I-T - Section 68 is inapplicable to assessee who has no sum credited in books in relevant FY : ITAT

I-T - Case can be remanded back for reconsideration as ab hoc addition of notional annual value of house property is not correct: ITAT

I-T- In absence of contrary proved by Revenue and following order passed by Co-ordinate bench of ITAT on identical facts in earlier years, claim made u/s 80IA can be allowed : ITAT

I-T - Following order passed by co-ordinate bench in previous year on identical facts, action of CIT(E) exercising revisional jurisdiction can be disapproved : ITAT

I-T- Deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) cannot be denied in respect of entire housing project, merely because one unit is in excess of 1500 square feet : ITAT

I-T - CIT(A) order estimating income of assessee by applying net profit rate of 1% to gross turnover can be allowed as there is no case of bogus purchases : ITAT

CX - Periodical SCNs were issued seeking denial of CENVAT credit - As availment of credit on the said services was under judicial scrutiny, extended period of limitation is not invokable: CESTAT

GST - Supply of safe drinking water for public purpose - Supply is only sale simpliciter i.e., sale of potable water - Not supply of ‘service' - Nil rate GST: AAR

2022-TIOL-319-HC-AHM-GST

Ashok Industries Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The applicant has incurred a liability to pay tax alongwith penalty and interest under provisions of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act - After the assessment order came to be passed, a rectification assessment order came to be passed reducing the liability - Court do not intend to look into legality and validity of assessment order as well as rectified assessment order - An assessment order being an appealable order, this Court in exercise of its writ-jurisdiction should not interfere - Applicant is also aggrieved by action on the part of concerned authority in passing an order of provisional attachment of his immovable property in exercise of powers under Section-45 of the Act - The order of provisional assessment is dated 30.07.2020 - The order of provisional assessment has outlived its statutory time period - As on date, it can be said to no longer in operation - The respondent is directed to provide one copy of original assessment order to applicant within a period of one week: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-318-HC-AHM-GST

HBS Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The subject matter of challenge is to the impugned SCN in Form GST MOV - 10 as well as to impugned notice in Form GST MOV -06 - Since the applicant has already deposited an amount towards tax and penalty, court order provisional release of goods and conveyance pending confiscation proceedings - The applicant shall file an undertaking on oath with concerned authority that in the event if goods and vehicle is confiscated by way of a final order that may be passed under Section 130 of the Act, then he shall pay redemption fine with interest subject to his right to challenge such order by way of an appeal before appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act - The two issues raised by applicant on merits shall be considered on returnable date: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-317-HC-AHM-GST

Rafik Alibhai Makvana Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Cancellation of registration - Before passing impugned order, a SCN was issued - In the past, twice such SCNs were issued and those were ordered to be dropped or to put in other words, such SCNs were discharged - The order cancelling the registration is something beyond vagueness - Scores of petitions of present type come up everyday because of such absurd and vague orders being passed by officers of GST Department - Over a period of time, this High Court must have passed not less than hundred orders criticising such vague SCNs and vague final orders cancelling registration - Why the officers are not ready to understand and improve themselves - Impugned order cancelling the registration is hereby quashed and set aside: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-33-AAR-GST

Chennai Water Desalination Ltd

GST - Applicant seeks to know as to whether GST is applicable on supply of safe drinking water for public purpose by Chennai Water Desalination Plant Limited (CWDL) to Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board(CMWSSB) a Government Authority.

Held: Activity of the applicant is not services and is only sale simpliciter i.e., sale of potable water, obtained after the process of desalination of sea water - Product water is falling under HS code 2201 & is entitled to Nil rate of GST in terms of Notification 2/2017-CTR; Sr. no. 99 - Water [other than aerated, mineral, purified, distilled, medicinal, ionic, battery, de-mineralized and water sold in sealed container]: AAR

GST - Transaction of supply of safe drinking water by applicant to CMWSSB does not merit to be classified as 'services' and hence no question of considering its eligibility for exemption under Sl.No.3 Of the Notification no.12/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-320-HC-MAD-CUS

Pr.CC Vs Huawei Telecommunications India Company Pvt Ltd

Cus - The assessee-company is engaged in manufacture and sale of Telecom related equipment in India - The assessee had filed a writ petition seeking direction be issued calling for records relating to SCN issued to the assessee and also to quash the same - Such SCN pertained to levy of Anti Dumping duty for the relevant period - The assessee sought that directions be issued to forbear the Revenue from raising demand for ADD.

Held - The issue involved in this intra-court appeal is, as to whether the appellant has power to issue a subsequent notification dated 05.01.2015, after the period of validity of the earlier notification dated 16.12.2010 lapsed on the expiry of five years on 07.12.2014 - This issue is no longer res integra as it was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited - Therefore the order passed by the Single Judge stands: HC

- Writ appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-314-HC-P&H-CUS

UoI Vs Kulbhushan Jain

Cus - Revision petition is directed against impugned order, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 invoking Section 155 of Customs Act, 1962 seeking rejection of plaint, has been dismissed - Requirement of issuing notice to respondents is dispensed with given that the amount involved in litigation herein too small so as to un-necessarily burden the respondent with litigation cost before this Court - Concededly, what has been challenged by way of Civil Suit is alleged to be wrong levy of customs and on account thereof, the petitioner has sought recovery of Rs.15,000/- labeling his claim as a suit for damages - The said relief cannot be granted without going into veracity/legality of orders passed by Customs Officer - Impugned order is set aside - As a consequence thereof, plaint filed by plaintiff is directed to be returned to plaintiff with liberty to approach Appellate Authority under the Act ibid - It is, however, made clear that the time taken by plaintiff to pursue his Civil Suit before the Court below shall be excluded while computing the limitation for filing appeal, in case, plaintiff chooses to approach Appellate Authority: HC

- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-195-CESTAT-BANG

ITC Ltd Vs CCT

CX - Various input services were being distributed by appellants Head Office located at Kolkata which is having centralized Service Tax Registration -  SCNs were issued  to deny CENVAT credit on following services namely Air Travel Agent Service, Tour Operator Service, Cable Operator, Construction Service, Interior Decorator Service, Outdoor Catering Service and Membership of Club or Association Service - It was held that the said services  are not ‘input services' as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and are not used in the factory premises of the appellant.  

Held: Above mentioned services were used by appellant for their business operation of manufacturing of excisable goods - Hence no merit in the impugned order denying the credit - Tribunal decision in appellant ' s own case reported as  2017-TIOL-1981-CESTAT-BANG . & 2017- TIOL-1894-CESTAT-BANG relied upon: CESTAT [para 6.1]

CX - Limitation - Periodical show-cause notices have been issued to the appellant and during the impugned period issue of availment of cenvat credit on the services was under judicial scrutiny, in that circumstances extended period of limitation is not invokable: CESTAT [para 6]

- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2022-TIOL-194-CESTAT-MAD

Sundaram Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Appellants are engaged in tyre retreading activity - The department entertained a view that the activity of retreading of tyres falls under Works Contract Service (WCS) and the appellants classified the service under Maintenance or Repair Service - The issue whether the appellant can discharge service tax on the gross amount charged under Section 67 of FA, 1994 and also avail Cenvat Credit for WCS in the nature of retreading activity was analysed by Tribunal in appellant's own case for the period prior to 01.07.2012 as well as for the period after 01.07.2012 - The Tribunal followed the decision in case of S.V. Jiwani 2014-TIOL-559-CESTAT-AHM - This decision was challenged before High Court of Bombay by department and vide judgment 2016-TIOL-503-HC-MUM-ST , the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the department - Similar view was taken by Tribunal in case of Interarch Building Products P. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-35-CESTAT-ALL - Moreover, the decision of High Court of Bombay has been accepted by the department as per their Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX - Applying the decision in appellant's own case, the impugned orders cannot sustain, same are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-193-CESTAT-AHM

Shekhawati Geotech Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of Texturized Yarn - They made few clearances of goods on payment of duty and cleared remaining goods without payment of duty availing benefit of exemption under Notfn 30/2004-CE - It was noticed that appellant had availed Cenvat Credit and cleared their finished goods without payment of duty availing benefit of Notfn - SCN was issued proposing denial of exemption Notfn and consequent demand of duty, it was also proposed to demand interest, and to impose penalty and appropriate 6% amount paid by appellant - The said SCN was adjudicated whereby proposals of demand made in SCN was confirmed - Case of department is that appellant have availed credit therefore the condition of notfn 30/2004-CE was violated and consequently appellant is not eligible for exemption - Appellant right from adjudication stage and before this appellate Tribunal submitted that there is specific provision under rule 6 (3D) according to which even if Cenvat credit is availed and reversal of an amount at the rate of 6% is made it will amount to non availment of Cenvat credit and the condition of notification stands complied with - Adjudicating authority has not touched upon Rule 6(3D) of CCR, 2004 while deciding eligibility of exemption notfn 30/2004-CE - Main defence of appellant is on Rule 6(3D) but since the same was not considered by Adjudicating authority and no independent finding was given, impugned orders are non speaking therefore the same are not sustainable - Accordingly, matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh de-novo order within a period of three months: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT