Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Re-assessment is unsustainable where it is not based on any tangible evidence establishing that taxable income escaped assessment : HC

I-T - transfer of assessment from one jurisdiction to another cannot be sustained where no reasons are recorded for such transfer : HC

I-T - Petition seeking to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Sec 264 cannot be dismissd in limine : HC

I-T - TDS u/s 194G not to be levied incentives earned by commission agents selling lottery tickets issued by various Government Departments: HC

I-T - Retrospective provision in taxing Act which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood : ITAT

I-T - Since application for registration u/s 12AA had already attained finality and CIT (E) had not drawn any adverse inference with regard to 'lease hold land' fee concession, therefore order of CIT (E) denying registration u/s 12AA is bad in law: ITAT

I-T- Since AO is shifting his responsibility to special auditor thus reference to special audit is an invalid reference contrary to law, thus assessment order passed therefore in extended period as a consequence of invalid reference is barred by limitation : ITAT

CX - Failure to make mandatory pre-deposit - Appeal dismissed without going into merits - Opportunity to be granted to make pre-deposit: HC

GST - Payment of notice pay by an employee to applicant employer in lieu of notice period is ‘consideration' for supply - Tax payable: AAR

GST - Application is ambiguous and cryptic and no evidences are forthcoming supporting applicant's claim - Paucity of evidentiary material - Authority refrains from passing any order: AAR

GST is liable to be paid @18% on the reimbursement of EPF and ESI contribution: AAR

GST - Epoxidized Soya Oil is a chemically modified soyabean oil; attracts GST @5%: AAR

Cus - The goods other than prohibited goods can be imported, warehoused in public/private bonded warehouse without payment of duty - Authorization for clearance and duty payment is required only for clearance for home consumption which had not been sought by appellant as the goods are meant for export only: CESTAT

2021-TIOL-2272-HC-AHM-GST

Indian Institute of Management Vs Deputy Commissioner

GST - Only request of the petitioner is of directing the respondent Authorities to comply with the provisions Section 107(13) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and adjudicate the appeal proceedings; that despite several inquiries no response is received hence they are compelled to approach this Court.

Held: Appeal be listed within two weeks and be disposed of in accordance with law - Petitioner to co-operate - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 3, 5]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-286-AAR-GST

Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd

GST -  Tax is applicable on payment of notice pay by an employee to applicant employer in lieu of notice period in view of clause 5(e) of schedule II of CGST Act: AAR

GST - Premium of Group Medical Insurance Policy recovered by applicant from the non-dependent parents of employees & retired employees will fall within the ambit of supply and is liable to GST: AAR

GST - Employer and employee are related persons as per Explanation to Section 15 and, therefore, the valuation of canteen facility provided by applicant to its employees shall be as per Rule 28 and not at the nominal amount recovered by applicant from its employees: AAR

GST - Applicant-company is liable to pay GST on the amount recovered from its employees towards telephone charges at actuals: AAR

GST - In respect of the tax payable/paid by the applicant in respect of premium paid of Group Medical Insurance policy, canteen facility and telephone charges, the applicant is eligible to claim ITC on the same since they are not blocked credits u/s 17 of the Act: AAR

GST - Canteen services provided to the employees are to be treated as supply even if there is no consideration - It will be liable to tax as per value determined in accordance with Rule 28: AAR

GST - In respect of canteen services provided by applicant to its employees without charging any amount (free of cost), applicant is not eligible to claim ITC - clause (ii) of Sl. No. 7 of 11/2017-CTR  r/w clause (xxxii) of paragraph 4 relating to explanation given in 11/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-285-AAR-GST

Rribada Films Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant seeks to know as to whether they are Liable to pay GST under Normal or under Reverse Charge Mechanism on Import of Services which are not rendered in India?

Held: Application is very ambiguous and cryptic and no evidences are forthcoming supporting the claim of the applicant that, the services are not imported by them and the applicant is not an intermediary - Applicant was asked during the Final Hearing held on 28.09.2021 to explain the facts/transactions with evidence and detailed submissions in support of their contention that the impugned services are not imported by them and the applicant is not an intermediary but till the date of passing this order, they have not responded at all - Due to lack of evidentiary material to substantiate the contentions of the applicant, Authority is not able to arrive at any conclusion and, therefore, refrains from passing any order in the subject case: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2021-TIOL-284-AAR-GST

Lucknow Producers Cooperative Milk Union Ltd

GST - Applicant is engaged in processing of milk and manufacture of various milk products and is availing the services of various manpower supply agencies - Agreement with the manpower supply agency has two elements, one is payment against services and second one is the discharge of their statutory liabilities against the Workers Compensation Act like EPF, ESI or other statutory liabilities - Applicant sought a ruling on the question of GST liability on reimbursement of Employee Provident Fund and ESI - Dy. Commr., Commercial Tax did not offer any comment on the question raised but simply informed the tax rate on milk products supplied by the applicant, however, the Dy. Commr., CGST & CX opined that the GST shall be charged by Manpower recruitment agency (the supplier) to the applicant on the gross value which includes EPF, ESI Contribution, service charge and actual reimbursement to the person/labour (manpower).

Held: Consideration would include the entire payment received by the contractor (manpower supplier) from the applicant and GST would be payable on the entire amount collected by them from the applicant which includes the salary amount/wages to be paid to the labours as well as the reimbursement of EPF and ESI contribution - In the instant case, Labour contractor cannot be treated as pure agent as the contractor is not procuring any additional services from the third party and instead of this the contractor is providing/supplying the single service of manpower supply and the contractor is charging for the said service only - Further, there is no contractual agreement with the recipient of supply to act as his pure agent to incur expenditure or costs in the course of supply of services as the Work Order dated 22.02.2017 simply provides that after deposit of EPF and ESI with the department  concerned, the reimbursement will be done as per rule and there is no mention in the said Work Order that the contractor will deposit EPF and ESI as the pure agent of the applicant - Contractor of the applicant does not fulfil the conditions of pure agent of the recipient of the service (i.e. applicant) - Therefore, GST is liable to be paid @18% on the reimbursement of EPF and ESI contribution as the same is liable to be included in the value of supply as per Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-283-AAR-GST

Dhanraj Organics Pvt Ltd

GST -  Epoxidized Soya Oil is a chemically modified soyabean oil and falls under chapter heading no.1518 and is specifically covered under entry no.90 of Schedule-I of Notification No. 01/2017-CTR ; attracts GST @5%: AAR 

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-282-AAR-GST

Ocean Blue Boating Pvt Ltd

GST - Marine engine of heading 8407 and heading 8408, and parts thereof of heading 8409 will be covered under Sr. No. 252 of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T.(Rate) @5% when used in fishing vessels falling under HSN 8902: AAR

GST - Rate of 5% can be charged on supply of marine engines of heading 8407 and heading 8408 and/or their spare parts of heading 8409 covered under Sr. No. 252 of Notification No. 1/2017-C.T.(Rate) only when it is supplied for use in ships/vessels covered under headings 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905, 8906, 8907 of the GST Tariff, which may be used for defence purpose, patrolling purpose, flood relief and rescue operations: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-2273-HC-KERALA-CX

Pomsy Food Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST

CX - CESTAT dismissed the appeal as the appellant had not complied with the mandate of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, hence the present appeal - Short question to be considered is whether the appeal can be entertained by the CESTAT without complying with the mandate of pre-deposit under Section 35F ibid - Appellant submitted that the original order was passed on 19.3.2014 and the insertion of Section 35F ibid was done with effect from 6.8.2014 and, therefore, the lis has commenced prior to that amendment and in that situation he cannot be compelled to make deposit under Section 35F ibid; that the appeal filed against the original order was also on 17.6.2014 before the amendment and he is not bound to make deposit as it was prior to 6.8.2014. Held: CESTAT has dismissed the appeal (on technical grounds) for failure on the part of the appellants in making mandatory deposit - The merits of the case projected by the appellants were never gone into - In that view of the matter, Bench feels that an opportunity can be granted to the appellant to make pre-deposit as mandated under Section 35F ibid, so that the CESTAT would be in a position to entertain the appeal and to go into the merits of the case of the appellant - Appellant is granted three months' time to comply with the condition of payment as mandated under Section 35F ibid - Upon compliance, CESTAT to dispose of appeal within six months - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 13, 14]

- Appeal disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-796-CESTAT-DEL

Neelkantha Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The issue arises is, whether the appellant was required to pay duty again in respect of goods cleared vide Invoice through cash or account current only, which was paid by using cenvat credit; whether the demand again made by impugned order against the said amount to be paid in cash under provisions of Rule 8(3A) is correct and legal and further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- have been rightly imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - There is a conflict in provisions of Rule 8(3) and Rule 8(3A), prior to its substitution w.e.f. 11.07.2014 - Pursuant to quashing of Rule 8(3A) by Gujarat High Court and other High Courts, inspite of filing of appeal by Revenue before Supreme Court, the Government have appreciated the anomaly in Rules and have chosen to substitute Rule 8(3A), which provides for payment of interest @ 1% p.m. on such amount of duty not paid, after one month of the due date, for each month and part thereof to be calculated from the due date, for the period during which such default continues - As per Rules of interpretation, a procedural law is always deemed to be retrospective, unless the same is categorically or specifically made prospective - Thus, the substituted Rule 8(3A) will have retrospective effect, from the date CER, 2002 came into effect - Accordingly, the very basis for issue of SCN have been removed by operation of law - Such position of law has been ignored in passing the impugned orders by Court below - It is also held that provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules are not attracted, as admittedly appellant have issued invoice for clearance, and transaction is recorded in books of account - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-795-CESTAT-MAD

Sterling Biotech Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - The issue to be decided is, whether appellant is liable to pay the amount equal to 10%/5% of value of exempted goods/'sludge' removed by them for period from 10.05.2008 to 30.09.2011 as required under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The demand has been raised on the view that the sludge removed is an exempted goods manufactured by appellants - The appellant does not consciously manufacture any waste - During manufacture, waste that arises is drained into Effluent Treatment Plant - Thus, waste removed from Effluent Treatment Plant forms sludge and is removed on a daily basis to a dump yard from where it gets dried and is thereafter sold to fertilizer manufacturers - Appellant has to comply with pollution control requirements and therefore maintain the Effluent Treatment Plant and remove the waste as per effluent norms - No manufacturer would consciously manufacture waste - It cannot be said that the waste/sludge is an 'exempted goods' manufactured by appellant - On such score, Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not come into application and the demand of 10%/5% of value of the sludge removed by appellant cannot sustain - Following the decisions in case of ITC Ltd. and M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. , demand cannot sustain - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-794-CESTAT-AHM

Hazel Mercantile Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The limited issue to be decided is that whether the seized imported goods which was warehoused by filing warehouse Bills of entry which is exclusively meant for export can be released provisionally for export or otherwise - Since the proceeding of DRI is continued, no final conclusion can be drawn as regard the allegation of DRI that whether the appellant have correctly classified the goods and/or valued the imported goods therefore, Tribunal proceed to decide only the issue of release of goods - The goods other than prohibited goods can be imported, warehoused in public/private bonded warehouse without payment of duty - Authorization for clearance and duty payment is required only for clearance for home consumption which in the present case had not been sought by appellant as the goods are meant for export only - The warehoused goods can be re-exported without payment of customs duty under shipping bills - Therefore, in view of clear provision under 'Foreign Trade Policy' and 'Hand book Procedure', the goods which are under seizure is required to be released provisionally for export without payment of duty - Department could not make a prima facie case even for seizure of goods in view of contrary test reports - The warehoused goods which are meant for export only must be released provisionally by accepting only a bond of total value of goods, accordingly, concerned respondent is directed to release the goods provisionally on execution of only a bond for full value of goods and the same shall be allowed to be exported without any payment of duty, fine, penalty - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-793-CESTAT-MUM

Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - The issue involved is in respect of admissibility of cenvat credit in respect of Club and Association services and Outdoor Catering services for the period prior to 2011 - In respect of Outdoor Catering services, as the amount is merely Rs. 6,347/-, same is not pressed - The issue is squarely covered in respect of Club and Association services in favour of appellant by the order 2020-TIOL-1528-CESTAT-MUM - Appeals are partially allowed: CESTAT

- Appeals partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT