I-T - Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure on belief of there being some element of personal expenditure, is unsustainable, where assessee is company & not firm or proprietary concern: ITAT

I-T - Interest paid on loan taken to purchase property for business purposes can be claimed as business expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii), after deducting tax at source : ITAT

I-T - Opening balance carried forward from earlier year can neither be treated as credit during current year nor assessed in subsequent AY as unexplained investment/cash u/s 68 : ITAT

I-T- Expenses incurred on corporate social responsibility for AY 2014-15, cannot be disallowed invoking Explanation-2 to section 37(1) of the Act as this explanation is prospective in nature : ITAT

I-T- In absence of contrary proved by Revenue and following order passed by coordinate bench of ITAT, AO can be directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 272A(2)(k) : ITAT

I-T- Professional fees paid to the firm of consultant after deducting the TDS can't be disallowed : ITAT

GST - Assessment order quashed where passed without allowing personal hearing as mandated in statute: HC

GST - Disputed credit has been recovered from petitioner - Electronic credit ledger to be unblocked within a week: HC

GST - Invocation of power u/s 83 is intrusive and can be crippling - Reference to 'opinion' in Section 83, cannot be mere lip service: HC

GST - s.83 - Attachment of bank accounts - Authority concerned must justify invocation of coercive and intrusive recovery proceedings, even prior to determination of liability and passing of an assessment order: HC

GST - Tax is an independent component which the petitioner does not retain as a profit and is a statutory payment to be made - Respondent to reimburse same: HC

Cus - Petitioner's request for mutilation of imported waste paper should be considered by the Customs department u/s 24 of the Act: HC

ST - The demand of service tax on the TDS amount is not sustainable when the same is borne by appellant: CESTAT

CX - T he Service Tax paid in respect of product recall policy for sale of finished goods is eligible for Cenvat Credit: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-1994-HC-MAD-GST

Shri Rohith Spinners Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)

GST - The assessee-company migrated to the Tamil Nadu Goods & Services Tax Act from the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act - The asseessee filed the present petition to contest an assessment order and claimed that the principles of natural justice had been contravened in passing such order - The assessee claimed that the order does not mention the provision of law under which it has been made as a caption, but there is a mention about Section 73 of TNGST Act.

Held - There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court that Section 75 of TNGST Act which is captioned 'General provision relating to determination of tax' applies to case on hand more so as adverse decision qua writ petitioner has been made - It is not necessary to discuss or debate upon the other two points raised by the writ petitioner but the writ petition can be disposed of by covering those two points also - Hence the subject order is quashed since the personal hearing mandated u/s 75 of the TNGST Act, was not given to the assessee - The matter is remanded to the Revenue authorities concerned to pass de novo order after issuing SCN & allowing personal hearing to the assessee: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1985-HC-MAD-GST

VP Thangam Traders Vs Asstt.Commissioner (ST)

GST - Short point is blocking of credit qua writ petitioner in the Electronic Credit Ledger - Proceedings u/s 74 have since been issued and the entire disputed credit has also been recovered from the petitioner - Counsel for Revenue fairly submits that she has written instructions and unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger will be done within a week from today and technical glitch is the only reason for delay.

Held: Above stated position of the Revenue counsel draws the curtains on the captioned writ petition - The sequitur is temporary blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger will be unblocked within a week from today - Matter to be listed for reporting compliance on 8 th October 2021: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Matter listed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1984-HC-MAD-GST

Mutharamman And Company Vs Pr.Addl. Director General DGGI

GST - Petitioner challenges proceedings dated 23.11.2020 issued by the first respondent attaching the petitioner's bank accounts in terms of Section 83 of CGST Act, based upon proceedings for search and seizure launched as against the petitioner in terms of Section 67 of the Act.

Held : The premise upon which Section 83 operates is the 'opinion' of the Commissioner that for the purpose of protecting the interests of Government revenue, it becomes necessary to attach assets of a taxable entity pending proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74 - Whether the 'opinion' of the Commissioner in this case, is based upon a legitimate and legal apprehension that the interests of the revenue required to be protected - R2 erred in putting the cart before the horse and rendering a finding that the petitioner was availing fraudulent ITC from bogus/non-existent units - Error committed by R2 has been perpetrated by R1, whose 'opinion' also proceeds on the firm conviction that the claim of ITC by the petitioner is fraudulent and emanated from bogus, non-existent firms - In the present case, there are serious allegations in regard to the excess claim of ITC based on transactions with non-existent or fraudulent entities - However, such allegations are to be based upon supporting materials and evidences if they are to translate into an 'opinion' as required in terms of Section 83 - It was incumbent upon R1 to have applied his mind to the rigour of the sanction sought by R2, examine all materials and only thereafter come to a reasoned conclusion as to whether the attachment was warranted or not - After all, the invocation of power under Section 83 is intrusive and can be crippling in many cases - Reference to 'opinion' in Section 83, cannot be mere lip service and cannot be satisfied by the officer, proceeding on the basis that the liability of an assessee stood determined even prior to the issue of a notice of assessment and merely stating that, in his opinion, this was a case where the interests of the revenue are to be protected - The power conferred upon an authority under Section 83 is substantial and with great power comes great responsibility - The authority concerned must justify the invocation of the coercive and intrusive recovery proceedings against the assessee, even prior to determination of liability and passing of an assessment order - The burden that lies upon the revenue is heavy and has to be seen to be discharged by them in a proper manner in each and every case where power under Section 83 is invoked - Opinion of R2 in this case is far more cryptic revealing total non-application of mind and merely repeating what R1 has stated in his request for sanction - Writ Petition is allowed - The impugned order of attachment is set aside: High Court [para 7, 8, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1983-HC-KAR-GST

Mas Constructions Vs Hubballi Dharwad Smart City Ltd

GST - Petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate writ to the respondent to reimburse GST amount of Rs.42,01,582/- to the petitioner and has sought for directions for payment of interest on tax dues at 18% per annum being the statutory interest rate chargeable under Section 50 of the Act, 2017.

Held: Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board had sought for a clarification relating to implementation of GST in relation to performance of portions of contract after coming into force of GST - The Finance Department by its clarification dated 14.12.2020 has also opined that the tax difference ought to be calculated on each of the works and necessary steps to be taken to decide as to whether contract agreement needs to be changed - This stand has been approved by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department - This clarification made in the context of an authority set up under a statute and taking note of the clarification made by the KUIDFC, the respondent is required to act in terms of the clarification made - As the contracts were entered after coming into force of the GST Act, and in light of the opinion expressed by a clarification made on 03.01.2020, the respondent is required to make good the GST after adjusting the amounts of sales tax that was provided for in the contract entered - Respondent is required to honour the same in terms of the clarification dated 03.01.2020 - The consideration by the respondent to be made within a period of not later than twelve weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10]

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1986-HC-MAD-ST

S Manikandan Vs Secretary Finance

ST - Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and issue suitable favourable orders in the above FORM3, SVLDLRS/3.

Held : Petitioner's representation dated 23.10.2020 has been considered by the respondents and it has been rejected through the order, dated 10.03.2021 - Without challenging the said order, dated 10.03.2021, since the petitioner has moved this writ petition, once again seeking for a writ of Mandamus to consider his representation, dated 23.10.2020, therefore, the same cannot be entertained by this Court - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 3]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1982-HC-MAD-CUS

Diamond Nuts Vs DCC

Cus - Petitioner has sought a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue a detention certificate recommending waiver of detention and demurrage charges and to ensure grant of waiver of demurrage and detention charges on the goods covered by bill of entry dated 13.06.2020.

Held: In the matter of the first writ petition, the Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Customs authorities for providing one-time relaxation to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 within the timeframe - Subsequently, the plea of the petitioner for grant of onetime waiver has been considered and granted and accordingly, the goods in question were permitted to be released by the orders issued in this regard, dated 12.07.2021 - Revenue Counsel, on instructions, would submit that, since the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions especially in the context of the first writ petition have been complied with, the petitioner would be entitled to get the detention certificate in this regard - Since necessary orders would be passed by such Officer giving relief, as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition, Court feels that by recording the aforesaid development that necessary orders would be passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Import) at Tuticorin, in favour of the petitioner, within the shortest possible time, this Writ Petition can be disposed of: High Court [para 6, 9, 11]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1981-HC-MAD-CUS

Aaditiya Aswin Paper Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to permit them to mutilate the imported Waste paper under Customs Supervision and to Allow Clearance of the above goods under the Exemption claimed for Waste Paper considering the PSI Certificate issued by the Approved Certification Agency by the Government of India, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2021.

Held: It is the claim of the petitioner that, it is only a waste paper and it has not been mis-declared, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get release of the goods by paying the proper customs duty, or else, in case, if the respondent raises any doubt still about the goods in question, the petitioner is ready to mutilate the same, and therefore, such permission can be granted to them under Section 24 of the Customs Act - Such claim can very well be considered by the respondent Customs Department and accordingly, the plea of the petitioner raised in the representation dated 16.03.2021 can be decided and disposed of in the manner known to law, within a stipulated period (of four weeks), on merits - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 8, 10]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-641-CESTAT-MAD

Indian Additives Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The appellants are engaged in manufacture of additives - They entered into technical assistance agreements according to which, appellant is paying royalty to foreign company on the basis of net sales of products manufactured by them - During scrutiny of accounts, it was noted that for the period April 2007 to March 2008, appellants did not pay service tax on TDS portion of royalty paid by them to the foreign company - SCN was issued proposing to demand service tax on TDS portion of royalty - The issue stands decided by order of Tribunal in appellant's own case for a different period - The Tribunal had relied upon the decision in case of Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Co. Ltd. 2016-TIOL-660-CESTAT-MUM - Levy of service tax on TDS portion borne by appellant cannot sustain and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Bhavani Industries Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue relates to Cenvat Credit in respect of Product Liability and Product recall insurance policy - This is a periodical case, in the earlier period this Tribunal has already decided the matter in favor of appellant in the case reported as M/s. Bhavani Industries 2017-TIOL-1274-CESTAT-AHM - In view of said order which was passed in respect of the same appellant for the earlier period, the issue is no longer res-integra - T he Service Tax paid in respect of product recall policy for sale of finished goods is eligible for Cenvat Credit - Accordingly, following the same, impugned order is not sustainable and the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

SR Enterprises Vs CC

Cus - The appellants have imported used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines (MFDs) of various models with standard accessories and attachments - The said goods were seized on the ground that the same are restricted for import; are hazardous waste under Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement Rules, 2016 and on the ground of applicability of Electronics and Information Technology Goods Order, 2012 issued under Bureau of India Standards Act, 2016 - The original adjudicating authority in remand proceedings has totally ignored the direction of Tribunal given in its order dt. 20/12/2019 - The Commissioner (Appeals) has also ignored the said order - In identical circumstances, the Tribunal in case of Accord Digitech has granted the benefit of reduced redemption fine and penalty - Following the same, appeals partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of enhanced value and penalty to 5% of enhanced value: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT