Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - TDS u/s 194D is not payable where no payment is made to agent by principal: HC

I-T - Where AO re-opens assessment based on material which was available during original assessment, then re-assessment is deemed to be based on change of opinion & hence invalid : HC

I-T - Notice seeking further details, information & documents cannot be deemed to be draft assessment order: HC

I-T- Sum paid by assessee for approvals, licences, permits, registration to run business over and above total price of fertilizer plant are intangibles and deprecation is allowable u/s 32(l)(ii) : ITAT

I-T - Employees contribution of ESI being paid before due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is entitled for deduction u/s 36(1)(va) : ITAT

I-T- There cannot be any reassessment proceedings on the basis of any retrospective amendment made under provisions of law : ITAT

I-T- Since this is a clear case of lack of inquiry by AO order passed by Pr. CIT revising assessment passed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A is completely in order: ITAT

I-T - Date on which AO of person other than one searched assumes possession of seized assets will be relevant date for applying provisions of sec. 153A : ITAT

I-T - CBDT circular dated 01.08.2012 barring allowability u/s 37 of freebies distributed to medical professionals by pharmaceutical company is effective from date on which circular was issued and not date on which MCI guidelines were amended: ITAT

GST - Since the goods are not moved directly to the Port, ICD, Airport or LCS or to a registered warehouse, the applicant is not entitled to supply the impugned goods at concessional rate of 0.1% in terms of 41/2017-ITR: AAR

Cus - Bail granted at stage of issuing notice u/s 108 of Customs Act will amount to blanket bail, which is impermissible - Application for anticipatory bail dismissed: HC

2021-TIOL-255-AAR-GST

Time Technoplase Ltd

GST - Applicant supplies HDPE drums, on receipt of a purchase order from a merchant exporter, raises invoice for supply of said drums on the merchant exporter and delivers the same, as per the merchant exporter's direction, to the premises of the chemical manufacturer, who manufactures ethyl alcohol and packs the same in the said HDPE drums and the merchant exporter exports the said ethyl alcohol packed in said HDPE drums, within the stipulated time - Applicant seeks a ruling as to w hether they are liable for 0.1% concessional rate of tax under Notification No. 41/2017-IT (Rate) on the supply of HDPE Drums for use by the manufacturer of Ethyl Alcohol in his factory for packing his manufactured goods and supply to merchant exporter?

Held:   Notification 41/2017-ITR stipulates certain conditions for supply of goods to the merchant exporter at concessional rate of GST at 0.1% - To avail the concessional rate of GST, the registered recipient is required to move the goods directly from the place of registered supplier to the Port, Inland Container Deport, Airport or Land Customs Station from where the said goods are to be exported, or to a registered warehouse from where the goods shall be further moved to the Port, Inland Container Deport, Airport or Land Customs Station - In case the merchant exporter procures goods from different registered suppliers, the merchant exporter should move such supplies to the registered warehouse, aggregate such procured goods at the warehouse and should move the goods to the Port, Inland Container Depot, Airport or Land Customs Station from where the goods are exported - In the instant case, the applicant supplies HDPE drums by raising the invoice under Billed to Merchant Exporter and shipped to the manufacturer of the ethyl alcohol - Thus, the impugned goods are not moved directly to the Port, Inland Container Deport, Airport or Land Customs Station or to a registered warehouse, which is a pre-condition for availing concessional rate of GST, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to supply the impugned goods at the concessional rate of GST at 0.1%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-254-AAR-GST

Sheen Electroplaters Pvt Ltd

GST -  Applicant is engaged in the business of Electroplating and surface treatment of aerospace and non-aerospace components - The applicant states that they provide job work services on the goods (physical inputs) owned by the companies registered under GST -  Applicant has sought an advance ruling on the following questions viz.   What is the GST Rate applicable for Job work service? & Whether it falls under entry (id) Services by way of job work other than (i), (ia), (i b) and (ic) above; @ GST 12% or (iv) which covers "manufacturing services on physical inputs owned by others" @ GST 18%?

Held: Core issue before is whether the job work services provided by the applicant are covered under clause (id) or clause (iv) of entry number 26 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06- 2017, as amended, by Notification 20/2019 Central Tax (Rate) dated 30-09-2019, effective from 01.10.2019, for the heading 9988 and also the rate of GST applicable thereon - From Para 4 of the CBIC Circular No. 126/45/2019-GST dated 22-11-2019, it can be inferred  that the job work defined under Section 2(68) of the CGST Act i.e. job work services by way of treatment or processing undertaken by a person on goods belonging to another registered person are covered under clause (id) of entry number 26 of the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended, and clause (iv) of the notification supra covers only services which are excluded under clause (id) and also carried out on physical inputs (goods), owned by the unregistered person/s - In the instant case the applicant provides the job work services on the goods belonging to registered persons and hence are covered under clause (id) of entry number 26 of the Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as amended and accordingly attract GST rate of 12%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-2152-HC-P&H-CUS

Sunil Dutt Vs Department of Customs

Cus - The petitioner is a G-Card holder engaged in liaison in movement of the files of his clients before the Customs Department, so as to get clearance of the assessment of Customs duty - The petitioner moved a file for one M/s P. S. Traders, Patiala regarding importing of a consignment from Dubai - As per documents attached with the file, the same was cleared - However, the petitioner was not approached by the party regarding payment of the Customs duty - Later it came to the notice of the petitioner that the importer has managed to remove the consignment from ICD without paying the customs duty - Thereafter, in April, 2021, the Customs Department issued a notice to the petitioner u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 for appearing and giving reply to the notice, however, the petitioner did not appear before the Department as he was apprehending arrest - Hence the petitioner filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail in resect of the complaint filed for offences under Sections 135, 135A & 132 of the Customs Act, 1962 .

Held - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the notice to the petitioner was issued on various dates w.e.f. 12.08.2021 and instead of appearing before the Customs Authorities, the petitioner preferred to present his anticipatory bail application before the Court of Sessions, which was dismissed on 24.08.2021 - The law in this regard is settled vide the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others wherein it was held that at the stage of issuance of a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, if bail is granted, it will amount to a blanket bail which is not permissible - Hence the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-713-CESTAT-DEL

Kusum Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The appellant has filed this appeal challenging O-I-O demanding tax on the finding that remittances made to their branches and offices abroad was 'consideration' for 'taxable service' procured from outside the 'taxable territory' which, according to appellant, is inconsistent with decisions of Tribunal in which demands on identical grounds for the preceding periods had been set aside - By taking recourse to the special design in Finance Act, 1994, intended for taxing recipients as 'deemed provider' of services received from abroad, to the transfer of funds as recorded in books of accounts, the jurisdictional service tax authority initiated proceedings for recovery, initially for extended period between April 2006 and March 2011 and, thereafter, at regular intervals which culminated in adjudication orders of which two, chronologically preceding the one now impugned before Tribunal were set aside in Kusum Healthcare Ltd 2019-TIOL-118-CESTAT-DEL and in Kusum Healthcare Ltd 2018-TIOL-549-CESTAT-DEL - It is the admitted flow of funds for maintenance and upkeep of branch offices that has been presumed to be the quid pro quo for rendering of 'taxable service' by branch to the principal office - That the remittances were made for meeting the establishment costs at the location of the branches is not disputed - On perusal of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 that, by emphasis or by deeming so under the authority of section 66C of Finance Act, 1994, maps the boundary of 'services provided or agreed to be provided in taxable territory', it is seen that rule 4 to rule 6 and rule 9 to rule 12 address specific situations of deeming that do not find fitment within the default in rule 3; rule 7 is a determinative weightage for certain circumstances and rule 8 intends distribution of domestic jurisdiction - And just as the determination of rendering of 'taxable service' in accordance with Taxation of Services Rules, 2006 was essential for validation of any levy on 'consideration' remitted by principal office before July 2012, the Rules above, along with the parent provision in Finance Act, 1994 and the charging provision are applicable only to 'services', conforming to the description elaborated in section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994 therein, without exception after June, 2012 - There is no such ascertainment or finding in the impugned order - Consequently, the conclusion in Milind Kulkarni 2016-TIOL-709-CESTAT-MUM, that was relied upon in Kusum Healthcare Ltd to set aside the demand after introduction of 'negative list' regime is similarly applicable to the dispute now impugned before Tribunal - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-712-CESTAT-MUM

Mittal Corp Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - M/s. Nakoda Ferromet is engaged in trading of SS Scrap and for that purpose, is registered with Department as a dealer - During investigation, it was observed that the said appellant had issued invoice without actual supply of goods to the other appellant M/s. Mittal Corp Limited - The SCN had proposed for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on M/s. Nakoda Ferromet - However, adjudication order had confiscated the seized goods and imposed penalty on M/s. Mittal Corp Limited - Since, the SCN did not implead M/s. Mittal Corp Limited, seeking confiscation of goods as well as imposition of redemption fine, the adjudication order confirming such demand cannot be considered as legal and proper - Therefore, impugned order confirming confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine is set aside and the appeal to such extent is allowed in favour of appellant M/s. Mittal Corp Limited - With regard to imposition of penalty under Rule 15A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, receipt of impugned goods in the factory premises have not been accounted for in the statutory records as mandated in Central Excise as well as Cenvat statutes - The appeal filed by Mittal Corp Limited is partly allowed in setting aside the impugned order, insofar as it has upheld confiscation and imposition of redemption fine - Quantum of penalty imposed on other appellants namely, M/s. Nakoda Ferromet and Heeralal Kanungo can be reduced in interest of justice - Accordingly, impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing quantum of penalty to 50 per cent on both the appellants: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT