2021-TIOL-1219-HC-MAD-VAT

P Sankar Vs CCT

In writ, the High Court finds that issues identical to those raised in the present appeal have been settled vide a number of judgments passed by this Court. In accordance with the same, the orders in question are set aside.

- Assessee's appeal allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1218-HC-DEL-GST

Society For Tax Analysis And Research Vs UoI

GST/Income Tax - Suggestions concerning Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 will be put to the GST Council and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) -Likewise, the suggestions pertaining to the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be put to the Central Board of Direct Taxes - Matters to be listed on 01.06.2021: High Court [para 2.2, 2.3, 3]

- Matters listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1217-HC-DEL-GST

Nirala Projects Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Given the fact that two out of three entities have, it appears, passed on a substantial amount qua the purported profiteered amount, to their customers, the respondents will not, for the moment, subject the petitioners to coercive measures - Matters listed on 09.08.2021: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Matters listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1215-HC-RAJ-GST

Mohammed Yunus Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has filed bail application (fourth) in the matter of offence registered u/s 132 of the CGST Act - Matter pertains to passing of input tax credit to the tune of more than Rs.127 crore - maximum sentence is five years - Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about one year and seven months and out of the list of twenty witnesses, statement of only one witness has been recorded so far.

Held : After considering the submissions, Bench deems it proper to allow the fourth bail application - Application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court: High Court [para 7]

- Application allowed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1214-HC-RAJ-GST

Kewal Chand Jain Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has been arrested in relation to offence u/s 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, therefore, seeks bail - Petitioner submits that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence under the Act is 5 years; that the petitioner has already deposited Rupees One Crore Fifty Four Thousand under protest and the petitioner is 68 years old and due to ongoing Covid-19 problem, the trial is not proceeding and the petitioner is behind the bars since 25.02.2021.

Held : Present bail application deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence under the Act is 5 years; secondly, there is no apprehension, if any, shown by the respondent-department about the accused-petitioner of running away, or tampering or influencing the witnesses in any manner; thirdly, challan has already been presented in the court and due to ongoing Covid-19 problem, the trial is not proceeding; fourthly to show his bona fides the petitioner has already deposited Rupees One Crore Fifty Four Thousand with the department and lastly the petitioner is a 68 years old person and he is not required for any custodial interrogation/investigation - Petition is allowed - Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition allowed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1216-HC-MP-NDPS

Tausif Ahemad Khan Vs State of MP

NDPS - Applicant is in jail since 16.01.2021 - Bail application filed in respect of offence punishable u/s 8 r/w s.22, 29 of NDPS ACT - Allegation against the applicant is that he was also involved in the offence wherein contraband 20 grams of MDMA was seized from the possession of the other co-accused persons and he had some monetary transactions with the other accused namely Adnan Khan, Hannan Khan and Dheeraj.

Held: Taking note of the fact that the other co-accused persons namely Adnan Khan, Hannan Khan and Dheeraj have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2021 respectively for a period of six months, Bench finds no reason to dismiss the present bail application and deny the ground of parity to the applicant, accordingly maintaining the parity, the application is allowed - Present bail application allowed for a temporary period of six months on petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM with an undertaking that on the expiry of six months from the date of his release, he shall surrender before the trial court: High Court

- Application allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-296-CESTAT-ALL

Merino Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The appellant is a manufacturer of paper based decorative laminates, synthetic resin, formaldehyde and other products - It had availed CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used in maintenance of its plant and machinery - SCNs were issued and order was passed denying CENVAT credit so taken on the ground that the welding electrodes used in maintenance of plant and machinery cannot be called as inputs used in the manufacture of their final products - Penalties were also imposed on the appellant - Although the period mentioned is 2008-09 to 2012-13, a perusal of SCN shows that the actual period in respect of disputed CENVAT is April 2013 to March 2014 - The period is significant since the definition of 'input' under CCR, 2004 was changed w.e.f. 1.3.2011 and this amended definition is relevant for the period of dispute - There is no dispute that the welding electrodes were used in factory of manufacturer as they were used to maintain the machinery - Therefore, they are squarely covered by the definition of 'input' under Rule 2(k) - Unlike the definition of input prior to 1.3.2011, for something to qualify as an input, it need not be used in or in relation to manufacture of final product but it only needs to be used within the factory of manufacturer - There is no dispute that the welding electrodes have been so used - CENVAT credit can therefore, not be denied - Consequently, the penalty also cannot be imposed - The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed : ALLAHABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-295-CESTAT-AHM

Creative Infocity Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit - They were providing taxable service namely Banking and Financial Services, Goods Transport Agency Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Management and Maintenance and Repair Service and Sponsorship Service - The issue regarding admissibility of Cenvat credit on Commercial and Industrial Construction Service used for construction of building which in turn are used for renting purpose has been settled by High Court of Madras in case of DYMOS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD - 2018-TIOL-1947-HC-MAD-ST - The renting of Immovable Property Service came into existence w.e.f. 01.06.2007 and therefore credit of Commercial and Industrial Construction Service for the period prior to levy of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Service cannot be allowed - The credit of services availed after 01.06.2007 is however admissible - The appellant have also claimed benefit of Cenvat credit for prior period with respect to the other output services namely Banking and Financial Services, Goods Transport Agency Service, Management and Maintenance and Repair Service and Sponsorship Service - It is seen that while the Commercial and Industrial Construction Service has been used for construction of entire building - The services specified above have no relation to the building - If at all these services are only be provided from very small part of the building the rest of the building has been rented by the appellant which at the material time was not taxable service - Thus, the admissibility of credit needs to be examined from that aspect - It is seen that the aspect of admissibility of credit with respect to output services other than Renting of Immovable Property Service was not raised before lower authorities and therefore, there are no findings in this aspect in impugned order - Moreover, it is also not clear if the said services were provided from same premises or from elsewhere - Admissibility of the credit is the question of law and therefore the appellant can raise at the stage of first appellate level also - Since this aspect has not been examined by lower authorities, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded : AHMEDABAD CESTAT