I-T - Municipal rateable value is set standard for ascertaining ALV; AO erred in disregarding it in favor of expected rent receivable by assessee: ITAT

I-T - Entire discount premium had to be claimed as expenditure in year of vesting: ITAT

I-T - Prior to enabling provision to levy interest u/s 234E, interest for earlier period return due cannot be upheld : ITAT

I-T- Since possible view is taken by AO which cannot be found fault with, PCIT can not set aside assessment order in exercise of power u/s 263 : ITAT

I-T - No additions can be made by Revenue on the basis of suspicion generated by statements and records of third party upon genuineness of share transaction: ITAT

GST - Follow the trail - Only pawns ( paan shop owner) have been brought under the dragnet - Upstream parties who are the gainers in these evil machinations should not escape the noose: HC

GST - There is as such no justification for classifying offences as economic offences and for refusing bail: HC

GST - Bail cannot be refused as an indirect method of punishing the accused person before he is convicted: HC

Cus - Customs duty is not sustainable on raw material when the finished goods have been cleared on payment of excise duty in DTA: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-268-HC-ORISSA-GST

Smruti Ranjan Mohanty Vs State Of Odisha

GST - Petitioners who are in custody since 21.12.2020 have filed bail application in the matter of cases pending against them for commission of offences u/s 132(1)(b), (ic), 1(i) of the OGST Act, 2017 - The District and Sessions Judge had rejected their bail application on 25.01.2020 -  Prosecution's case is that both the Petitioners alongwith other accused, were involved in the creation and operation of 12 fictitious/bogus firms in the name of unconnected persons by mis-utilizing their identity proof  in order to avail and utilize bogus input tax credit of an amount of Rs.20.45 crores on the strength of fraudulent purchase invoices without any physical receipt or actual purchase of goods; evasion of taxes is to the tune of approximately Rs.42.00 crores - In the bail application, it is submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 was a mere employee who has dutifully followed the directions and orders of his superiors - Similarly, Petitioner No. 2 was in no way connected to the case as he is a mere paan shop owner and has no nexus to the alleged fraud in anyway whatsoever and has been embroiled in the matter merely because he is the brother of Petitioner No. 1 - It is further submitted that the alleged fraud has been perpetrated by someone else and the present Petitioners who are mere pawns, have unduly been made scapegoats despite having no involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities - That the Petitioners have wives, young children and a widowed mother who are completely dependent on the Petitioners and are on the brink of starvation due to the absence of the only two earning members in the family especially given the pandemic situation; that given that there is no risk of the Petitioners fleeing given that they reside locally and that they shall not tamper with evidence, they should be released on bail as even trial has not commenced and they have been in custody for over a year.

Held:   Bail, as held in a catena of decisions, is not to be withheld as a punishment - Bail cannot be refused as an indirect method of punishing the accused person before he is convicted - Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind that there is as such no justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category - It cannot, therefore, be said that bail should invariably be refused in cases involving serious economic offences - It is not in the interest of justice that the Petitioners should be in jail for an indefinite period - No doubt, the offence alleged against the Petitioners is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, however, should not deter this Court from enlarging the Petitioners on bail when there is no serious contention of the Respondent that the Petitioners, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence - Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that both the bread earning sons of a family have been in custody for over a year now, Bench does not find any justification for detaining the Petitioners in custody for any longer - As a side note it is observed that more and more such cases are brought to the fore where the mere pawns who have been used as a part of larger conspiracy of tax fraud have been brought under the dragnet by the prosecution - It is perhaps time that the prosecution will do well to follow the trail upstream and bring the "upstream" parties who are the ultimate beneficiaries who are the gainers in these evil machinations - It is directed that the Petitioners in both the BLAPLs be released on bail by the court in seisin  over the matter  in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as deemed fit: High Court  [para 8, 9, 10]

2022-TIOL-161-CESTAT-DEL

Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - Issue arises is as to whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid for availing GTA Service, for despatching their finished goods (outward transportation) on FOR destination basis to their buyers - The 'place of removal' is the premises of buyer, not the factory gate of sellor/appellant, as the finished goods are cleared by appellant on 'FOR destination basis' - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on GTA service for outward transportation of goods on FOR destination basis - The impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-160-CESTAT-CHD

Arpit Advertising Vs CGST

ST - The appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected holding time-barred - The facts which are not disputed by both the sides are that a SCN dated 04.10.2018 was issued to appellant to demand differential service tax on Renting of Immovable Property Service and it was held by Adjudicating authority that appellant is not required to pay service tax under category of Renting of Immovable Property Service vide order dated 16.12.2019, thereafter, appellant has filed refund claim on 16.09.2020 - As the refund claim has been filed within one year from the date of adjudication order, therefore, in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, refund claim is filed within one year, from the relevant date - Refund claim filed by appellant is within time - No merit found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2022-TIOL-159-CESTAT-AHM

Kaybee Tex Spin Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellant, a 100% EOU was engaged in manufacture of Texturized Yarn, Twisted Yarn and Knitted Fabrics - Revenue has confirmed the demand of customs duty on raw material imported duty free in terms of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. on the ground that the appellant have cleared goods in DTA without obtaining permission of Development Commissioner therefore, appellant failed to follow the procedure laid down under Exim policy and failed to fulfil the condition of exemption notification - Though the appellant have not obtained permission from Development Commissioner for removal of goods in DTA but they have paid full duty on finished goods wherein, such imported raw material have been consumed - Once the duty free raw material got consumed in manufacture of final product and the final product is cleared on payment of excise duty then demanding of customs duty on raw material shall amount to double payment of duty - Therefore, no duty of customs can be demanded on such raw material - Appellant have also raised the ground of limitation, since there is no suppression of fact on the part of appellant as all the informations were available to department in the form of ER-2 return, demand for extended period is not sustainable - Demand of customs duty on raw material is not sustainable on merit as well as on limitation - Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT