I-T - Re-assessment proceedings are unsustainable when there is no failure on assessee's part to make full and true disclosure of facts necessary for assessment: HC

I-T - Application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme cannot be rejected solely on grounds that assessee's application for withdrawal of appeal was pending disposal: HC

I-T - Where exercise of power results in civil consequences, the rules of natural justice will apply unless the law specifically excludes their application : HC

I-T - Any debatable point of law does not qualify as mistake apparent on face of the record: HC

I-T - Assessment made by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A without any incriminating material is bad in law : ITAT

I-T - Depreciation in respect of resort cannot be denied on grounds of occupancy for less than 180 days where occupancy depends on tourist seasons: ITAT

GST - Final hearing concluded - Applicant cannot be allowed to withdraw application seeking an advance ruling: AAR

GST - RO plant/system is an essential necessity for the ship crew but not for the ship - concessional rate not available; chargeable @ 18%: AAR

VAT - Assessment order merits being quashed, where order is non-speaking & is passed without considering assessee's replies to notice : HC

GST - Detention of lorry as no document with regard to movement of goods produced - release sought - Court will not interfere - proceeding to be taken to logical conclusion: HC

2022-TIOL-25-AAR-GST

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt Ltd

GST - Application filed on 13.07.2021 seeking a ruling on a couple of questions - After the final hearing was held on 23.11.2021, the applicant made further submissions on 04.01.2022 and later vide email dated 10.01.2022 requested that they made be allowed to voluntarily withdraw their application.

Held: After final hearing has been conducted and concluded, the request of the applicant for withdrawal of their application cannot be acceded to: AAR

GST - Applicant has sought a ruling on the applicable rate of GST on supply of reverse osmosis plant/system (RO plant/system) to Indian Navy/Coast Guard in normal course as well as when supplied for installation on a warship.

Held: Impugned goods being in the nature of additional equipment used in ships and not parts of ship (which are so essential that the ships cannot sail without them) cannot be considered for concessional rate of GST in terms of Sr. no. 252 of notification 1/2017-CTR - Subject goods are covered under CH 8421 and attract GST @ 18% in view of Sr. no. 322 to Schedule III of 1/2017-CTR - Fresh water is very essential necessity for the members/crew of the vessel in terms of drinking water, water for cooking, etc. especially when the ship is out for a long haul but such essential necessity of the impugned equipment is for the crew/members and not for the ship as a whole - Impugned goods, therefore, cannot be considered as parts so as to be given the benefit of concessional rate of tax as per Sr. no. 252 of 01/2017-CTR - Tax applicable is @18% in both the cases: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-189-HC-AP-GST

Chillale Sanjiv Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

GST - Petitioner seeks release of lorry vehicle detained by the authorities as being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice - Petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle which was detained on the plea that no document with regard to movement of goods was produced when the vehicle was stopped for physical verification; that the law does not permit detention of vehicle as only the consignment/goods is liable for the same.

Held:   Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter - Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 129(2) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, as also that once such proceeding has been initiated, the same is now required to be taken to its logical conclusion - Writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to get the proceeding which has already been initiated by the authorities taken to its logical conclusion besides praying before the authorities concerned for provisional release of  vehicle - Apex court decision in Kay Pan Fragrance P Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-517-SC-GST relied upon: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Petition disposed of: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-192-HC-MAD-VAT

Avone Automobiles Vs STO

Whether assessment order merits being quashed, where the order is non-speaking and where it is passed without considering the assessee's replies to notice - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-191-HC-MAD-VAT

Anugraha Traders Vs STO

In writ, the High Court quashes the assessment order on the grounds that the AO proceeded to pass the orders straightaway without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. Hence the Court observes that such order contravenes the principles of natural justice. Thus the Court remands the matter for re-consideration.

- Matter remanded: MADRAS HIGH COU

2022-TIOL-133-CESTAT-DEL

Ishwar Metal Industries Vs CCE & CGST

ST - The claim of refund filed by appellant was rejected by lower authority - Appellant was aware of liability and also declared the same in their ST-3 returns filed with the Department - Service tax was not leviable on services provided by appellant, which was paid by mistake by appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund - This fact is more evident as the services provided by appellants are - route survey, design, supply of material for construction, erection and commissioning of 33KV D/C Line on Panther Conductor for 2.5 km from 132 KV GSS, Equipment for the work of urban focus programme, equipment for providing HVD/LVD system - Further Limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit in view of the judgement passed by Madras High Court in its ruling in 3 E Infotech 2018-TIOL-1268-HC-MAD-ST - As far as applicability of unjust enrichment, in view of the work orders, which were issued to appellants in competitive open bid, as per contract it is clear that the prices are firm in all respect and independent of any variation - It is also not in dispute that the appellants have not charged any service tax in their invoices - Unjust enrichment is also not applicable - Accordingly, adjudicating authority is directed to grant refund of the said amount in cash, as required under Transitional Provisions of CGST Act within 45 days and is further directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from end of three months from the date of refund application by appellant, till the date of grant of refund: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-132-CESTAT-DEL

Neo Corp International Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appeal is taken up for ex parte hearing as assessee is not appearing in matter for last several dates - This is the second round of litigation - Earlier this dispute had come up before this Tribunal in appeal by assessee wherein vide the Final Order No. 54684/2016-EX (SM), dated 01.11.2016, 2016-TIOL-3179-CESTAT-DEL , this Tribunal on merits held against the assessee - However, on limitation, matter was remanded - Pursuant to remand, the Joint Commissioner, after examining the reply and after granting the personal hearing, when Advocate of assessee appeared and submitted the defence reply and also stated that they shall submit additional reply within a period of week - In spite of opportunities granted, no further reply was filed - Further, Adjudicating Authority decided the issue against the assessee - In appeal filed by assessee before Commissioner (Appeals), the ground of limitation was decided against assessee - As assessee has not been appearing for last several dates, in spite of repeated notices by Tribunal, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT