I-T - Once order u/s 263 was made within period of two years from end of F.Y in which order sought to be revised was passed, such order is not time barred u/s 263(2): SC

Seizure of Sandalwood oil - Fine and RI - Leap of reasoning by the High Court that seizure of goods ipso facto meant that appellant had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin is not justified: SC

GST - CSR activities, as per Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014, are considered to be activities excluded from normal course of business and, therefore, not eligible for ITC: AAR

2021-TIOL-228-AAR-GST

Adama India Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant has sought to know as to whether the inputs and input services procured by the applicant, in order to undertake the mandatory CSR activities as required under the Companies Act, 2013, qualify as being in the course and furtherance of business and, therefore, will be counted as eligible ITC in terms of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act')

Held: As per Rule 4(1) of the Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014, made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 469 of the Companies Act (for the period prior to 23-1-2021), the CSR activities undertaken by the company shall exclude activities undertaken in pursuance of it's normal course of business - Furthermore, as per rule 2(d) of Companies (CSR policy) Amendment Rules, 2021 (w.e.f. 23-1-2021), 'Corporate Social Responsibility' does not include activities undertaken in pursuance of normal course of business of the company - Section 16(1) of the CGST Act, stipulates that a registered person is entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both, which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business - Case laws cited by the applicant allowing credit of duty/tax paid in respect of CSR activity pertain to the pre-GST era when demands on alleged wrong availment of CENVAT credit were issued based on the violations of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and are not pertaining to GST scheme of law - another case law cited pertains to income tax related issue - Therefore, CSR activities, as per Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014 are those activities excluded from normal course of business of the applicant and, therefore, not eligible for ITC, as per Section 16(1) of the CGST Act: AAR

2021-TIOL-247-SC-MISC

Bharath Booshan Aggarwal Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Forest Act - Sessions Court accepted the appellant's plea and held that in view of the certificate issued by the Central Excise authorities, his possession of sandalwood oil in the factory could not be termed as illegal and that a conviction under Section 27 could be recorded only if it was found that sandalwood oil was removed illegally, or without authorization from any reserve forest, or area proposed to be constituted as reserve forest - High Court, which considered this appeal reversed the judgment of the Sessions Court on two counts - It was held by the impugned judgment that though the appellants held a licence to manufacture sandalwood oil, nevertheless they failed to account for possession of such a large quantity of sandalwood oil - Noting the state's submission that to manufacture 5430 kilos of sandalwood oil at least 5600 kilograms of crude sandalwood oil was required, which in turn needed to be extracted from at least 200 metric tons of sandalwood, the High Court concluded that the reliance on the manufacturing licence alone to explain the possession of sandalwood oil did not in any manner absolve the appellant of criminal responsibility - High Court also relied upon a decision in Ghure Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450 to say that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only for substantial and compelling reasons; that a purposive interpretation of the Act had to be given in view of the underlying objects which were for the general public good – Therefore, appellant is in appeal before the Supreme Court.

Held: In the present case, the State had to show, that the forest produce was illicitly removed, or was illicitly in the possession of the accused, and in either case, that the same was within his knowledge - The state no doubt has led evidence to show that the goods seized bore the labels of the appellant's firm and further that no transport licence was available - However, this per se does not establish illicit possession of forest produce within his knowledge - For a court to so conclude, the prosecution had to, in addition, prove beyond reasonable doubt, the foundational fact that the accused had knowingly removed the forest produce illicitly - In the opinion of the court, the impugned judgment, by reversing the decision of the Sessions Court, is in error - The appellant had produced documents (in the form of 45 invoices and receipts) to show the origin of the goods, and where they were purchased from, to say that they were procured in 104 transactions - Apart from stating that the invoices and other documents could not be verified, the State made no effort to establish, independently, in its evidence that any such effort was made - In these circumstances, it could not be said that the State had discharged its burden of proving beyond any doubt, that the appellant had knowledge of the fact that the goods were illicit in origin - High Court fell into error in holding that the presumption that the seizure of forest produce belonging to the State, automatically can result in a presumption of culpable mental state of the accused; that seizure of the goods ipso facto meant that the appellant had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin - Such a leap of reasoning is not justified, given that the appellants had furnished a series of documents explaining how they had sourced the oil in question - Court is of the opinion that the interference by the High Court, with the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court, in this case, is not warranted – Appeal is allowed: Supreme Court [para 25 to 28]

- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA