I-T - Any amount recovered as pre-deposit in excess of mandated 20% of tax amount involved, merits being refunded to assessee : HC

I-T - When management and employees are involved in decision-making process for making investment and maintaining it, administrative expenses must be disallowed u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D : ITAT

I-T - If purpose of refund of on-money receipts stands duly explained together with its modus-operandi, then no addition u/s 69 is warranted on account of negative cash balance: ITAT

I-T - Payment of interest on late remittance of Service Tax is neither an offence nor prohibited by law: ITAT

Cus - Drawback - Misdeclaration of export goods - Truth will come out if respondents are directed to complete investigation expeditiously: HC

NDPS - Grant of Bail - Court is required to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of offence and that he will not involve himself in an offence under NDPS Act while on bail: HC

GST - Date of cancellation of registration is from the date the petitioner had applied and not from the date when its registration was cancelled by respondent: HC

VAT - Assessment order is unsustainable where passed by an officer different from officer who conducted personal hearing for assessee : HC

VAT - Writ remedy cannot be exercised where appellate remedy is available: HC

ST - Assistance rendered by appellants to their member farmers in auctioning their agricultural produce does not amount to rendering any service classifiable under 'Auctioneers' Service: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-181-HC-DEL-GST

Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs ACGST Department

GST - Section 29 of the Act, 2017 - Inability to continue business due to deteriorating health - Cancellation sought of GSTIN - Petition has been filed seeking a direction to Respondent No. 1 to comply with the order dated 5th April, 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in its letter and spirit thereby allowing the petitioner to surrender his GSTIN voluntarily w.e.f. 4th March, 2020 to forebear from giving effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said impugned order dated 30th July, 2021. Held: Appellate Authority has passed a clear and cogent order - It is apparent that the registration has been cancelled at the request of the petitioner and the Appellate Authority has categorically held that the Petitioner was entitled to discontinue its business - Further, the date of cancellation of registration is from the date the petitioner had applied for i.e. 4th March, 2020 and not from the date when its registration was cancelled by the respondent No. 1 - Writ petition is allowed and the Respondent No. 1 is directed to comply with the order dated 5th April, 2021 by allowing the petitioner to surrender his GSTIN voluntarily w.e.f. 4th March, 2020: High Court [para 6, 7, 9]

- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-188-HC-MAD-VAT

Gold Mine Hotels Vs ACCT

Whether an assessment order is sustainable where passed by an officer different from the officer who conducted personal hearing for the assessee - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-180-HC-MAD-VAT

M S Marketing Vs STO

In writ, the High Court observes it to be settled position in law that writ petitions cannot be entertained where the appellate remedy provided under the relevant statute is available to the assessee. Hence the Court relegates the assessee to avail appellate remedy.

- Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-183-HC-MUM-CUS

Kaka Carpets Vs UoI

Cus - Drawback - Export of goods (other fabrics) declared under CTH 50072090 - Petitioner inter alia prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned provisional release order dated 4th January, 2022 - It is submitted that the respondents have without any justification placed the petitioner under put alert list causing tremendous hardship in respect of the export already held by the petitioner and also in respect of the export likely to be effected by the petitioner in future - Respondent Revenue alleges misdeclaration of goods being exported/exported. Held: If the respondents are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously, the issue would be resolved once for all - Bench directs the respondents to complete the investigation already started by the respondents alleging misdescription in respect of the export of goods already completed by the petitioner in past and also in respect of the exports which are subject matter of this petition within a period of four months - There are serious allegations made by the respondents in the order of seizure memo as well as in the impugned order permitting provisional release and truth will come out in the investigation - Interest of justice would be met with if the order of provisional release is modified by permitting the petitioner to export goods in question on submission of bond equivalent to declared value of goods and submission of bank guarantee to the extent of 20% of the duty drawback payable - Petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents for waiver in the matter of detention charges - Impugned order of provisional release dated 4th January, 2022 is modified - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 12, 15, 18, 19, 23]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-182-HC-DEL-NDPS

Gaurav Mendiratta Vs NCB

NDPS - s.37 of the Act, 1985 - Psychotropic substances - 5000 tablets of Alprazolam weighing 1 kg and 50000 - tablets of Zolpidem weighing 12.500 kg - Petitioner seeks bail. Held: No recovery has been affected from the petitioner - Before the Court grants bail to an accused allegedly involved in an offence under the NDPS Act, the Court is required to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not involve himself in an offence under the NDPS Act while on bail - Though the petitioner is involved in an earlier offence and is facing trial therein, however, he has been granted bail in the said case - Even the witness Satpal does not say that the petitioner delivered the parcels to him nor is the statement of Danish recorded who could identify the person who delivered the contraband to him - Petitioner has been in custody since January, 2019 and considering the evidence against him, Court deems it fit to grant regular bail pending decision of the trial - Consequently, petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 17, 18]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-131-CESTAT-MUM

Shiva Steel Industries Nagpur Ltd Vs CCE & C

CX - The proceedings initiated in respective SCNs were in continuation of notice for period from 2003-04 to 2007-08 alleging clandestine production of 'mild steel' ingots from 'sponge iron', 'pig iron', cast iron and scrap evidenced by disproportionate consumption of raw material and energy in comparison with standard – 687 units of electrical energy and 10 kg of silicomanganese required for production of one ton of 'mild steel' ingot and by the sale thereof disguised as income of over Rs. 54,00,000 from an unutilized weighbridge between 2003-04 and 2010-11 - For the appellant, electrical energy is the most significant input and production slips for a particular part of period prior to present demand did indicate power consumption of 687 units per metric ton of production - It is not on record that the veracity of recovered production slips had been acknowledged as referring to any activity other than the period to which these pertained; to appropriate it for a later period stretches credibility almost to the breaking point - The gap between energy consumption, as determined from the production slips, and the claimed consumption for the impugned period may appear to be improbable but that does not, of its own, signify impossibility - In absence of any supporting evidence, it would appear that the duty leviability on manufacture is sought to be imposed on seeming inefficiency in production process - There is also no escapement from factual determination of trial production in two shifts conducted under aegis of central excise authorities - The failure to maintain prescribed records are no less attributable to the lack of monitorial oversight prescribed under Central Excise Rules, 2002 than the probability of having been suppressed to disable investigations into possible evasion of duty - That mutual disregard of obligation cannot be the bedrock for presuming clandestine removals by application of formulae - There is no explanation forthcoming in impugned orders for discarding of energy consumption determined during the trial production except to cast doubts by relying upon reports that, admittedly, did not test the furnace deployed by appellant - Impugned order is bereft of sufficient facts and evidence to be sustained in appellate proceeding - Consequently, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-130-CESTAT-MAD

Mettupalayam Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Appellant is engaged in conducting of auction of goods and property for a consideration - Revenue opined that this constitutes a taxable service under "Auctioneers' Service" and the appellants are required to pay service tax - Appellant submits that they are only facilitating the auction and actual auction would be carried out by owners of agricultural produce and prospective buyers; they have no role in fixing the sale price - They charge only a fixed percentage of commission / market fee at the prescribed rates - I mpugned order does not survive in view of decision in M/s. Attur Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. 2019-TIOL-3058-CESTAT-MAD - Assistance rendered by appellants to their member farmers in auctioning their agricultural produce does not tantamount to rendering any service classifiable under "Auctioneers' Service": CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-129-CESTAT-AHM

Shashikant J Parmar Vs CC

Cus - Appellant was imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by Adjudicating authority which was reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 75 Lacs - The penalty was imposed on the allegation that appellant was involved in fraudulent export by over valuing the goods - Appellant is only 9th Standard passed and a very small employee of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL - Undisputedly value was decided and for which an invoice was issued by M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL under signature of Smt. Bharti Gandhi proprietor of firm and appellant has only copied the same details in shipping bill therefore, as regard charge of overvaluation, appellant cannot be made responsible as the entire fraud was committed by employer of appellant M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL through its proprietor Smt. Bharti Gandhi and her son Shri Amish Gandhi - His role as a person signing and filing the Shipping Bill is purely as a role of employee, without involving overvaluation and fraudulent export - Even the appellant had no knowledge to prepare Shipping Bill which was admittedly prepared by CHA, he simply put his signature therefore, the only offence which exist is overvaluation of goods which is not creation of appellant but it was done by his employer firm through Smt. Bharti Gandhi and her son Shri Amish Gandhi - The exorbitant penalty of Rs. 75 Lacs is not justified - Since the appellant is not involved in main offence of over valuation of goods but admittedly signed the Shipping Bill, he is liable for some token penalty - Accordingly, same is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT