Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Assessee is absolved of liability to explain about transaction once she explains that she has not deposited any amount in the joint account and second account holder admits that amount was deposited by him : ITAT

Wealth Tax - Determination of date of ownership over land is necessary to determine net wealth: ITAT

I-T- Mere fact that assessee received dividend has no role to play in computing disallowance u/s 14A except to limit disallowance to quantum of dividend : ITAT

GST - Respondent sought to take advantage of its own wrong and deprive the petitioner of its rights under the scheme - Stand of respondents is fallacious as it is not only without substance but clearly illegal: HC

ST - Whether taxable service provided - Matter involves disputed question of facts - Petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal - Petition dismissed: HC

GST - Supply of warehoused (FTWZ) goods to any person before clearance for home consumption - Such transactions by virtue of Entry 8(a) of Schedule III do not attract tax: AAR

CX - Appellant bought out paint and supplied the same alongwith tower at site on which they have paid duty in value of tower itself, therefore, they are entitled to avail cenvat credit: CESTAT

ST - Since the charges for job is on per container basis and appellants are not collecting fixed wages against providing the manpower, said activity cannot fall under Manpower Recruitment service: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-01-AAR-GST

Aie Fiber Resource And Trading India Pvt Ltd

GST -  Applicant sells the imported goods before goods cross the customs frontier of India i.e., prior to clearance of goods from the customs to pre-identified customers and invoice would be raised from their office located in the State of Telangana - On other occasions, applicant would import the goods and entrust them to a logistic service provider M/s DHL who will store the imported goods at their FTWZ facilities of Mumbai & Chennai - The applicant would then identify the Indian customer and on their directions M/s. DHL would cause delivery of goods to the Indian customer - In such cases, Indian customer would take delivery of such goods by filing ex-bond BOE and discharge their customs liability - The applicant is desirous of a clarification regarding liability of the said supplies to IGST and availability of ITC against such supplies - Applicant is also desirous of knowing whether issuing of invoice from Hyderabad for supply of goods from FTWZ to their local customers in other States would satisfy the conditions enumerated under Section 31 of the CGST Act. Held:   Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) is part of SEZ scheme and it is a customs bonded warehouse - FTWZ operates similar to an SEZ -  The transactions proposed to be made by the applicant are covered by Entry 8 of Schedule III [Activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor as a supply of services] of Acts, 2017 i.e., supply of goods by the consignee to any other person, by endorsement of document of title of the goods, after the goods have been dispatched from the port of origin located outside India but before the clearance for home consumption; or supply of warehoused goods to any person before clearance for home consumption - Such transactions by virtue of Entry 8 of Schedule III do not attract tax under CGST or SGST or IGST -  Further, according to explanation to section 17(3) of CGST Act, all transactions falling under Schedule III except Entry 5 will not be considered as 'value of exempted supply' for purpose of reversal of ITC of common input services, therefore, the value of the transaction referred above will not form part of value of the exempt supply - Further, the applicant directs the FTWZ warehouse keeper to deliver the goods to a customer chosen by the applicant - Under Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act, the place of supply in such cases shall be the location of goods at the time at which the movement of goods terminates for the delivery to the recipient - Further, the applicant i.e. supplier is situated in Hyderabad, Telangana State whereas the goods are delivered in Other States, therefore it is an inter-state supply - Hence, the applicant need not obtain any registration in the Other State in order to effect such inter-state transactions: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-03-HC-SIKKIM-GST

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Dispute relates to the rejection of the petitioners claims for budgetary support under a "Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax" regime on the ground that the claims were made for the period prior to the registration which is impermissible. Held: Although the application for registration and issuance of UID made by the petitioner had been received by the respondent No. 3 on 12.12.2017, the authority neither registered the petitioner nor rejected the application compelling the petitioner to re-apply for the same electronically pursuant to which registration and UID was granted on 31.10.2018 - The fact that registration and UID was granted makes it evident that the petitioner was eligible for the budgetary support under the scheme - Since, the Respondent No. 3 failed to grant the registration to the petitioner, although it was an eligible unit, the petitioner could not have made their claims for budgetary support before being allotted the UID - The impugned orders rejected the petitioner's claim for budgetary support on that sole ground without examining the application as to how much of the amount claimed was liable to be sanctioned as admissible amount of budgetary support - The stand of the respondents is fallacious as it is not only without substance but clearly illegal inasmuch as it sought to take advantage of its own wrong and deprive the petitioner of its rights under the scheme - Once a unit is found to be an eligible unit, the only question kept open to the authorities is the admissible amount of budgetary support from the claims made by the eligible unit on compliance of the requirement of the scheme - Impugned orders are set aside and writ petition is allowed - It is directed that the authorities shall process the four claims made by the petitioner for budgetary support and sanction reimbursements as found eligible within three months: High Court [para 16, 17]

- Petition allowed: SIKKIM HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-02-HC-MAD-ST

SA Foundations Pvt Ltd Vs ACGST & CE

ST - Petitioner submits that they have merely joined hands with two other owners and sold about 19.07 acres of land, of which, 5.43 acres belongs to the petitioner; that the activity undertaken by the petitioner does not amount to service within the meaning of Section 65(B)(44), which specifically excludes transfer of title and goods or immovable property by way of sale, gift or in any other manner - Petitioner has also questioned the jurisdiction of the respondent on the issuance of show cause notice. Held: It is for the petitioner to convince the appellate authority to come to a conclusion that no taxable service has been provided; that the SCN was contrary to Rule 5 of the Place of Provisions of Service Rules, 2012 - All these are disputed question of facts which have to be determined only by the authorities acting under the hierarchy Act - All these issues and facts will have to be settled up to the stage of the Tribunal and thereafter, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner can file an appeal before the High Court or Supreme Court depending upon the nature of the case - Since the matter involves the disputed question of facts as to whether any service was provided or not, Bench is not inclined to admit this writ petition - Petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 8 to 10]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-01-HC-MAD-CUS

Srilak Shipping Services Vs CC

Cus - In main petition, an order of Prohibition of Customs Brokers License (CBL) made under Section 15 of CBLR, 2018 - It is revenue's emphatic say that the impugned order elapsed on 25.07.2021 by operation of first Proviso to Regulation 15 of said Regulation - It is not necessary to delve into such aspects of matter therefore, there is no fetters on petitioner in sofar as impugned order is concerned - Said Regulation is a piece of subordinate legislation made by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in exercise of subordinate legislation making power vested in said Board by Sub Section 2 of section 146 of Customs Act, 1962 - Therefore, as impugned order has elapsed by operation of a statutory provision, this position is not disputed by Revenue and this by itself draws the curtains on captioned petition - All questions including questions raised in captioned writ petition are left open to be canvassed by both sides, if the need arises on a future date in this regard: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-03-CESTAT-CHD

Vij Engineers And Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein cenvat credit on paint has been denied - The paint which has been procured by appellant have been supplied alongwith tower and the value of paint has been included in value of tower on which duty has been paid - Relying on the decision of Ajri Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-439-CESTAT-MUM , appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on paint - Further, paint is essential for safeguard of tower; therefore, it is an accessory which do qualify as input in terms of Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004 - Cenvat credit is allowed to the appellant on paints and the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2022-TIOL-02-CESTAT-AHM

Jayesh C Patel Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellants have undertaken the job of manufacturing Plastic Jars and Containers in factory of service recipient by the help of their own manpower - The dispute is whether such activity falls under supply of Manpower and Recruitment Service or Job work manufacturing - Appellants have entered into the contract for undertaking manufacturing of Plastic Jars and containers in factory of Service recipient - The charges for job is on per container basis, appellants are not collecting fixed wages or salary against providing the manpower - Therefore, the activity carried out by appellant is of Job Work manufacturing and not of Manpower Recruitment Service - On the same set of facts in respect of other contractors providing services to the same service recipient, Tribunal has considered the matter in case of Ramesh Chandra C. Patel which shows that the contractor has provided same service to the service recipient and it is held that it does not fall under Manpower Recruitment service - The services cannot be classified under the head of manpower recruitment service: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-01-CESTAT-ALL

Kesar Enterprises Vs CCGST

CX - The assessee-company is engaged in manufacture of sugar and alcohol in its factory - A team of Central Excise officers visited assessee's factory and examined the records - The assessee deposited an amount as directed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut vide Order - An SCN was issued to the assessee, which was contested - The Commissioner vide O-i-O confirmed the demand of Rs.2,00,59,303/- and imposed equal amount of penalty & also ordered for appropriation of amount already deposited - On further appeal, the Tribunal sustained part of the demand and set aside the interest and penalty - Consequently, the assessee claimed refund along with interest - The Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund but held that no refund was payable since the Section 11BB did not cover the same - On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, and held that interest liability would arise only after 3 months from the date of filing of refund application. Held - The Division Bench of this Tribunal in Parlo Agro (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST had held that interest on pre-deposit made during investigation had been enhanced to 12% from the earlier 6%, following the verdict of the Apex Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. - Following these judgments, the Adjudicating Authority directed to grant interest @ 12% p.a. from date of deposit of duty till date of its refund - Such interest be disbursed within two months from date of receipt of this order: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT