I-T - Re-opening of assessment based on change of opinion if AO relies on material already available during original assessment & hence unsustainable: HC

I-T - Exparte order warrants being quashed where assessee is unable to participate in hearing due to death of its counsel: HC

I-T - Deduction u/s 10B cannot be disallowed after picking any one particular AY out of the total ten consecutive AYs, without offering any explanation : HC

I-T - Pr. CIT is in error in exercising revisional jurisdiction when AO has taken a possible view : ITAT

I-T - Employee's contribution to PF & ESI cannot be disallowed through retrospective application of amended provisions of Sec 43B: ITAT

GST - Where an adverse decision is contemplated, such a person even need not to request for hearing - mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of hearing: HC

GST - Refusal to comply with order of Commissioner(A) - Assistant Commissioner could not have sat in appeal against an order passed by his Superior Authority: HC

GST - Refund pending since 2020 - Counsel for Respondent Revenue undertakes to decide the claim within three weeks: HC

TNVAT - Dismissal of appeal cannot automatically lead to dismissal of rectification application: HC

GST - Construction of tunnel by drilling and blasting method is a composite supply and is taxable @12%: AAR

ST - When activity of leasing of vacant land has become taxable only w.e.f. 1.7.2010, amount received by appellant for such activity prior to 1.7.2010 cannot be subject to levy of service tax: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-229-HC-ALL-GST

Bharat Mint And Allied Chemicals Vs CCT

GST - Petitioner submits that the impugned assessment order creating demand of tax, interest and penalty, has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing contemplated in Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 and hence deserves to be quashed.

Held: From perusal of Section 75(4) of the Act, it is evident that opportunity of hearing has to be granted by authorities under the Act where either a request is received from the person chargeable with tax or penalty for opportunity of hearing or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person - It prima facie appears that where an adverse decision is contemplated against the person, such a person even need not to request for opportunity of hearing and it appears to be mandatory for the authority concerned to afford opportunity of hearing - Counsel for Revenue prays for and is granted a week's time to enable the respondents to file counter affidavit – Matter to be put up on 11.02.2022 as a fresh case - As an interim measure, it is provided that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the demand created under the impugned order till the next date fixed: High Court

- Matter posted: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-228-HC-MUM-GST

Globus Petroadditions Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Order dated 12/02/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in refund claim described in prayer clause (a) of the petition and prays for allowing the said claim in its entirety.

Held : Perusal of the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner indicates that he has refused to comply with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) by recording reasons as to why the said Order cannot be complied with as if the Assistant Commissioner was sitting in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Assistant Commissioner could not have refused to comply with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) on the ground that a decision was taken to impugn the said Order dated 14/10/2019 before GST Tribunal or on other ground recorded by the Assistant Commissioner about his dissent not to follow the said Order passed by his Superior Authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals-II) - Impugned order is quashed and set aside - Assistant Commissioner is directed to comply with the Orders in Appeal dated 14/10/2019 and 29/10/2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) Central Tax Pune, within four weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 11, 13]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-227-HC-DEL-GST

Prerna Enterprises Vs Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax

GST - Petitioner seeks refund of Rs.88,13,408/- along with applicable interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act; that in terms of Section 54(6) and 54(7) of the CGST Act read with rule 91(2) of the CGST Rules, the proper officer is required to refund at least 90 per cent of the refund claimed on account of zero-rated supply of goods or services or both made by registered person within a period of seven days from the date of acknowledgment issued under sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 90, and as per section 54(7), the same shall be refunded in its entirety within sixty days from the date of receipt of the said application; that the time limits have already expired in the present case.

Held : Counsel for Revenue undertakes that the Petitioner's refund application shall be decided in accordance with law within three weeks - Undertaking given is accepted and the Respondents are held bound by the same - Writ petition is disposed of - Matter listed for compliance on 9 th March 2022: High Court [para 4, 7]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-26-AAR-GST

Kapil Sons

GST - In relation to the work awarded under EPC Agreement, the main contractor engaged the applicant for a sub-contracting arrangement for the construction of tunnel by drilling and blasting method and issued a work order for subject work - Applicant seeks an advance ruling as to whether the activity carried out shall be classified as supply of goods or services or a composite supply of 'Works Contract'; whether classifiable as Composite supply under Entry no. 3(iv) of 11/2017-CTR and taxable @12%.

Held : Impugned activity/supply undertaken by the applicant as per the Work Order received from M/s NECL is "drilling and blasting including all tools, materials, explosive vans etc. complete for approach roads and Tunnel Works" - In the subject case, there is definitely involvement of supply of services in the form of drilling and blasting and clearing of rubble etc. - Further, to perform such services there is requirements of goods which include explosives - The service of drilling and blasting cannot be conducted without the use of explosives and, therefore, there is an element of composite supply - Said supply will be covered under Entry 3(iv) of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and is taxable @12% - Similar view has been taken by the Advance Ruling Authority of Gujarat in case of M/s KHEDUT HAT [ 2018-TIOL-173-AAR-GST ] that blasting work with use of explosives is a composite supply: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-234-HC-MAD-VAT

Sri Mahalakshmi Pharma Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)

In writ, the High Court observes that the assessee was negligent in not furnishing the required documents and informations which were called for under Section 22(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The assessee was also served an SCN. Nonetheless, the Court quashes the assessment order considering the lockdown imposed in the district in which the assessee is located. The Court remands the matter to the officer concerned for re-consideration.

- Case remanded: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-226-HC-MAD-VAT

S A John Basha Vs State Tax Officer

Whether where assessee's appeal is dismissed, the same cannot mean that application for rectification filed u/s 55 of the TNGST Act can be dismissed without discussion - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-147-CESTAT-MAD

Sri City Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The issue arises is, whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the amount received by them prior to 1.7.2010 for leasing vacant land - The department has relied on Notfn 36/2010-ST to allege that the amount received by them are mere advances and that the said consideration has to be apportioned to future period after 1.7.2010 when the activity of leasing vacant land has become taxable - This view taken by department is entirely erroneous - When the activity of leasing of vacant land has become taxable only with effect from 1.7.2010, the amount received by appellant for such activity prior to 1.7.2010 cannot be subject to levy of service tax even though the lease may extend after the period 1.7.2010 - The issue stands covered by decision of High Court of Allahabad in case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority - Similar view was taken by Tribunal in case of Tuticorin Port Trust 2018-TIOL-3910-CESTAT-MAD - Following the said decisions, demand cannot sustain - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-146-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs Dr Rai Memorial Cancer Institute

Cus - The issue arises for consideration is as to whether the apparatus imported by assessee-importer would be classifiable under CTH 90229030 as claimed by importer or the main instrument to be classified under 90221490 as 'other equipment' under different heading as proposed by SCN and confirmed by Adjudicating Authority - Assessee-importers have argued on the issue of limitation - SCN alleges that the assessments initially were made by assessee-importer by wrongly claiming the exemption notification and mis declaring the classification of goods and therefore extended period is rightly invokable - However, it is a fact that they have filed Bill of Entry on line - However, ongoing through the records, it is evident that the departmental officers have examined and assessed the goods and only after their satisfaction the goods were released and payment was allowed availing the exemption - Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment initially was done by importer himself - Though the assessee-importer has filed Bill of Entry in EDI system goods were subjected to open examination and the proper officer has examined the goods and forwarded it to the concerned group for assessment - Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Bills of Entry were subjected to self-assessment - This being the case, it is not open for department to issue SCN invoking longer period and that too alleging suppression or misdeclaration with intent to evade payment of duty - Appeal of importer succeeds on the issue of limitation and therefore Tribunal need not go into the merits of the case: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-145-CESTAT-DEL

Hindustan Perfumers Vs CCGST