Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Re-assessment order merits being quashed where it is passed without considering relevant evidence furnished by assessee to substantiate its case : HC

I-T - Company since merged with another loses its identity upon merger; order passed in name of such non-existent company is non est : HC

I-T - Company since merged with another loses its identity upon merger; order passed in name of such non-existent company is non est : HC

I-T - Since no enquiry is conducted to ascertain margin on sale of vehicles also books of account of assessee are not rejected thus, addition is not sustainable in law: ITAT

I-T - Mere activity of sale and purchase of shares, without proper evidences cannot be held to be an activity giving rise to income assessable under head income from business or profession : ITAT

I-T - Since in notice issued there is no specific charge relating to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable: ITAT

I-T- Since assessee has been able to explain nature and source of cash deposits in bank account, no addition u/s 68 is warranted : ITAT

I-T- In absence of examination of broker of assessee to determine genuineness of client code modification, action of AO cannot be upheld for reopening of assessment : ITAT

CX - All the services which are used for business activity need not to be related directly in manufacturing or clearance of final product, same can be used either in factory or outside the factory: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-2148-HC-P&H-GST

Manoj Bansal Vs DGGI

GST - The petitioner, a person, is the Director of M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company which manufactures Pure Lead Ingots - The petitioner in capacity as Director, was responsible for conducting the business - In the relevant period, the Department alleged that the company had availed a hefty amount of Input Tax Credit on the basis of invoices issued by their suppliers, without any actual movement of goods - Upon investigation, it came to surface that the supplier firms were not even in existence at their registered premises - It was also uncovered during investigation that some of the transporters through whom goods were shown to have been conveyed, were also found to be non-existent and the transportation receipts of some transporters were recovered from the premises of M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. is alleged of having availed Input Tax Credit on the basis of invoices issued by such non-existent/fake firms without movement of goods, alleged to have been transported by such fake/nonexistent transporters, and on the basis of corresponding transport receipts being included in their record for claiming the said benefit - M/s Nikita Industries Pvt. Ltd. was thereby alleged to have committed offences under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) punishable under Section 132 (1)(I)(i) of the CGST Act - Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested - Hence the present petition was filed to seek bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held - The petitioner complied with the conditions imposed by a Coordinate Bench of this court, vide which interim bail was granted to the petitioner - The petitioner is also facing proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act - Moreover the case against the petitioner is primarily based on documentary evidence - Considering these factors, there is no purpose to be served by sending the petitioner back to custody - Hence the present petition is allowed and the order grantng interim bail is made absolute: HC

- Bail application allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-711-CESTAT-MUM

SM Fettling Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant assails levy of Rs. 61,61,870/-, demanded under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 as liability for period from April 2008 to March 2013 for providing 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service', along with applicable interest under section 75 and imposition of like amount as penalty under section 78 of the Act - The appellant is engaged in finishing of 'castings' manufactured by M/s Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd against work orders issued by the latter - Two aspects are starkly prominent insofar as the dispute is concerned; the recipient of service had been discharging a portion of tax liability that devolved on them in accordance with specific prescription for 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service' after 1st July 2012 and it has been held by Tribunal in several decisions that coverage under 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service' for tax may be determined by manner in which consideration is packaged - It is seen from the findings of Adjudicating authority that the claim of the appellant of having engaged in contract on 'piece rate basis', though undeniable in some of the 'work orders', has been disregarded in the impugned order. Having identified some of the 'work orders' to contain compensation on 'man day' basis, it was incumbent upon the adjudicating authority, in the light of such finding, to segregate those to which, in accordance with the precedent arising from decisions of the Tribunal, coverage under that taxable service would not extend. This, the adjudicating authority has failed to do. The tax liability of the appellant for the period after 1st July 2012 also needs ascertainment by segregation of work-orders on which tax liability may arise and re-examining those in the light of statutory provision and judicial precedent - To enable this, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision, including that on the scope for invoking extended period, after evaluating the contentions raised by appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

Tema India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue arises is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of services namely Courier Service, Insurance Service, Port Services, Maintenance Service, Meal Services, Telecom Services, Business Support Service, Consulting Service, Interior Decorator Services, Designing Services, LP Services, Repair & Maintenance Services & Tech. Inspection Services - Both the lower authorities have denied the credit on said services on the ground that these services were used beyond the place of removal - All the services in question are either used in or in relation to the final product or in relation to the overall business activity of appellant - The contention of department for denying the credit is that the service to be used not only in relation to the manufacture but also for clearance of goods from the place of removal - This is an absurd opinion of revenue for the reason that all the services which are used for business activity need not to be related to directly in manufacturing of final product or clearance of final product - The said services can be used either in the factory or even outside the factory but in relation to the business activity of appellant - There is no dispute that all of these services in question were used for business activity of appellant - Moreover, on the same services in various judgments the Cenvat credit was allowed - All the services are input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Therefore, appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit, with this view the impugned order is not sustainable : CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

SI Group India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Anti dumping - The appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by failure of Central Government to levy anti-dumping duty on imports of "Nonyl Phenol" originating in, or exported from, Chinese Taipei the subject Countries, even though the designated authority, in its final findings, had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years - The relief claimed is for setting aside the Office Memorandum in connection with the final findings notified by designated authority - This memorandum states that the Central Government has decided not to impose any anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries - A further relief that has been claimed is for issuance of a direction to Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty based on the recommendation made by designated authority - In view of the decision of Tribunal in Jubilant Ingrevia Limited , the Office Memorandum is set aside and the matter is remitted to Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority in the light of the observations made in said decision: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT