I-T - Reassessment not tenable when no failure of assessee to fully & truly disclose material facts during original assessment: HC

I-T - Re-opening of assessment cannot be sustained where based on material already available to the AO during original assessment : HC

I-T - Re-assessment is not tenable where initiated at behest of Audit wing: HC

I-T- Since amended provision can not be applied retrospectively, no disallowance can be made by Revenue in respect of PF/ESI paid within the due date of filing return :ITAT

I-T - Value of investment on which exempt income was actually earned during year under consideration, Merits consideration for computing disallowance under Rule 8D: ITAT

Cus - Proper officer- Revenue contends that s.28(11) could not be brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Canon India case- Notice issued and Matter listed: SC

VAT - Demand notice merits being set aside where revisional order crystallising tax liability & penalty has not been made pursuant to pre-revision assessment notice : HC

2022-TIOL-205-HC-AHM-GST

Indrajeet Ramyash Pande Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - Provisional attachment of bank account - The court need not adjudicate this application any further because the statutory life of said order of provisional attachment of bank account has come to an end - The intimation of Bank is dated 20.01.2021 - This would necessarily imply that the order of provisionally attachment must have been passed by Office of Deputy Commissioner any time before 20th - One year period has already elapsed - As on date, the order of provisional attachment cannot be said to be in-force - The IDBI Bank shall now permit the applicant to operate his bank account: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-204-HC-KERALA-GST

Crystal Jewellers Vs State Of Kerala

GST - Petitioner challenges the order issued under Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 - As per averments in petition, it is noticed that the gold ornaments belonging to petitioner was intercepted by respondents and on verification, it was realized that there was no document accompanying the goods - Several factual aspects have been narrated by officer, while arriving at a conclusion of 'intent to evade tax' - All those aspects are factual matters which require an appreciation of disputed facts - It is settled position of law that this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of Constitution when there are disputed facts, especially in matters of taxation - Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act to prefer an appeal and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, even: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-211-HC-MAD-VAT

R Mahimaidoss Vs STO

Whether duty demand raised u/s 84 of the TNVAT Act is sustainable where the assessee did not make any inter-State sales - NO: HC

- Case remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-207-HC-MAD-VAT

Mahadevan Agencies Vs CTO

Whether demand notice merits being set aside where a revisional order crystallising tax liability & penalty has not been made pursuant to pre-revision assessment notice - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-10-SC-CUS

UoI Vs Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd

Cus - High Court followed the apex court decision in Canon India [2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB] and held that Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, cannot be treated as proper officer within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act read with Section 28 of the said Act- Revenue has filed a special leave petition against this order and submits that Section 28(11) of the Customs Act would come to the rescue of the petitioners for the reason that the Additional Director General will be treated as 'proper officer' under the said provision irrespective of the requirement declared in Section 2(34) of the Customs Act; furthermore, that Section 28(11) could not be brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Canon India Private Limited (supra).

Held: Bench is inclined to issue notice in the matter- Matter listed on 08th March, 2022: Supreme Court

- Matter listed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-137-CESTAT-AHM

Hemang Resources Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The Revenue has denied the Exemption Notfn which is available on the basis of Country of Origin on the ground that there are two country of origin certificates issued and both were signed by different Authorities therefore, the Country of Origin Certificate is under serious doubt - Appellant have submitted that after issuance of first Country of Origin Certificate it was signed by Mr. Restiawan Baihaqi, the certificate issuing authority of Indonesian government due to a mistake in HSN they had requested for corrected Country of Origin Certificate accordingly, a correct certificate of origin was issued, duly signed by another authority of Indonesian Government Mr. Rumaiti - It is the submission of appellant that there is no dispute that Mr. Rumaiti was the Country of Origin Certificate signing authority; in this regard they relied upon one Country of Origin Certificate issued in favour of M/s Nirma Limited duly signed by the same authority i.e. Mr Rumaiti - Mr. Restiawan Baihaqi the first Indonesian Government Country of Origin Certificate issuing authority also issued a clarification stating that both the signatories were authorised by their office to duly sign on certificate of origin - The certificate of origin issued second time which is duly signed by Mr. Rumaiti appears to be genuine and authentic - However, the revenue without getting confirmation from Indonesian government about their doubt of authenticity of country of origin certificate concluded that the certificate of origin signed by Mr. Rumaiti is not genuine and consequently denied Exemption Notfn 46/2011 and consequential demand was confirmed - As per the documents submitted by appellant, it appears that there is no doubt on the authenticity of country of origin certificate issued and signed by Mr. Rumaiti - However, to clear any doubt it is the burden on department to get the verification from Indonesian Government regarding authenticity of Certificate of origin which has not been discharged by department - Therefore, in interest of justice, one chance given to department to get the verification from concerned authorities about the genuineness of certificate of origin issued by Mr.Rumaiti, thereafter to pass a fresh order - Accordingly, matter is remand to Adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order preferably within a period of 3 Months: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-136-CESTAT-MAD

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Appellants are engaged in manufacture of steel furniture - It was noticed that during the period from November 2015 to October 2016 and May 2017 to June 2017, appellant availed cenvat credit on commissioning and installation services which appeared to be ineligible in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - As a sequel to notices issued for preceding period time to time, Statements of Demands (SODs) to recover ineligible credit were issued - In statement of demand, it is clearly stated that facts and circumstances leading to the statements of demand are identical to the earlier SCNs - This being so, the authorities below ought to have applied the decision of Tribunal in appellant's own case and allowed the credit - Instead, Adjudicating authority has held that the invoice has been issued in name of Head office of appellant company and that services are rendered at Ambattur plant (Chennai) - There is no law which restricts or prohibits the invoice being issued in name of Head office which has Centralized Registration - The disallowance of credit raising such an issue which is not alleged in SCN cannot sustain - Disallowance of credit is without any legal or factual basis - The impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-135-CESTAT-DEL

Central Mine Planning And Design Institute Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Interest on delayed refund - It is submitted on behalf of department that though the application for refund was filed on 10.11.2017 but the same was incomplete due to which deficiency memo was issued to appellant - The said deficiency could finally be removed by appellant on 14.07.2018 - There is no denial on part of appellant that the application filed by him under section 11B of Central Excise Act for claiming the refund was immediately returned along with deficiency memo - The appellant could remove that deficiency not before 14.07.2018 - Accordingly, said application was complete and proper only on 14.07.2018, to be called as application under section 11B of CEA, 1944, hence can be considered as being filed only on 14.07.2018 - Therefore, no infirmity found in order under challenge where Commissioner (A) has relied upon the decision of Tribunal in case of State Bank of India 2013-TIOL-2156-CESTAT-MUM - Resultantly, the order under challenge is hereby upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT