2021-TIOL-632-ITAT-MUM

Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs DCIT

On considering the petitions, the Tribunal observes that the delay in disposal of appeals is not attributable to the assessee. Hence it finds that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the assessee for being allowed extension of stay for a further period of six months.

- Assessee's Stay Petitions allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-631-ITAT-MUM  

DCIT Vs Aegis Logistics Ltd

Whether only those investments, which yields exempt income can be considered for arriving at the average value of investments to compute the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - YES : ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-630-ITAT-AHM

Kaustubhbhai Dhirajlal Patel Vs DCIT

Whether since registration of institution u/s 12AA is cancelled after making donation by the assessee, disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) can not be made on ground that institution engaged in laundering of unaccounted money - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2021-TIOL-802-HC-ORISSA-GST

Anurag Suri Vs DG of GST Intelligence

GST - In response to the SCN dt. 23.07.2019 issued by Additional CT and GST Officer, Sambalpur-I Circle, the petitioner appeared before the State GST authority (Opposite Party No.3) on 24th August, 2019 and submitted that since the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGSTI, Bhubaneswar has seized all the documents and issued summons pursuant to which the Petitioner was appearing there from time to time, the proceedings initiated by the Opposite Party No.3 should be kept in abeyance till such time of proceedings before the DGGSTI concluded - Despite the said request the impugned order was passed, therefore, the Petitioner has questioned the SCN dated 23rd July, 2019, the orders dated 5th November, 2019 u/s 74 of the OGST Act as well as the consequential order u/s 74(9) of the OGST/CGST Act raising a demand for the month of March, 2018 under both the OGST and CGST Act for a total sum of Rs.1,25,57,922.80.

Held: In the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.2, it is claimed that Opposite Party No.3 was not aware that the Central Government is seized of the matter; that in view of circular dated 5th October, 2018 issued by the CBIC which categorically states that if the officer of the Central tax authority initiates intelligence/enforcement action against a taxpayer, administratively assigned to a State tax authority, then the Central tax authority officers themselves have to further undertake the investigation and take the case to its logical conclusion and ‘would not transfer the said case to its state tax counterpart' - In other words, the State authorities do not dispute that the circular dated 5th October, 2018 but claim not to have known that the Central tax authority was seized of the matter - Counsel for the Opposite Parties does not dispute that the circular dated 5th October, 2018 precludes the State GST authorities from proceeding in the matter as long as the Central authorities are seized of it - It may be noted that the period of enquiry as far as Central tax authority is concerned is from July, 2017 to June, 2018 whereas Opposite Party No.3 has issued a show cause notice specific for March, 2018 and, therefore, there is also an overlapping of the periods - For the reasons noted above, the Court quashes the show cause notice dated 23rd July, 2019, the impugned order dated 5th November, 2019 including the order dated 4th November, 2019 all passed by Opposite Party No.3 and directs that till the conclusion of the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner by the DGGSTI, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.3 - Petition allowed: High Court [para 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18]

- Petition allowed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-801-HC-DEL-GST

TMA International Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - IGST Refund - Only question is as to whether the petitioners should be paid any interest for delayed remittance of refund on account of IGST?

Held: A detailed order dated 26.11.2019 = 2020-TIOL-04-HC-DEL-GST , was passed wherein in effect, the Court agreed with the submission of the petitioners, subject to respondent no. 2 verifying as to whether duty drawback/CENVAT credit had been availed of by the petitioners, with regard to Central Excise and Service Tax component - In the affidavit, it is mentioned that none of the petitioners have availed of CENVAT credit qua central excise; that none of the petitioners have availed of CENVAT credit qua service tax component save and except, M/s Inter Trade, Kolkata of Rs.1856/- pertaining to the financial year (in short 'FY') 2015-2016 and which they have agreed to give-up - Bench directs that in view of the decision in M/s Amit Cotton Industries = 2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST , while granting refund to the petitioners, the petitioners will be granted interest at the rate of 7% simple, from the date, when the shipping bills were filed by them, till the date of actual refund, which, in this case, ought not to go beyond 26.04.2021 - ordered accordingly: High Court [para 7.1, 8, 10]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-799-HC-DEL-GST

Electronics Mart India Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Anti-profiteering - Section 171 of the CGST ACT - Authority has determined the profiteered amount as Rs.34,34,008/- and has directed the petitioner to deposit the same along with interest - Petitioner is before the High Court and submits that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they would deposit 50% of the purported profiteered amount excluding the GST component.

Held: Petitioner is directed to deposit the 50% amount as stated into the Central Consumer Welfare Fund before the next date of hearing and proof to be placed on record - subject to the aforesaid, stay granted of the operation of the order - Matter listed on 29.04.2021: High Court (para 5, 7)

- Stay granted :DELHI HIGH COURT