I-T- Penalty proceedings is bad in law and cannot sustain if AO has not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c), he has initiated proceedings : ITAT

I-T - When assessee establishes identity of creditors w.r.t. loan transactions, AO cannot invoke proviso to sec. 68: ITAT

I-T- Case can be remanded back as assessee still needs to establish that income corresponding to TDS certificate are assessable in relevant year only : ITAT

I-T - Since assessee has already declared net profit on contract receipt as per finding given by CIT (A), no further addition is called for on account of contract receipt from PACL : ITAT

I-T - Society is out of purview of section 2(7)/12(3) if it is already registered under FCRA and is entitled to receive foreign contribution for charitable activities : ITAT

I-T - Even if return of income is revised within prescribed time it does not mean that revised return has to be accepted without there being proper reasons for its acceptability : ITAT

I-T - In absence of contrary being proved by Revenue and following rule of consistency, rule of precedence and decision of coordinate benches in group concerns on identical facts, disallowance made u/s 40A(3) can be removed : ITAT

I-T - Proviso to sec. 40(a)(ia) is applicable only when expenditure claimed by assessee as deduction in earlier AY was disallowed by AO by invoking provisions u/s 40(a)(ia) on reason of non-deduction of tax at source or remitting the same to Government after deduction : ITAT

GST - DRC-01 notice u/s 74(1) has not been issued - In its absence, the proceedings, which culminated in the order of assessment are quashed and matters remitted: HC

GST - Perishable goods - Expectation of department could be to tax goods and impose maximum penalty and which would come to Rs.3.75 lakhs - Respondent to release goods on deposit or furnishing of BG of said amount: HC

2022-TIOL-322-HC-MAD-GST

VRS Traders Vs Asstt. Commissioner (State Taxes)

GST - A communication in Form No. DRC-01A dated 15.10.2020 was issued to the petitioner alleging that some of the suppliers, who have supplied iron and steel scrap to the petitioner were either non-existent or were not conducting any business, therefore, the petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit during the period 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, on such purchase of an amount of Rs.3,60,02,382/- - Petitioner replied on 19.10.2020 not accepting the proposals but an order dated 05.08.2021 came to be passed confirming the demand as well as imposing penalty and interest, hence the writ petition - In its order dated 08.02.2022, a specific query was raised on the basis of the ground urged by the petitioner's side as to whether any notice under Section 74(1) of the Act was issued before passing the impugned order - Counsel for Revenue submitted that except the notice i.e., DRC-01A, no further notice i.e., DRC-01 under Section 74(1) was issued.

Held: A Section 74(1) notice is an independent notice to be issued in DRC-01, whereas the notice under Section 74(5) was to be issued in DRC-01A - In the case in hand, admittedly DRC-01A was issued, thereafter straightaway the respondent revenue proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order - DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the Act, which is also mandatory to be issued before passing the impugned order of assessment has not been issued in this case - In the absence of any such notice, the proceedings, which is culminated in the order of assessment, which is impugned herein, is, no doubt, vitiated - Respective impugned orders in these writ petitions are hereby quashed and all matters are remitted back to the respondent for re-consideration - While re-considering the same, they shall commence the proceedings from where, it has already been stopped i.e., till DRC-01A notice, which means, they should issue DRC-01 notice to the petitioner and thereafter after giving a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, necessary orders shall be passed with regard to the assessment - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 13 to 15]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-321-HC-RAJ-GST

Somnath Corporation Vs State of Rajasthan

GST - Case of the petitioner is that a consignment of cumin seeds originating from Gujarat was in transit through a State, final destination being in Uttar Pradesh - It was intercepted by the GST authorities at Jaipur on the ground that driver of the vehicle did not carry valid document; a show cause notice was issued and the goods along with vehicle have been seized, hence the petition.

Held: Goods are perishable and the transport vehicle has been stranded - At the very best, the expectation of the department could be to tax the goods and impose maximum possible penalty - As long as these amounts are secured, no purpose would be served in taxing the goods in the vehicle - Value of goods is approximately Rs. 24.84 lacs on which applicable tax would come to approximately Rs. 1.24 lacs - Considering 200% maximum imposable penalty on such basic tax amount, the round figure that would come to inclusive of possible tax and highest penalty is Rs. 3.75 lacs - Under the circumstances, the respondents should release the goods on the petitioner either depositing under protest or furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 3.75 lakhs and also furnish a bond for the full value of goods - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 2, 3, 4]

- Petition disposed of: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-198-CESTAT-DEL

Siddhartha Marketing Services Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The SCN as was issued to appellant was decided against them - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 providing One Time Dispute Settlement was got notified on 01.09.2019 i.e. during the period of two months from the date of O-I-O - Appellant applied under the said scheme on September 01, 2019 - Scheme also permits to apply against such demand which has been confirmed but could not have been challenged till the introduction of scheme, and the period of limitation for filing appeal against said order has not yet expired as on the date of Notification of said Scheme - Period of two months from date of original order had not yet expired - It was extendable to another one month subject to discretion of Commissioner (Appeals) - Application under said Scheme though has been filed on 04.12.2019 but under the category of arrears i.e. under section 121(c)(i) of Scheme - Request of appellant got rejected shortly after he applied - Doors of adjudicating the issue on merits shall not be shut down taking plea of concept which are merely technical in nature as that of bar of limitation - There has been catena of decisions saying that the concept of any litigation to be barred by time is to be leniently invoked - No reason found for taking hyper technical approach against appellant which otherwise will amount to violation of principles of nature justice - Accordingly, appellant must be heard instead of his appeal being rejected at threshold - Under the statutory mandate of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 that Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to condone the delay of more than 30 days over and above the period of 60 days from date of receipt of O-I-O - Benefit of time extension has to be given to appellant - There was no infirmity in order under challenge however, the facts of the case are held to be such as require decision on merits - Accordingly, matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) directing him to consider the appeal as the one which has been filed within time and to adjudicate the same on merits: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-197-CESTAT-MAD

Mov And Go Logistics Vs CC

Cus - It is the case of Revenue that on examination of shipping bills filed online by appellant, Customs Broker on behalf of exporters, it is found that the appellant had furnished wrong Rotation number for shipping bills at the time of registration of goods for Customs examination; that wrong rotation numbers/EGM were furnished for the shipping bill at the time of Customs examination - SCNs were issued to appellant, proposing to consider the same as a contravention of provisions of Section 50(3)(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and to levy penalty under Section 132 read with Section 117 ibid - From the very sub-section, it is seen that the same applies to an exporter who presents a shipping bill or bill of export under this Section and hence, a Customs House Agent or a Customs Broker cannot be fastened with the penalty if Revenue finds any wrong quoting in presented shipping bill - The Customs Broker, who is the appellant before this forum, cannot be penalized for alleged contravention: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-196-CESTAT-CHD

Viavi Solutions India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant filed the refund claim of service tax paid by them erroneously on export of service under category of Business Auxiliary Service for which, it is claimed that this is exempted from service tax - Same was rejected on the ground that the service provided by appellant falls under Rule 2(f) of Place of Provisions of Services Rules, 2012 - Further, the service falls under the category of intermediary service - Considering that there are divergent views of Tribunal in case of Cadila Healthcare Limited 2021-TIOL-257-CESTAT-AHM and in case of Karanja Terminal and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-76-CESTAT-MUM , therefore, matter referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal to decide the issue that whether refund claim of service tax is maintainable in absence of any challenge or assessment or self-assessment in appeal: CESTAT

- Matter referred to Larger Bench: CHANDIGARH CESTAT