Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

I-T - Re-opening of assessment is unsustainable where no omission to make full & true disclosure on part of assessee is established: HC

I-T - Re-assessment is unsustainable if sanction for it is granted perfunctorily: HC

I-T - If Department has assured of efforts to ensure that assesses will not face hardships on account of technical glitches in portal, then no direction is called for same: HC

I-T-CIT (A) cannot enhance assessee's income with respect to an issue, not the subject-matter of original assessment : ITAT

I-T- Nature of improvements cannot be regarded as purely temporary erections - 100% depreciation allowed: ITAT

GST - Refund application rejected without recording any reasons - Order is in breach of the provisions of rule 92(3), hence set aside: HC

GST - Applications for Refund of IGST pending since first week of December - Respondent to decide within a period of four weeks: HC

2022-TIOL-152-HC-MUM-GST

Colgate Global Business Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Rule 92(3) of the Rules, 2017 - Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order mainly on the ground that the Respondent No. 3 was bound to record reasons in the Order while rejecting the application for refund.

Held: Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 is in breach of the said provisions and deserves to be set aside - Application for refund made by the Petitioner for the period July 2017 to March 2018 for the sum of Rs.4,33,03,066/- is restored to file before the Respondent No. 3 - Fresh order to be passed within three weeks from the date of granting personal hearing to the Petitioner - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 7]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-151-HC-MUM-GST

RK Copper And Alloy LLP Vs UoI

GST - Refund of IGST - Applications vide letters dated 03/12/2021, 08/12/2021 and 16/12/2021 filed by the Petitioner for seeking refund is pending - Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to sanction refund of IGST amount of Rs.5,80,58,350/- and duty drawback amounting to Rs.39,65,237/- immediately along with interest @24% p.a. and to sanction provisional refund @90% of the disputed amount in terms of Section 54(6) of the Act, 2017.

Held: Bench directs the Respondent No. 3 to decide the applications for refund of IGST and duty drawback within a period of four weeks - If according to the Respondent No. 3 any further investigation is required to be made before granting final refund of IGST as well as duty drawback, the Respondent No. 3 shall pass the order for provisional refund within the time prescribed in terms of Section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6 , 9]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-112-CESTAT-DEL

Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc Vs CC

Cus - Appellant is engaged in activity of carrying on offshore oil exploration/exploitation under contract with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and imported Rig Trident-II - A SCN was issued to appellants proposing confiscation of Rig Trident–II under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 mainly on the ground that bill of entry was not filed - The impugned Rig was seized and such seizure was held by this Bench and was affirmed by Apex Court - The Bill of Entry was filed and finally assessed - The impugned goods herein have the taint of being smuggled - Therefore, the same cannot be treated to be normal imported goods as in the cases relied by appellants - The Bench's observation that the importers may pursue the certificate, if so advised, it was also categorically mentioned that one of the conditions is incapable of being met - It can be further seen that this Bench has not conferred any right to appellant and have not also stated that the essentiality certificate needs to be accepted even though it is not issued by authority designated in terms of impugned Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. and even after the Bill of Entry is finally assessed - Therefore, freedom given by this Bench is to be understood in the backdrop of general tenor of the order and it has to be to be limited subject to fulfilment of conditions of notification - Therefore, argument of appellants on this count cannot come to their rescue - The conditions of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. are also not satisfied, even assuming that the conditions of Notification existing as on the date of filing the Bill of Entry would have to be satisfied - Therefore, no merit found in the alternate claim also - The appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-111-CESTAT-DEL

Precious Electrochem India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant is manufacturer of electroplating and metal finishing chemicals and placed order on one M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. for supply of ingots - Upon receipt of said raw materials, appellant used to utilise the same for manufacture of final product which were sold to third parties on payment of duty - It is the case of department that M/s Unnati Alloys were involved in importing goods from abroad and selling the same in cash - Thereafter, they used to show fake sales and used to transfer inadmissible CENVAT credit, without actual transfer or delivery of goods - Vide the impugned order, Commissioner has confirmed the disallowance of cenvat credit on inputs as well as penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - In the case of similarly situated co-appellant, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s Arya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 2020-TIOL-740-CESTAT-DEL has allowed the appeal of appellants - Following the precedent order of this Tribunal, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-110-CESTAT-DEL

RSPL Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellant is a manufacturer of Detergent Powder, Acid Slurry and Acid Spent which are dutiable - So far the issue of disallowance of cenvat credit on management and maintenance and repair services is concerned, appellant have paid the amount for services provided by Audyogik Kendriya Vikas Nigam (AKVN) which is a statutory body of Government of Madhya Pradesh for providing services – maintenance of road, drainage and street lights - Disallowance is for vague reasons - The cenvat credit received by appellant through ISD invoices is wholly allowable in respect of repair and maintenance services received - Further, the Court below have erred in allowing part of such services and have disallowed the part of amount for no ostensible reasons - Accordingly, the amount disallowed is bad - As regards the demand of 6% on clearance of waste and scrap, the court below has, relying on Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 held that exempted goods also include non-excisable goods after amendment vide Notification No. 6/2015-C.E. (N.T.), wherein Explanation I and II have been inserted - Provisions of Rule 6 ibid is attracted only where the manufacturer clears both manufactured dutiable and exempted goods - Admittedly, the scrap cleared by appellant is not manufactured scrap or scrap arising in course of manufacture of final products or bye-products - Accordingly, provisions of Rule 6 ibid are not attracted - Thus, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT