Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Since activities carried out is charitable in nature even under amended definition u/s 2(15) hence, assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11 : ITAT

I-T- Late deposit of employees contribution to provident fund and ESI, cannot be disallowed if it is deposited before the due date of the filing of the return : ITAT

I-T- Notice u/s 148 issued after lapse of four years from relevant assessment years without obtaining approval from Pr. CIT/CIT has to be set aside : ITAT

I-T- If in all previous AYs, assessee's claim of rent as income from house property has been accepted, hence following rule of consistency such claim can be allowed in current AY: ITAT

I-T - Assessee has not written back sundry creditors to its income as no longer payable, hence, liability has not ceased to exist, provisions of Sec 41(1) cannot come into operation at all: ITAT

I-T - Omission on part of legal counsel to suggest filing an appeal, should not result in assessee facing penalty & interest along with tax demand: ITAT

I-T - No addition in respect of share capital can be made without any incriminating material found during course of search : ITAT

I-T - Reopening of assessment cannot be made on mere suspicion in absence of any reliable information or evidence to form belief that income has escaped assessment : ITAT

GST - Club and members are two distinct persons - Principle of mutuality has no application after the amendment to s.7 of the Act, 2017: AAR

GST - Concretisation of Roads - Tax rate to be charged by sub-contractor to main contractor is 12%: AAR

GST - Business or advancement of religion - Entry 13 of Notification No. 12/2017-CTR specifically deals with renting out of religious precincts - Supply is taxable if room rent per day is Rs. 1000/- or more and if shop/stall rent is Rs. 10,000/- or more per month: AAR

GST - Land filling pit is a civil structure, not a plant or machinery - Such civil structure is clearly excluded from the definition of 'plant and machinery' - not eligible for ITC: AAAR

Cus - When the order has attained finality before Apex court, appellant cannot reopen the merit of case again before this court: HC

CX - Since the documents are correctly bearing all the information required, therefore, cenvat documents are in confirmation to Rule 4A read with Rule 9 of CCR, 2004: CESTAT

CX - The amended Notification whereby the refund was restricted to 75% is valid and legal, therefore, appellant is entitled for refund in respect of Basic Excise Duty only to the extent of percentage prescribed therein and not for the full amount of duty paid from PLA: CESTAT

ST - Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to give clear clarification on working of differential service tax with support of necessary documents such as bank statement/ ledger and ST-3 return, matter remanded : CESTAT

2021-TIOL-290-AAR-GST

Rotary Club of Mumbai Elegant

GST -   Club and member are two distinct persons - Principle of mutuality has no application after the amendment to s.7 of the CGST Act, 2017 -  Activity of collecting contributions and spending towards meeting and administrative expenditures only is 'business' as envisaged u/s 2(17) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Contributions from the members recovered for expending the same for the weekly and other meetings and other petty administrative expenses incurred including the expenses for the location and light refreshments results in a supply under the CGST Act, 2017: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-289-AAR-GST

Core Construction (Yatin Manoj Mora)

GST -  In respect of Sub-Contract awarded to the applicant by M/s J.P. Enterprises (main contractor), to whom Aurangabad Municipal Corporation awarded the contract for Executing Work of construction of Concrete Roads in Aurangabad City Packages P-2, the rate to be charged is 6% SGST plus 6% CGST, total 12%, Sr. no. 3(iv) of Notification No. 11/2017-CTR refers: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-288-AAR-GST

Acharya Shree Mahashraman Chaturmas Vyvastha Samiti

GST - Applicant has sought a ruling as to whether  they are liable to pay tax on renting of temporary residential rooms for consideration to the devotees and renting of space for shops and stalls for the purpose of religious programmers where the predominant object is not to do business but for advancement of religion?

Held: 

+ Applicant is l iable to tax only if the room rent per day is Rs.1,000/- or more as per Entry 13 of Notification 12/2017-CTR.

+ Applicant is liable to tax  on renting of space for shops and stalls only if the rent per month is Rs.10,000/- or more as per Entry 13 of Notification 12/2017-CTR.

- Application disposed of: AAR

2021-TIOL-35-AAAR-GST

Mother Earth Environ Tech Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant had sought an advance ruling on the following question viz. Whether the land filling pit can be considered as 'Plant and machinery' and, therefore, eligible for input tax credit or; whether the landfilling pit is to be considered as 'civil structure' and, therefore, becomes ineligible for input tax credit - In remand proceedings, as per the directions of the Karnataka High Court, the AAR again held that the land filling pit is a civil structure, not a plant or machinery for the purpose of Chapter V and Chapter VI of the CGST Act - Aggrieved, the appellant is before the Appellate  Authority.

Held:  There is no hesitation in concluding that the land filling pit is used by the Appellant for carrying out his business - Goods and services received for construction of immovable property on own account has been specifically put under the blocked credit list under Section 17(5)(d) of the Act, 2017 with the rider that it shall not apply  to plant or machinery - Accordingly, in the second explanation given in Section 17, while providing the meaning of the term 'plant and machinery', it has been clearly stated that Buildings and Civil Structures shall not be covered under the term Plant - Civil structures such as foundation and supporting structure for fastening of plant and machinery to earth has been included as part of plant and machinery - However, any other civil structure has clearly been excluded from the definition of 'plant and machinery' - The land filling pit comes within the ambit of the exclusion and hence is not eligible for input tax credit - Order of AAR upheld and appeal dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2021-TIOL-2303-HC-KERALA-CUS

Samrat Exporters And Importers Vs Asstt. CCE & C

Cus - The appellant had challenged the SCN issued to it before appellate authority but the same was filed not within the time prescribed under the Act - Therefore, appellate authority did not go into the merits of case and dismissed the same on the ground of limitation - Since the said order has attained finality before Apex Court, appellant cannot reopen the merits of case again before this court - Though the Single Judge has not entertained petition, he had granted instalment facility to appellant to discharge the liability in 12 monthly instalments - The counsel for the appellant was not in a position to submit before this court whether the appellant has availed of instalment facility granted - No interference is warranted to the judgment of Single Judge: HC

- Writ appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-815-CESTAT-AHM

Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27 of 2012-C.E. (N.T.) in respect of Cenvat Credit availed on Banking and Financial Services and Insurance Services used for export of finished goods, i.e., Gold Jewellery - As regard the contention of Commissioner (Appeals) that the refund is governed by Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., it is found that the appellant is correct in submitting that at the relevant time this Notfn was not in existence, therefore, it is wrong on the part of Commissioner (Appeals) to import and apply non-existent notification - The Commissioner (Appeals) also given finding for rejection of claim that the cenvat document is not in the name of appellant but in the name of their Mumbai Office - Mumbai Office is not an independent entity and not carrying out a business separately - The Mumbai office is working solely for the manufacturing unit of appellant company, one of the factories is appellant Ahmedabad Factory - It is the submission of appellant that they have taken credit only to the extent it is related to Ahmedabad Factory, therefore, even if document is bearing the name and address of Mumbai office, only on this ground, refund cannot be rejected since service is attributed to appellant's factory - Therefore, on this ground also, Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in denying the refund - This issue is settled in judgement of Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation Ltd, Unicure India Ltd. 2017-TIOL-1761-CESTAT-ALL and Chamundi Textile (Silk Mills) Ltd. - As regard the issue that whether documents on which the cevnat credit was taken are proper in terms of Rule 4A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - All the details as required in terms of Rule 4A read with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are appearing in the invoices - As regard the Financial Services, amount shown is consolidated amount inclusive of service tax, therefore, appellant has bifurcated the said amount into gross value and in the service tax amount, nothing found incorrect in doing such bifurcation - The documents are correctly bearing all the information required, therefore, cenvat documents are in confirmation to Rule 4A and read with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Therefore, on all the counts, impugned order is not sustainable: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-814-CESTAT-AHM

Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The issue involved is that whether the appellant is entitled for refund for the 100% payment of duty made under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E. from PLA or to the extent of 75% in terms of amended Notification Nos. 16/2008-C.E. and 36/2008-C.E. - Appellant have not filed any appeal against rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty consequently, Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding - They have filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) exclusively in respect of Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess which has been allowed, therefore, there is nothing left in impugned order to challenge before Tribunal - Hence, appeal is not maintainable on this ground itself - However, on merit also, Supreme Court in case of VVF Limited 2020-TIOL-83-SC-CX-LB held that the amended Notification whereby the refund was restricted to 75% is valid and legal, therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund in respect of Basic Excise Duty only to the extent of percentage prescribed therein and not for the full amount of duty paid from PLA - In view of said judgement of Supreme Court, issue is settled against appellant - Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the refund of differential basic excise duty: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-813-CESTAT-AHM

Mundra Container Freight Station Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Appellant raised preliminary objection that the statement calculating short payment of service tax is not correct inasmuch as bank receipt was shown which is different from bank statement available with appellant - The gross value received is shown in ST-3 return - Whereas in the statement showing calculation of short payment of service tax, in the column of bank receipt, figure shown is Rs. 70,13,066/- which is not tallying with ST-3 return - For this discrepancy, appellant have written letters to Adjudicating Authority for seeking clarification for this calculation - However, Adjudicating Authority has not given any clarification on the ground that all the calculation and working was carried by CERA audit very much in the presence of appellant - Whenever any SCN is issued, same should have each and every data from the relied upon document with department - The department cannot say that the calculation was done in presence of noticee and the same is conclusive - Therefore, as per principles of natural justice, Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to give clear clarification on working of differential service tax with support of necessary documents such as bank statement/ledger and ST-3 return - Therefore, entire matter needs reconsideration - Accordingly, matter is remanded to Adjudicating Authority for passing afresh order after providing clarification to queries raised: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT