I-T - Once there exists disputed question of fact for which no scrutiny was done by AO, then such case calls for examination afresh: HC

I-T - Recovery of tax demand merits being stayed where 18 months have passed after filing of assessee's written submissions, but no order came to be passed : HC

I-T - If assessee's request for additional time begets no response, assessee cannot be prosecuted upon believing that it's request had been accepted: HC

I-T - Late fee u/s 234E cannot be imposed, where though assessee is indeed delayed in filing TDS statements, the AO concerned lacks jurisdiction to levy such fee : HC

GST - Wrong declaration in e-way bill -  Technical breach only without any intention to evade tax -  Ex post facto new place of business incorporated in registration certificate - vehicle and consignment to be released: HC

GST - Giving away of goods/services under 'Buy n Fly' scheme is not a 'Supply' and, therefore, ITC of GST paid on such goods/services is not available: AAAR

CX - Merely because the input service tax is paid at a particular unit and the benefit is sought to be availed at another unit, same is not prohibited under law: CESTAT

Cus - There is corroboration in statement that appellant has shared money foregone for non payment of customs duty with someone, they are not entitled to any leniency from Tribunal as they misappropriated the government money: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-444-HC-MAD-GST

Smart Roofing Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Petitioner had declared the consignee as 130, Ring Road Chintamani, Madurai, though the consignment was meant for being discharged at its new place of business at Sastha Mombalan Modern Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 009 - Consignment along with lorry was detained on 22.03.2022; SCN was issued on 23.03.2022 and which culminated in order dated 25.03.2022 - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order in Form GST Mov-9 seeking to impose penalty of Rs. 2,50,387/- under CGST and SGST each, totally for a sum of Rs. 5,00,774/- under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 .

Held: Authorities acting under the Act were justified in detaining the goods inasmuch as there is a wrong declaration in the E-way bill, however, the facts indicate that the consignor and the consignee are one and the same entity, namely, Head Office and the Branch Office - In this case, the petitioner has a new place of business, but had not altered the GST Registration - However, steps have been taken to ex post facto include the new place of business by altering the GST Registration and the registration certificate has also been amended - Considering the fact that there is only a technical breach committed by the petitioner and there is no intention to evade tax, Bench is inclined to quash the impugned order and allow this writ petition by directing the respondent to release the vehicle and the consignment to the petitioner, if the same has not been released already - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-12-AAAR-GST

GRB Dairy Foods Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR had held that the GST paid on inputs / input services procured by the appellant to implement the promotional scheme under the name “Buy n Fly” is not eligible for Input Tax Credit under the GST law in terms of Section 17(5)(g) and (h) of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act, 2017 - appeal filed before the AAAR.

Held: Furtherance of business as imprinted in section 16 of the CGST Act conveys that the inputs or input services charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business alone are entitled for taking credit - Here 'him' denotes the taxpayer, but the promotional rewards scheme for which inputs and input services procured by him is meant for his buyers and not for his own activity like advertising the product, etc. - It has been established that the giving away of goods/services under the scheme is not a 'Supply' and, therefore, ITC of the GST paid on the goods/services procured for the 'Buy n Fly Scheme' is not available to the appellant - Held that as per the provisions of the CGST Act/TNGST Act 2017 more precisely, Section 17(5) of the Act, the gifts or rewards given without consideration even though they were given for sales promotion do not qualify as inputs for the purposes of Credit, since no GST is paid on its disposal - AAR ruling upheld and appeal is dismissed: AAAR

- Appeal dismissed: AAAR

2022-TIOL-268-CESTAT-MUM

Pfizer Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appeal is directed against impugned order upholding the order of Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund claim - When the Revenue seeks to deny the credit distributed by input credit distributor to amongst more than one office unit, then the credit is sought to be denied in a particular unit - For whatever reason the same credit would be admissible to another unit to whom this credit could have been properly distributed even after the amendment made in 2012, i.e., the total credit distributed to all the units remained the same, the only question can be with regard to the correctness of credit distributed to a particular unit - If credit is sought to be denied at one place, input credit distributor should have been asked to distribute this credit to the other unit - Since this credit is admissible either to unit or its sister concern, no merits found in argument advanced by revenue on unjust enrichment - The credit otherwise could not be expunged by any other method other than that provided in Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 from the books of account - Claim of revenue that the debit made under protest and the communication of audit should be treated as an appealable order, cannot be acceded to - No merits found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-267-CESTAT-CHD

Pawan Kumar Vs CC

Cus - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein the penalties have been imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 for alleged preparation of fake TR-6 challans showing payment of customs duty which actually was not paid by them - The appellant has admitted the guilty at the time of recording his statement - As there is corroboration in the statement that appellant has shared money foregone for non-payment of customs duty with Sh. Varun Mahajan, in that circumstance, appellant is not entitled to any leniency from this Tribunal as the appellant misappropriated the government money - No infirmity found in impugned order for imposing penalties and same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2022-TIOL-266-CESTAT-AHM

Theo Desh Consultants Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant is mainly aggrieved by Letter which was issued post de novo adjudication, however, Tribunal in earlier round of appeal remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after verifying the fact about payment of Service Tax - In compliance of Tribunal's order adjudicating authority had conducted the verification through field officer, however, report was received by adjudicating authority post adjudication order passed by adjudicating authority - The verification report given by Field Officer, during subsequent passing of order needs to be considered, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue's appeals rightly remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing afresh order after considering the report, therefore, no infirmity found in order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Accordingly, impugned order is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT