Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Even if one of the conditions u/s 36(2)(i) is satisfied, bad debts claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) must be allowed : HC

I-T - Corporation incorporated under Companies Act falls within ambit of exemption envisaged u/s 10(26B), if formed to promote interests of members of backward classes: HC

I-T - Co-operative society, not into banking business, catering to needs of its constituent members, is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2) : HC

1 I-T - Satisfaction for exercise of such powers must be recorded by CIT & not by ITAT : HC

GST - Whether/which HSN or SAC needs to be mentioned in the invoice is not a question that can be answered by the Authority in terms of s.97(2) of the Act: AAR

GST - Floating of fictitious firms and availing ITC of Rs.30 crores - Invoices purportedly raised of Rs.990 crores - No case for grant of relief u/s 438 of CrPC - Custodial interrogation necessary: HC

2021-TIOL-267-AAR-GST

Gew India Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant got a sub-contract work from M/s L&T, claimed to be a works contract, for erecting steel structure casted and bolted on ground in the civil foundation, at the site at Karwar, Karnataka - They have sought an advance ruling on various questions.

Held:

+ Authority refrains from giving any ruling in respect of the question as to whether/which HSN or SAC needs to be mentioned in the invoice raised by the applicant from their registered office at Noida, UP, as the said question is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority, in terms of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act 2017.

+ The applicant need not obtain separate registration in Karnataka, for supply of services and can raise the invoice by charging IGST from their registered office at Noida, UP, with place of supply as Karnataka.

+ Since the applicant are neither having nor intending to have any establishment at the site at Karwar, Karnataka, they cannot obtain ISD registration for the site at which they are delivering service.

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-2177-HC-MUM-GST

Dev Adania Vs State Of Maharashtr

GST - Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed apprehending arrest in connection with case investigated by Commissioner of Central GST (Mumbai South) u/s 70 of the Act, 2017.

Held:  The total ITC availed by applicant from the three firms  M/s. Karnataka Enterprises, M/s. Kismat Enterprises and M/s. Balaji Enterprises  was Rs.29.7 Crores - The statement indicates that there was fraudulent availment of ITC from non-existent companies - During the course of investigation, statement of Gautam Joshi was recorded under Section 70 and wherein he stated that he was ex-employee of the applicant and the firms namely M/s. Karnataka Jewellers, M/s. Balaji Enterprises and M/s. Kismat Enterprises were opened by him on the basis of documents arranged from various sources - The contention of the applicant that the statement was retracted and there is no corroborative material on record to support the claim of respondents is incorrect - There is sufficient material to deny pre-arrest bail to applicant - As per GSTR-2A of applicant the amount of ITC availed by applicant is in respect of the total taxable value of Rs.990.17 Crores - The custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary -  Applicant has not made out case for granting relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C - However,  considering the submission of the applicant, interim protection granted by this Court is extended by a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order for moving the apex court against the present order : High Court [para 10, 11, 14]

- Application rejected: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2176-HC-KERALA-VAT

Mofash Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner

In writ, the High Court observes that the grievance of the assessee has not been disposed off by the Revenue, till date. Hence the Revenue officers concerned are directed to directed to dispose off the assessee's application within four weeks' time.

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-736-CESTAT-DEL

Bankey Bihari Engineers LLP Vs CC

Cus - The issue arises is, whether for want of IEC code for import of raw materials by appellant for Railway Project, Government of India, and vide impugned order, upholding of confiscation along with reduced redemption fine and penalty is justified - The appellant is before Tribunal, inter alia , on the ground that upholding of order of confiscation is bad as the appellant had filed proper application for amendment in Bill of Entry, as permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - However, such amendment was not allowed resulting into miscarriage of justice - There is no case of any misdeclaration or suppression of any material facts - Appellant have paid appropriate duty for release of imported goods for home consumption - Admittedly, appellant had applied for IEC number in proper time and such number should have normally been made available to them by DGFT within two working days - It is only a venial breach at the most, which is also for no fault of appellant, as the appellant had made application for IEC number in proper time - The delay in grant of IEC number is wholly attributable to Government of India, Department of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce - Accordingly, appellant had produced IEC code before Addl. Commissioner of Customs/Adjudicating Authority, before passing of adjudication order and prayed for amendment in bill of entry as per the provisions of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 - The confiscation and redemption fine are set aside - The penalty imposed under Section 112(a) is reduced: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-735-CESTAT-AHM

Shreeji Engineering Works Vs CCE & ST

ST - Assessee is in appeal against confirmation of demand of Service Tax under category of Commissioning of Plant and Machinery Equipment service and Maintenance and Repair service along with interest and various penalties imposed under Finance Act - During adjudication, all the 97 work contracts have not been examined in detail by Adjudicating Authority and merely on the basis of sample contracts, demand of service tax was confirmed - For the some contracts mentioned at Annexure 'D', there is categorical finding of Adjudicating Authority that these are the turnkey project - Thus, where there is turnkey projects, the services were rendered along with supply of materials, i.e., in the nature of Works Contract service and for that the proper classification is Works Contract service but for the rest of Contracts no examination in detail with nature of work was done by adjudicating authority to say whether any supplies are inclusive of work contract - Therefore, matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to examine each and every contract in detail - The appellant is also directed to co-operate in the matter and provide documents for consideration by Adjudicating Authority: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-734-CESTAT-BANG

CCT Vs ABB Ltd

CX - The Revenue filed the present appeal to contest an order passed by the Commissioner of Central GST, Bangalore - The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Original authority to quantify the service tax demand pertaining to the period prior to 18.4.2006 and the period after such date - Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, the original authority took up the de novo adjudication proceedings and dropped the demand proposed for recovery from the assessee.

Held - As a recipient of taxable service, the assessee was not liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism prior to the period 18.4.2016 as per the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association vs. UOI which was subsequently been affirmed by the Supreme Court - Keeping with the verdict, the original authority not only dropped the demand for the period prior to 18.4.2006 but also dropped the proposed demand towards IPR service received by the assessee after such effective date, holding that, such service was not liable for payment of service tax prior to the period 1.7.2012 - Thereby, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the original adjudicating authority: CESTAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: BANGALORE CESTAT