2021-TIOL-1400-HC-MAD-GST

Malar Publications Ltd Vs Superintendent of GST & CE

GST - Petitioner prays for quashing notice of demand through electronic mails dated 25.10.2019, 27.11.2019, 12.03.2020, 04.05.2020 and 06.05.2020.

Held : These are only e-mails issued by the respondent calling for payment of interest, one of which the petitioner has replied to - It would be appropriate for this conversation to continue and the respondents to hear the party to arrive at a proper reconciliation of the amount to be paid, if any - Bench does not find any necessity to intervene at this juncture and it is appropriate that the matter be resolved by them, in accordance with law - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 3, 5]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-150-AAR-GST

Sachdeva Colleges Ltd

GST - Applicant is providing training for JEE (Non Med.) and NEET (Med.) to the selected candidates at the behest of Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Caste and Backward Class, Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, Class 12th Non-Medical and Medical aspirants; entire fee / grant i.e. expenditure on this training is borne by State of Haryana – Applicant seeks to know as to whether they are entitled to exemption in terms of Entry No. 72 of the Haryana Govt. Excise & Taxation Department Notification No. 47/ST-2 Dated 30.06.2017 and whether this Entry grants exemption of GST on the Training of Students by Petitioner.

Held: Authority agrees with the operative part of the letter dated 21.06.2018 issued to the Director, Welfare of Schedule Caste and Backward Classes Department, Haryana by the Department communicating that the training imparted by M/s Sachdeva Colleges Ltd. to the students selected through Directorate of Haryana for JEE (Non-Med.) and NEET (Medical) are exempt under entry 72 of Notification No. 47 of the HGST Act [09/2017 (IGST) Entry No. 75, 12/2017 (CGST) Entry 69] subject to that the whole expenditure is borne by the Center /State Government - Further, the applicant is not liable for registration till he supplies goods and services or both that are not liable to tax or fully exempt from tax under the GST Acts: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-149-AAR-GST

Daebu Automotive Seat India Pvt Ltd

GST - Product 'Track Assembly' manufactured and supplied by applicant M/s. Daebu Automotive India Private Limited, is classifiable under CTH 8708 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as applicable to GST as per Explanation (iii) to Notification 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dt 28.06.2017 and G.O. Ms No. 59, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1) dt 29th June 2017 - The applicable rate of tax is CGST @ 14% as per entry Sl.No.170 of Schedule-IV of the Notification no. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended and SGST @14% as per entry sl. No. 170 of Schedule-IV of Notification No. II(2)/CTR/532(d-4)/2017 vide G.O. 29.06.2017 as amended: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

Arun Cooling Home

GST - Tamarind inner pulp without shell and seeds is not an 'Agricultural produce' as defined under explanation 2(d) of the Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 and therefore the service of cold storage of such tamarind are not exempted under Sl. No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate): AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-1401-HC-MAD-CX

Victory Laminations Ltd Vs Customs & CE Settlement Commission

CX - Order passed by CCESC is under challenge - Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, several developments occurred with reference to the issues raised in this Writ Petition and some of the decisions of the Courts are also in favour of the petitioner; that the petitioner may be granted opportunity to adjudicate all the issues before the adjudicating authority for the purpose of redressing his grievances.

Held : Petitioner is at liberty to approach the adjudicating authority by filing an appropriate reply in the prescribed format, complying with the requirements within a period of four weeks and in the event of filing any such reply to the adjudicating authority and on receipt of any such reply, the adjudicating authority shall consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, take a decision and pass orders as expeditiously as possible - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1396-HC-MP-CX

Basediya Constructions Vs Commissioner

CX - The appellant is engaged in construction work - Certain queries were raised and a SCN was issued to the appellant - Appellant preferred certain legal remedies and approached the Tribunal and an aplication for COD was also preferred by appellant along with the said Service Tax Appeal - Though the requirement of pre-deposit had been satisfied, yet the counsel for the appellant could not appear before Tribunal on the said date and consequently, as per the story of the appellant, the Application for Condonation of Delay could not be pressed in proper perspective - Therefore, keeping in mind the principle that a litigant must not be made to suffer for the fault of his counsel, the impugned order in 2020-TIOL-1370-CESTAT-DEL is set aside and the delay in filing appeal is condoned by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- and matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding appeal on merits: HC

- Matter remanded: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Virlon Textile Mills Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner having opted for settlement under SVLDR scheme, had filed declaration in Form-1 - The petitioner had tendered payment and the amount accordingly had been debited from the account of petitioner, however, the same came to be recredited in its account - Factual position being not in dispute, relief granted to the petitioner in terms of prayer clause (c): HC

- Writ petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Tridot Engineers Vs CCE

ST - The appellant was initially served with SCN proposing the demand of service tax along with interest and the proportionate penalties - The said SCN was adjudicated and appellant deposited the amount of confirmed demand vide various challans - However, the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 16.12.2016 while allowing the appeal had restricted the demand for the normal period - It is consequent to said order that the refund claim was filed by appellant and the impugned SCN dated 08.02.2018 was issued proposing the rejection thereof - The original Adjudicating Authority rejected the said claim of only for an amount of Rs. 8,01,765/- - The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order while rejecting the refund of Rs. 3,50,907/- on the ground of unjust enrichment - It stands abundantly clear that an amount of Rs. 8,01,765/- is the confirmed liability of appellant in terms of order dated 16.12.2012 - The refund to that extent plus interest of Rs. 55,422/- thereupon is therefore liable to be rejected - Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is not entitled for any refund claim post the sanction of refund of Rs. 30,55,791/- - In consequence of the above said finding, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) stands modified to the effect that instead of Rs. 5,06,280/- to Government exchequer and attributing Rs. 3,50,907/- to unjust enrichment, the total refund claim of Rs. 8,57,187/- stands rejected: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

Red Chillies Exports Vs CC

Cus - The only issue involved is the refund claim of IGST on account of export where the duty drawback was claimed at 1% instead of 0.15% of FOB value due to lack of clarity - It was also claimed that the appellant had subsequently reversed excess duty drawback with interest - Both the lower authorities have relied solely on the very C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 37/2018-Cus. for denying the benefit of refund and the same appears to be not in accordance with the interpretations drawn in the decisions including jurisdictional High Court in cases of M/s. Precot Meridian Ltd. 2020-TIOL-29-HC-MAD-GST and Gujarat High Court 2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST and hence, the denial in case on hand appears to be unsustainable - Accordingly, since interpretation under GST/IGST is involved, the orders are set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of Adjudicating Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT