I-T - Error of stating tax payable as total income, when filing ITR, does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income : HC

I-T - Order passed by NFAC is unsustainable where assessee is not given personal hearing & replies to SCN are not considered: HC

I-T - Purchases made against cash cannot be deemed to be bogus based on presumptions alone : HC

I-T - Term 'put to use' in proviso to sec. 36(1)(iii) is applicable to capital asset & income-earning apparatus facilitating business activity : HC

I-T - Since difference in valuation between value determined by stamp duty authority and declared as sale consideration is less than 10%, no addition is warranted u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) : ITAT

I-T - AO's order that does not reflect proof of enquiry of proposed disallowance can be set aside u/s 263 as being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue :ITAT

I-T - Interest income earned by co-operative society from co-operative bank is allowed as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) : ITAT

I-T - AO's order, passed after conducting necessary enquiries and considering entire material available on record, cannot be set aside u/s 263 as being erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue : ITAT

CX - Issue which is raised before the Bench pertains to an order relating to the rate of duty of excise - In the light of statutory embargo laid down in s.35G(1), appeals are not maintainable: HC

GST - Petitioner is made to run from pillar to post only because data of IGST refund is not transmitted from GSTN to ICEGATE - That is not petitioner's problem - Refund to be granted along with interest @9% and costs of Rs.25000/-: HC

GST - Respondent had scrupulously followed s.75(4) but it was the appellant who chose not to avail the opportunities of personal hearing - no violations of principles of natural justice: HC

Sales tax dues cannot be recovered against a private limited company by attaching personal property belonging to company's Managing Director : HC

CX - Till 2016 amendment, it was the option of assessee either to avail entire credit in one unit or to distribute in their different units therefore, taking credit in one unit is not illegal or wrong: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-2064-HC-MUM-GST

SRC Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CBIC

GST - IGST refund - Petitioner No. 1 exported certain goods on 28/6/2017 from Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Nhava Sheva - Since the indirect tax regime was set to undergo a complete change and since the said Port was also in the process of adopting new system for transition to GST regime, the shipping bill which should have got printed on 28/6/2017 got printed on 1/7/2017 - Petitioner submitted that supplies of goods and services for export have been categorized as "Zero Rated Supply" which means that goods could be exported under Bond or Letter of Undertaking without payment of integrated tax followed by claim of refund of unutilized input tax credit or on payment of integrated tax with provision for refund of the tax paid - Petitioner chose to pay the amount of Rs.22,92,587/- being the IGST and claimed refund - As petitioner did not receive the refund of IGST of Rs.22,92,587/- on or about 16/9/2018, petitioner approached the customs office to check the status of its refund - Petitioner No. 1 was informed that unless export data was transmitted from GSTN (GST Network) to ICEGATE (Indian Customs Electronic Gateway), the Customs office would not be in position to process the refund claim - In February 2019, the GST portal of Respondent No. 1 permitted filing an application for refund in Form GST RFD-01A and accordingly, on 5/3/2019, petitioner No. 1 filed an application for refund in the said form but the same was rejected by Respondent No. 3 and even the appeal filed was dismissed - Respondent No. 4 addressed communication dated 10/2/2020 to respondent No. 6 stating that the data for the said shipping bill of petitioner was not transmitted from GSTN to ICEGATE and therefore his office is unable to process IGST refund - Petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition and the High Court passed an order on 06.09.2021 directing respondent no.6 to take an appropriate decision on such communication within a period of a fortnight but no orders were passed - Revenue sought further time to file reply.

Held : Respondents had enough time to file a reply - Respondent No. 6 also had sufficient time to take appropriate decision on the communication from respondent No. 4 and place the same on record - As no reply has been filed, none of the averments of the petition has been controverted - The directions of this court also has not been complied with - Moreover, even the communication dated 10/2/2020 from respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 6 indicates that petitioner No. 1 is entitled to refund but petitioner No. 1 is made to run from pillar to post only because data of IGST refund is not transmitted from GSTN to ICEGATE - That cannot be petitioner's problem and it was the responsibility of respondents and in particular respondent No. 6 to ensure that petitioner No. 1 got its refund. Unfortunately, it is more than 4½ years since the amount has not been refunded - Respondent No. 6 never attempted to resolve the problem of petitioner and no reply has been filed and directions of this court have not been complied with - In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) - Respondent No. 1 shall, within 4 weeks ensure that the refund of Rs.22,92,587/- is paid to petitioner No. 1 together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition [28/4/2021] together with costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/-: High Court [para 7, 8, 9]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2053-HC-MAD-GST

Bright Steels Vs STO

GST -  Challenging the common order passed in W.P(MD)Nos.14395, 14396, 14397 & 14398 of 2021, dated 13.08.2021, the petitioner  has filed Writ Appeals - Only contention of the appellant is that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, which is mandated u/s 75(4) of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 .

Held: From the records, it is clear that the respondent had scrupulously followed Section 75(4) of the Act and it was only the appellant who chose not to avail the opportunities granted by the respondent for the personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act - Further, it is also clear that absolutely there is no violation of principles of natural justice - Single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects, has rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions - No ground found to interfere with the orders passed - Appeals dismissed: High Court [para 7, 8]

- Appeals dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2052-HC-KAR-GST

UoI Vs Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd

GST - Carrying forward unutilised CENVAT credit of duty paid under Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as the Input Tax Credit under VAT Act of the respective States – Writ appeals filed by Revenue against order of Single Judge.

Held: On the same issue, the matter was adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 18/2020 and connected matters decided on 23/2/2021- 2021-TIOL-682-HC-KAR-GST by relying upon inter alia the decision in the case of Adfert Technologies - In the case of Adfert Technologies - 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST , the Court had permitted assessees to file/revise TRAN-1 either electronically or manually and held that nobody shall be denied to carry forward legitimate claim of CENVAT/ITC on the ground of non-filing of TRAN-1 by 27.12.2017 - Present writ appeals, therefore, stand dismissed and the order passed in WA No. 18/2020 and other connected matters shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present cases also: High Court [para 2, 3]

- Appeals dismissed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2054-HC-AHM-CT

Manharlal Hirjibhai Virdiya Vs ACCT

Whether sales tax dues can be recovered against a private limited company by attaching personal property belonging to company's Managing Director – NO: HC.

- Writ petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2066-HC-MAD-CX

CGST & CE Vs SSD Oil Mills Company Ltd

CX - Revenue is in appeal against the order of CESTAT dated 23.04.2018 - First substantial question of law, which has been raised is with regard to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that fatty acid waxes, soap stocks, spent earth and gum generated during the processing of refined oil are waste and cannot be subjected to central excise duty - Second substantial question of law is with regard to the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the penalty on the company and the Directors.

Held: Issue which is raised before the Bench pertains to an order relating to the rate of duty of excise on the subject goods - In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 35G, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment - In the light of the statutory embargo, the issue cannot be decided by this Court and the appeals are not maintainable - Appeals are dismissed: High Court [para 6, 8]

- Appeals dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2065-HC-MAD-CUS

A1 Cots Service Centre Vs Asstt. Commissioner

Cus - The petition pertains to cancellation of registration, but the same has been revoked is Revenue's say - The revocation order has been placed before this Court - The cancellation has been revoked and the petition has served its purpose - Therefore, the captioned petition is disposed of as closed: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2051-HC-MAD-CX

Sudhan Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appeal is directed against the order of CESTAT wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed - Facts are that the assessee exited from their EOU status and addressed a letter to the Development Commissioner and sought for debonding of goods lying in stock which included imported and indigenous capital goods - Respondent issued show cause notice dated 30.04.2007 stating that the assessee has not paid applicable central excise duties on the depreciated value of the indigenously procured capital goods and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,30,50,370/- together with interest - By reply dated 08.06.2007, the assessee denied their liability and also informed that they are in the process of performing their export obligations - The reply was rejected and the proposal made in the show cause notice was confirmed and order-in-original was passed dated 24.08.2007 - This order was upheld by Tribunal, hence the present appeal.

Held : Assessee in no uncertain terms agreed to pay Customs & Central Excise Duty for the Capital Goods on the amortized value, Raw materials, Consumables and Finished goods in stock at the applicable rate of Duty both for the imported and indigenous goods - Tribunal was right in stating that the intention of the assessee was not as that of an honest taxpayer as they failed to come forward to disclose that they have not paid the duty amount - Tribunal has granted relief to the assessee by deleting the penalty which is a proper exercise of discretion by the Tribunal - Before the Tribunal, the assessee having admitted to the fact that they have not discharged the duty liability took an alternate stand that they have been burdened with fulfilment of export obligation to a higher limit and if it is so, they will be entitled to draw back and consequently, the demand would be revenue neutral - This issue was considered by the Tribunal and rightly held to be not relevant dispute before the Tribunal as the appellant had to approach the DGFT authorities for making any adjustment subject to their eligibility - Thus, Tribunal has rightly re-appreciated the facts and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee - No substantial question of law arises - Appeal fails and is dismissed: High Court [para 7 to 9]

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2050-HC-AHM-CX

Vijay Steels Vs CESTAT

CX - Tribunal had observed that the disputed issue as to whether the re-roller, whose aggregate value of clearances in a financial year have exceeded 75 lakhs, are eligible or not for the benefit of deemed credit, stands decided by Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Digambar Foundry = 2002-TIOL-86-CESTAT-DEL-LB and which stands subsequently followed by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Vinubhai Steel Co. (P) Ltd. - Accordingly, the appeals were rejected by following the ratio of the said decision - Appeal filed against this order.

Held : Bench notes that the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order reported in = 2014-TIOL-2653-HC-AHM-CX allowed the appeal of M/s. Vinubhai Steel Co. (P) Ltd . and set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal - Held therein that the eligibility to avail of the benefit under the deemed credit order would be only to the extent the clearances do not exceed Rs.75,00,000/- is an incorrect interpretation of the Order dated 1st March, 1994 as well as the Notification No. 1/93 - Or in other words, the assessees who were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993 were entitled to avail the benefit of the deemed credit order after crossing the value clearance limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- - Therefore, present appeal is also allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal: High Court [para 5, 7]

- Appeal allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-667-CESTAT-AHM

Piramal Glass Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant have two units, one at Koshamba and other at Jambusar (Bharuch) and has taken Cenvat Credit for a period of February to March-2013 in respect of common input service in their factory at Koshamba Unit - The case of department is that since the common input service is used for both the units, the Koshamba Unit is not entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of portion of service attributed to Jambushar Unit - The issue to be decided is that whether the appellant in their Koshamba Unit is eligible for credit only proportion of common input service attributed to said unit only and they are not entitled for Cenvat credit to the proportion attributed to Jambusar Unit in terms of Rule 7(d) of CCR, 2004 - As per interpretation of Rule 7(d), it is settled that even though there is a provision for proportionate distribution of Cenvat Credit under Rule 7(d) of CCR, 2004 during the relevant period but as per interpretation it was held that since the word "may" was there in the Rule which was substituted with word "shall" from the amendment in 2006, it was option for the appellant either to avail the entire credit in one unit or distribute the same proportionately to different unit, therefore even if appellant have availed Cenvat Credit in respect of common input service in one unit only, the same is not incorrect or illegal - Accordingly the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-666-CESTAT-BANG

Zafin Software Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd Vs CCT & CE

ST - The only issue that arises for consideration is, whether the appellant is entitled for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the refund claim mainly on the ground that the appellant had not debited the amount claimed as refund from their CENVAT credit account, which according to said authority, was in violation of Para 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) - It is the case of appellant that their claim has been filed before the expiry of quarter in which one year period from the last date of receipt falls and accordingly the application for refund is well within time - But, however, as regards the reversal, adjudicating officer had no chance of verifying the veracity of appellant's claim vis-à-vis ST-3 Returns in subsequent period wherein the said reversal was claimed to have been made - Matter remanded for the file of adjudicating authority before whom the appellant shall furnish its ST-3 Returns for the subsequent period wherein the said reversal is reflected - Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-665-CESTAT-MAD

Subburaj Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

Cus - The appellants were engaged in manufacture of Cotton Yarn and were operating under 100% EOU Scheme - They opted to exit the scheme, for which the Development Commissioner, MEPZ, Chennai accorded no objection to them - The appellants were also permitted to function as an EPCG unit - Revenue visited the unit of appellant and by a detention memo detained certain imported and indigenous goods which were not included in the list of capital goods submitted by appellant to the Department for purpose of de-bonding - Thereafter, SCN was issued which culminated in passing of order impugned, wherein the Original Authority confirmed demand of Duty together with applicable interest on the amount of Duty in terms of Section 28AB of Customs Act and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act - The Original Authority also imposed penalties - The miscellaneous application has been filed by appellant reporting that subsequent to the filing of this appeal, because of financial difficulty, appellant's case was referred to National Company Law Tribunal in terms of Section 31(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for consideration and approval of a Resolution Plan - The National Company Law Tribunal has passed an order approving the Resolution Plan filed before it and thereafter concluded that the same shall become effective from the date of passing of order - Accordingly, as per the order, from the plan approval date, all proceedings, claims, disputes and interests in connection with the appellant shall stand withdrawn, satisfied and discharged - The miscellaneous application has been filed by Authorized Signatory of appellant for having the appeal disposed of by closing demands as abated - Appeal dismissed as abated: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT