-58-AAR-GST

Trucity Developers LLP

GST - In the matter of sale of plots, commercial or residential by the developer applicant to the buyers, Applicant had sought a ruling on three questions, however, they submitted a letter dated 05.08.2020 [received by Authority on 11.08.2020] requesting to withdraw their application without any personal hearing.

Held: Request to withdraw the application is considered: AAR

- Application withdrawn:AAR

2021-TIOL-235-HC-MUM-ST

Fork Media Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Tax dues of the petitioner were quantified on or before 30.06.2019 at Rs.8,00,78,066.00 - So the amount payable under the Scheme worked out to Rs.4,00,39,033.00 being 50% of the tax dues - As per the petitioner's declaration, it had already paid Rs.4,39,74,069.00 (cash payment of Rs.1,11,25,000.00 and CENVAT credit of Rs.3,28,49,069.00) as pre-deposit / deposit; that the same being more than the amount payable i.e., Rs.4,00,39,033.00, there would be no requirement for making further payment as per the scheme - On 17.03.2020, petitioner was served with an estimate in Form No.SVLDRS-2 wherein the pre-deposit paid by the petitioner was shown at only Rs.1,11,25,000.00, thereby estimating the amount payable by the petitioner at Rs.2,89,14,033.00 - Inasmuch as CENVAT credit of the petitioner amounting to Rs.3,28,49,069.00 was excluded from the pre-deposit amount - In the remarks column, it was mentioned that DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit in its verification report had stated that CENVAT documents were not yet verified as on 30.06.2019, the cut-off date under the scheme - In view of imposition of lock-down, petitioner could not appear for the personal hearing on 30.03.2020 - Petitioner was surprised to receive Form No.SVLDRS-3 from respondent No.4 disallowing payment of CENVAT credit as pre-deposit by confining the pre-deposit to the cash payment of Rs.1,11,25,000.00 only and consequently quantifying the amount payable by the petitioner at Rs.2,89,14,033.00 - This was done without granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner subsequent to 30.03.2020 on which date the scheduled personal hearing was not possible because of the lock-down - Form No.SVLDRS-3 was received by the petitioner on 05.05.2020 - Immediately thereafter, petitioner wrote a letter dated 08.06.2020 requesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why the CENVAT credit should be treated as a pre-deposit but there was no response, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

Held:

+ When the entire country was under lock-down, it is beyond comprehension as to how petitioner could have attended the personal hearing scheduled on 30.03.2020 which date fell within the 21-day period of the lock-down. It was an impossibility on the part of the petitioner and respondent No.4 was insisting on the petitioner to carry out such an impossibility.

+ Having regard to the expression 'may' used in the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 127 of the Act, Bench is of the view that the personal hearing which was scheduled on 30.03.2020 could not have been construed to be the sole adjourned date of hearing and another date of personal hearing ought to have been fixed with due intimation to the petitioner.

+ Petitioner was denied personal hearing before issuance of the impugned order dated 05.05.2020, which is certainly adverse and prejudicial to the petitioner insofar as availing the benefit of the scheme inasmuch as CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs.3,28,49,069.00, as claimed by the petitioner, has not been treated as a pre-deposit. To that extent, impugned order dated 05.05.2020 is clearly vitiated and is liable to be set aside and quashed. [para 30]

+ Since the impugned decision contravenes the principles of natural justice causing prejudice to the petitioner, the matter is required to be remanded back to the designated committee. [para 31]

+ Designated Committee has denied the benefit of CENVAT credit on the basis of reports received from the Deputy Director, DGGI Zonal Office, Mumbai dated 04.03.2020 and 16.03.2020 and neither of the two reports have been annexed to the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 nor furnished to the petitioner.

+ It is a settled proposition of law that when an authority relies upon a document to take a decision which is adverse or prejudicial to a party, principles of natural justice demands that copy of such document or the essence thereof should be furnished to the affected party before the decision is taken so that the affected party can properly defend its case. Failure to do so would result in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action which would vitiate the decision making process and ultimately the decision taken. [para 32]

+ Matter is remanded back to respondent No.4 to consider the declaration of the petitioner vis-a-vis claim of CENVAT credit of Rs.3,28,49,069.00 as pre-deposit in addition to the cash deposit of Rs.1,11,25,000.00. Respondent No.4 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order - exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks. [para 33, 34]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-234-HC-MUM-ST

Code Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Respondent No.3 issued order dated 25.02.2020 in Form SVLDRS-3 disallowing pre-deposit made by the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,02,55,913.00 thereby resulting in quantification of the estimated amount payable by the petitioner at Rs. 58,06,116.00 - Aggrieved by the above, present writ petition has been filed.

Held:

+ SVLDRS, 2019 is a beneficial scheme for settlement of legacy disputes, therefore, the officials while considering declarations made under the scheme must have the broad picture in mind - The approach should be to ensure that the scheme is successful and, therefore, a liberal view embedded with the principles of natural justice is called for: High Court [para 32]

+ A conjoint reading of sub-section (1) of section 126 and sub-rule (1) of rule 6 makes it clear that declaration made by a declarant shall be verified by the designated committee. Such verification shall be based on particulars furnished by the declarant as well as the records available with the department which would include show cause-cum-demand notice or order-in-original, as the case may be.

+ The verification required to be carried out by the designated committee is certainly not an adjudicatory exercise or an appellate exercise. Viewed in the above context and keeping in mind the object of the scheme, verification of a declaration by the designated committee cannot be confined to the show cause-cum-demand notice or to the order-in-original. Mandate of the designated committee is to verify correctness of the declaration based on the particulars furnished by the declarant as well as the records available with the department. [para 38]

+ In the instant case, as against the petitioner's claim of pre-deposit of two amounts of Rs. 46,44,094.00 and Rs. 56,11,819.00, designated committee did not accept payments of the two amounts as pre-deposit. In fact in the impugned order dated 25.02.2020, which is in Form No.SVLDRS-3, no reasons have been assigned for exclusion of the two amounts. [para 39]

+ Designated committee i.e., respondent No.3 was required to consider all the above documents submitted by the petitioner independently, not being bound by the order-in-original, while verifying the claim of the petitioner. Evidently, this has not been done, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner as it has been called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 58,06,116.00 which it would not be required to pay if the two amounts are accepted by respondent No.3 as pre-deposit. [para 39.1]

+ Since the verification carried out by respondent No.3 cannot be said to be a full and complete verification in terms of section 126(1) and rule 6(1), we are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be remitted back to the designated committee for taking a fresh decision in the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to pass a speaking order with due intimation to the petitioner. [para 40]

+ Impugned order dated 25.02.2020 is set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 for taking a fresh decision after following principles of natural justice - exercise to be carried within a period of six weeks. [para 41]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-232-HC-MUM-CX

Raymond Ltd Vs UoI

CX - Petitioner submits that insofar as the disputes pertaining to the orders-in-original both dated 09.10.2001 relatable to the factories at Thane are concerned, the matter has been settled under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and, therefore, in terms of the scheme, petitioner is required to withdraw the two writ petitions – Counsel for respondents has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the writ petitions.

Held: Bench allows withdrawal of the two writ petitions: High Court [para 9]

- Petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT