I-T - Sequitur to declaration under Income Disclosure Scheme cannot lead to immunity from taxation in hands of non-declarant: SC

ST - SCNs remaining unadjudicated for more than a decade - Adjudication should be within a reasonable period of time - Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for gross delay - amount recovered during investigation to be refunded along with interest @12%: HC

Service Matter - Retired employee should not be made to suffer because of dispute between Management, Secretary and Government on who is responsible for delay in settling of dues: SC

GST - Dosai Mix, Idli Mix, Tiffin Mixes, Health Mixes, Porridge Mixes are food preparations; not classifiable under HSN 1106 but under 2106 and attract GST @18%: AAAR

2022-TIOL-10-AAAR-GST

Krishna Bhavan Foods And Sweets

GST - Dosai Mix, Idli Mix, Tiffin Mixes, Health Mixes, Porridge Mixes are food preparations in the form of powder; are appropriately classifiable under HSN 2106 and attract GST @18% as per Entry no. 23 of Schedule III of Notification 1/2017-CTR - Products of the appellants do contain the flour and the same is not meant for supply as flour but meant as dosai mix, idly mix, vada mix, tiffin mix, health mix and porridge mix which are the products for human consumption by way of cooking as directed in the container label, hence these products are not mere mixture of dried leguminous vegetable or cereals and hence not classifiable under HSN 1106 – No reason to interfere with the order of the Tamil Nadu Advance Ruling Authority – Order upheld and appeal dismissed : AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2022-TIOL-25-SC-SERVICE

Dr A Selvaraj Vs CBM College

Whether Retired employee should not be made to suffer because of dispute between Management, Secretary and Government on who is responsible for delay in settling of dues - YES: SC

- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-409-HC-MUM-ST

Reliance Transport And Travel Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari and quashing and setting aside the impugned SCNs dated 24th October, 2011, dated 4th September, 2012, dated 4th November, 2013 and dated 20th April, 2015 with consequential reliefs - Petitioner submits that though the respondent no.2 had granted personal hearing to the petitioner on 13th February, 2013, 18th June, 2015 and 19th February, 2016, the respondent no.2 did not pass any order on the said show cause notices nor gave any intimation from 2016 onwards which was the last date of hearing nor passed any order till date; that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the gross delay on the part of the respondents in not adjudicating upon the show cause notices in last several years; that the amounts deposited during the course of investigation under protest are liable to be refunded to the petitioner; that the petitioner was never informed about the transfer of the show cause notices to the call book at any point of time; that show cause notices thus ought to have been adjudicated within a period of one year and there is nothing to show that it was not possible to adjudicate the said show cause notices within the time provided in the said provision of s.73(4AB) of the FA, 1994; that if the respondents are allowed to adjudicate upon the proceedings after the gross delay as is demonstrated in this case and if the respondents call upon the petitioner to pay the substantial amount of duty and penalty with interest for all these years, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the payment of interest for the entire period i.e. from the date of show cause notices till the date of passing an order.

Held: Circular relied upon by the respondents for transferring the show cause notices to the call book, clearly indicates that an intimation has to be furnished to the petitioner while transferring the show cause notices to the call book to enable the assessee to challenge the said decision of the respondents - No such intimation was ever given to the petitioner - It is held by the High Court in the case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited [ 2022-TIOL-269-HC-MUM-CX ] that the respondent having issued the Show- Cause notice, it is their duty to take the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time; that in view of gross delay on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer; that principles of law laid down by this Court in the above referred judgment would apply to the facts of this case - Writ Petition (L) No. 6097 of 2020 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) - Respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner during the course of the investigation within four weeks with interest at the rate of 12% per annum: High Court [para 15, 18 to 20]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT