I-T - Supreme Court dismisses Apex Laboratories claim for deduction u/s 37(1) of Income tax Act on gifts/freebies given by them to doctors: SC

I-T - If order is passed inadvertently u/s 143 sans considering date of filing of return for losses, same certainly is an error apparent on record : HC

I-T - Application for stay u/s 220(6) can't normally be rejected merely describing it to be against interest of Revenue if recovery is not made, in case of high-pitched assessment: HC

I-T - In absence of any tangible material brought on record and shared with assessee, Revenue can not make addition in hands of the assessee : ITAT

I-T - Penalty is imposed only when there is deliberate defa ult not mere mistake/bona fide claim : ITAT

I-T - Since view taken by AO is one of possible view, therefore same cannot be disturbed in proceedings u/s 263 of Act : ITAT

I-T - It cannot be presumed that for handling, overseeing and making tax free investment, no expenditure is incurred and therefore fair estimation should be made for administrative expenditure : ITAT

I-T - Re assessment proceedings can be quashed if AO in reasons recorded for reopening has not indicated any failure on part of assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts : ITAT

Miscellaneous - Financier of transport vehicle is liable to tax under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 from date of taking possession of said vehicle: SC

VAT - Solely because constitutional validity of some provision is currently under challenge, it does not prevents the Department from passing assessment order after invoking said provision : HC

VAT - assessment order contravenes principles of natural justice where passed without giving access to relevant material necessary to file reply to SCN : HC

ST - When availment of credit is not contested by Revenue, appellant having exported the services cannot be disentitled to refund under Rule 5 on the ground that exported services are exempt : CESTAT

2022-TIOL-13-SC-MISC

Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Ltd Vs State of UP

Whether financier of transport vehicle is liable to tax under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 from date of taking possession of said vehicle - YES: SC

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-267-HC-UKHAND-VAT

Heinz India Ltd Vs CCT

Whether solely because constitutional validity of some provision is currently under challenge, the same prevents the Department from passing assessment order after invoking said provision - NO: HC

- Revision petition dismissed: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-266-HC-MAD-VAT

Hanon Automotive Systems India Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Whether assessment order contravenes the principles of natural justice where it is passed without giving the assessee the relevant material necessary to file reply to SCN - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-164-CESTAT-AHM

PD Industries Vs CC

Cus - Appellant had filed bill of Entry wherein the goods imported by them were declared as "Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent" - The samples of product were drawn and sent for testing wherein it is confirmed that the goods imported are having characteristics of Superior Kerosene Oil and falling under CTH 27301910 as against the description of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent classified under CTH 271019990 as declared by importer - As per IS specification for Kerosene i.e. 1459:1974 total eight parameters need to be tested - However, in test report all the parameters were not admittedly tested - High Court of Gujarat directed the revenue to get goods tested from Indian Institute of Petroleum (IIP) - However, department intimated the appellant that testing facilities for this type of work are not available at CSIR-IIP - In this fact the test of parameters of Kerosene could not be done conclusively - Therefore, department did not discharge the burden to prove their case of classification - In the identical facts and situation, this Tribunal has considered the case of Swarna Oil Services 2020-TIOL-970-CESTAT-AHM which is directly applicable - The goods imported by appellant are used as raw material in manufacture of their final product i.e. solvent - Appellant post hearing submitted certain documents such as certificate, invoices copies of their final product and the process flow diagram - This fact also strengthen the case of appellant that the goods imported by them is not Superior Kerosene Oil - Declaration of goods and classification made by appellant in bill of entry is correct and the department's claim of classification as Superior kerosene Oil could not be established - Therefore, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-163-CESTAT-AHM

Modern Petrofils Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Synthetic yarn (POY) - They were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of inputs, input service and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules - Revenue has denied the Cenvat Credit in respect of Furnace Oil used for generation of electricity on the ground that the part of electricity was used by appellant's DTY division and part of credit was disallowed on the ground that the electricity to this extent was used in residential quarters - As regard the issue that whether the Furnace oil is used in appellant's POY unit for generation of electricity and same was used in their DTY unit, same should be considered as outside the factory or otherwise, even though both POY unit and DTY unit are two division but both belongs to one single entity, moreover both the units are located in same premises, merely because both the units have separate central excise registration, it cannot be treated two separate entities, therefore cenvat credit on this ground cannot be denied - However lower authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit relying on judgment in case of Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. 2009-TIOL-94-SC-CX which was subsequently referred to Larger Bench in case of GNFC 2012-TIOL-117-SC-CX - Both sides have not brought on record regarding the outcome of Larger Bench of Supreme Court as on date, accordingly, matter needs to be re-considered on the basis of outcome of said decision - Appellant has made out a strong Prima facie case on limitation which also needs to be re-considered: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-162-CESTAT-BANG

Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd Vs CCE & CST

ST - The appellant have filed refund claim for the period April 2006 to April 2007 seeking refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules r/w Notfn 05/2006-CE (NT) - Revenue issued a SCN to reject the refund on the ground that appellant was engaged in export of non-taxable services i.e. Development of Computer Software; which was not qualifying as exports under Export of Services Rules, 2005 - Commissioner (A) finds in impugned order that adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the refund claim on the ground that Development of Software is not taxable under Clause (105) of Section 65 of FA, 1994 and cannot be treated as 'exports' made under Export of Services Rules, 2005 - The availment of credit is not contested by Revenue and appellants having exported the services cannot be disentitled to refund under Rule 5 on the ground that the exported services are exempt - Appellant have filed a miscellaneous application for seeking interest on delayed payment in terms of Section 11BB of CEA, 1944 - There is no substance in submissions as far as interest on delayed payment is concerned: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT