I-T - As per VSV Scheme, 2020, Form 3 can be issued to assessee only when appeal is pending : HC

I-T - Power of revision u/s 263 cannot be exercised solely because CIT approaches issue from different perspective, based on same set of facts: HC

I-T - Where in given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, that one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by High Court in second appeal: HC

I-T - Expenses wholly and exclusively incurred in normal course towards gifts, travel facility or similar freebies given to medical practitioners are not hit by Explanation 1 to Sec. 37 : ITAT

I-T - Disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made, when cash payment is made beyond limit prescribed and case is not covered in exceptions mentioned u/Rule 6DD : ITAT

I-T - For purposes of reopening assessment of other person u/s 153C for any AY earlier to year of search, documents found during search must be incriminating in nature and have direct co-relation with additions made : ITAT

I-T- In absence of any satisfaction recorded by AO with respect to examination of books to verify correctness of claim, disallowance u/s 14A cannot be sustained if satisfaction is mandatory for invoking provisions of rule 8D - ITAT

I-T- Running a hostel is akin to a running educational institution which falls within the provision of Sec 2(15): ITAT

GST - The pendency of petition is not a bar for completing adjudication proceedings contemplated under Section 129 of CGST Act, revenue is directed to complete the same within ten days: HC

Cus - Department is independent and none has restricted the authority or stifled its functional duty to act in determining duty duty payable by respondent - Review petition dismissed: HC

Cus - Main order seems to have been passed, which is starring at the petitioner - After challenging the same, present challenge made with regard to consequential orders shall be maintained: HC

ST - Appeal of revenue against assessee cannot sustain in the absence of evidence on record by which it can be stated that representational rights were granted to home solution service provider : CESTAT

2021-TIOL-2006-HC-KERALA-GST

Mohasin K Vs ASTO

GST - Petitioner challenges the detention of goods under section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - It is the settled position of law, especially in view of decision in Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-517-SC-GST that the writ petition seeking direction to release the goods detained under section 129 of CGST Act shall not be entertained by High Court - The 2nd respondent shall complete the adjudication proceedings within a period of 7 days - If the petitioner makes an application for release of vehicle, same shall be considered in accordance with law: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2005-HC-KERALA-GST

Nethu Varghese Vs ASTO

GST - The petitioner challenges the orders of detention under Section 129(1) of CGST Act as well as notice under Section 129(3) - Petitioner had furnished bank guarantee and had obtained release of goods, but the adjudication proceedings consequent to said orders had not been completed - Due to pendency of petition, second respondent has not completed the proceedings for adjudication - The pendency of writ petition is not a bar for completing the adjudication proceedings contemplated under Section 129 of CGST Act, so second respondent is directed to complete the adjudication proceedings and finalise all the proceedings within a period of ten days: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2000-HC-KERALA-CUS

CC Vs SV Sivalinga Nadar And Sons

Cus - Tribunal directed the Department to refund the amount deposited during the investigation by the respondent-Commissioner of Customs filed an appeal before the High Court - Against the order passed, the Revenue has come up with a Review petition.

Held: Bench has excerpted the basis, both factual and legal, for availing the relief of review - From the record, Bench is satisfied that the grounds now raised do not relate to alleged errors apparent on the face of the record, and no error, in fact, is pointed out in the judgment under review - Bench is of the view that, firstly, the Department is independent and none has restricted the authority or stifled the functional duty of the Revenue to act in determining the duty/additional duty payable by the respondent against the subject import in accordance with law - Review Petition stands dismissed: High Court [paras 4, 4.1]

- Review petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1999-HC-MAD-CUS

Aji Kumar Vs CC

Cus - Drawback - Petitioner seeks quashing of order to repay the amount of Rs. 83,169/- recovered from the Petitioner's Account in the third respondent bank and also to defreeze the above said account - Impugned orders in this writ petition are pursuant to the order-in-original passed by the respondent/Customs dated 24.08.2020 - It is a definite stand of the petitioner that no such order has been served on him and before which, no such proceedings or summons have been issued.

Held: An order dated 24.08.2020, seems to have been passed against the petitioner, which is starring at the petitioner and the same has to be challenged in the manner known to law - After challenging the main orders, depending upon the challenge, the present challenge made with regard to the consequential orders shall be maintained - Writ Petition stands disposed of: High Court [paras 5, 6]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-645-CESTAT-AHM

Perfect Carbouys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of Plastic Carbouys and Drums, Containers and Barrels - They are using raw material, i.e., Virgin HDPE Granules for manufacturing of final product - A SCN was issue wherein, the demands are made in three parts - The demand of Rs. 9,51,649/- & Rs. 60,766/- are not disputed by appellant, hence, these demands are upheld along with interest and 25% penalty which the appellant had already paid - As regard the demand of Rs. 13,31,112/-, same was raised on removal of granules as such on the basis of Annexure C on the ground that the granules are of film grade which cannot be used in manufacture of final product of appellant - There is also evidence i.e. Diaries recovered from appellant's office on the basis of which demand was raised taking the evidence as invoice of waste and scrap which was prepared for removal of granules under the guise of waste and scrap - Once again demand of same removal was made showing in Annexure C for which demand was computed in Annexure E1 - However, there is a duplication of demand in respect of 10 Invoices which are appearing in Annexure A as well as Annexure C since the department has made out the demand even for Annexure C, considering Annexure B therefore, it is implied that the Annexure A has been considered in Annexure B that is the reason that no separate demand was raised in Annexure A - Accordingly, the 10 invoices which are common in Annexure A & C demand in respect of those invoices needs to be reduced from the total demand of Rs. 13,31,112/- - As regard the remaining demand of Rs. 4,41,142/-, appellant have given a categorical statement that the film grade granules are not used in manufacture of their final product and rather the film grade granule was not received in factory therefore, it is clear that it was sold directly - Hence, the demand of Rs. 4,41,142/-, interest and penalty is upheld - On communication of department, appellant is at liberty to pay the said amount along with interest and 25% penalty within a period of one month - In such case the penalty of 75% will stand reduced: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-644-CESTAT-MUM

CCE & ST Vs Asian Paints Ltd

ST - During audit, it was observed that the assessee recovered certain income under head "Home Solutions Operations" - On verification, it was observed that this concept is one stop painting solution to customers, wherein all the requirements, needs and concerns of ultimate customer are met at a single place with the best of quality, standards and service levels through independent service providers called 'Home Solutions Service Provider' - Revenue was of the view that these services will fall under a category of franchisee service as defined under Section 65(105)(zze) of Finance Act, 1994 - Accordingly, a SCN was issued to assessee - The terms of agreement clearly provide that home solution service provider is barred from making any statement on behalf of the company or in any manner how to represent the assessee - Nothing has been brought on record by which it can be stated that such representational rights were granted to the home solution service provider - The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the order of Commissioner is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT