I-T - Master curator of museam engaged in preserving heritage of nation, and having disseminated knowledge in process of establishing facilities for RBI, is not for profit organisation: HC

I-T - No disallowance is legally permissible for investment made by assessees in bonds/shares using interest free funds, u/ 14A: HC

I-T - It is not open to a High Court to distinguish a judgment of the Apex Court especially when the latter is clear and categorical : HC

I-T - Property mortgaged to bank & also sold to company whose director is spouse of one managing official of such bank; probe by AO justified: HC

I-T - Requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is no pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases: HC

I-T - Basic requirement of applicability of sec. 40A(2) is that payment should be made to 'related person' i.e., person referred to u/s 40A(2)(b) : ITAT

I-T - Subsequent information can be basis for initiating new re-assessment proceedings but not basis for revisionary proceedings u/s 263 : ITAT

GST - Contract was awarded prior to appointed date but was executed after the appointed date, hence provisions of CGST Act, 2017 shall be applicable: AAR

GST - Escalated value shall be added to taxable value u/s 15 of CGST Act, 2017: AAR

GST - Water containing anything apart from Hydrogen and Oxygen will not be construed as pure water - 'Tertiary Treated Water' is not purified water; entitled for exemption under entry at Sl. No. 99 of 02/2017-CTR: AAAR

CX - As appellant has filed original bills of entry with Customs Department, they were not in a position to again produce the same before Excise Department, denial of cenvat credit cannot be sustained: CESTAT

Cus - Since appellant has borne the incidence of special additional duty (SAD) and has not passed on the same to the buyer of goods, he is held entitled to refund of amount of SAD: CESTAT

ST - Appellant was not liable to pay service tax on works contract up to 01/06/2007, hence collection of tax amounts to the one without authority of law, denial of refund on ground of limitation cannot be sustained: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-41-AAR-GST

B P Sangle Constructions Pvt Ltd

GST -  A pplicant is engaged in construction of Public Road for Govt. Authorities like Zilha Parishad, Municipal Corporation, etc -  Activity to construct road for public was exempted from payment of service tax vide Sr No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST under the Erstwhile Service Tax laws - Therefore, when said contract was awarded, only Maharashtra VAT was applicable & hence was taken into consideration and the said contract price was including of VAT @ 5% only - Thus, contract price of Rs.65,90,98,099.67, included Maharashtra VAT @ 5% of Rs.3,13,85,623.79 & taxable value of Rs.62,77,12,475.88 - However, the impugned activity under said contract was only initiated with effect from 01.07.2017 i.e. after introduction of GST regime - D uring the course of completion of service i.e. construction of Road as per contract, there happens escalation in value - Question is if there is the escalation in value of service, whether such escalated value shall be added to taxable value under Section 15 of CGST Act, 2017 or otherwise. Held: Contract was awarded prior to appointed date but was executed after the appointed date, hence the relevant provisions of CGST Act, 2017 shall be applicable - There was no supply during the pre-GST period and no invoice was also raised during the said period - The impugned service was provided entirely during the GST period and, therefore, in view of Section 13, the time of supply is during the GST era and hence for ascertaining the value of service, the relevant provisions of CGST Act, 2017 shall apply -  Escalated value shall be added to the original value of the contract and the total of the escalated value plus the original value of the contract will be the transaction/taxable value u/s 15 of the Act, on which GST must be discharged by the applicant: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-13-AAAR-GST

Nagpur Waste Water Management Pvt Ltd

GST - AAR has held that the "Tertiary Treated Water" is purified water and, therefore, not covered under the exemption Notification No. 02/2017-CT-(Rate) and therefore, not exempt from tax - The Authority further held that the impugned product is covered under Schedule III, Entry 24, under the Chapter Heading 2201 and, therefore, was liable to GST at the rate of 18 % - Aggrieved, Appeal filed before AAAR.  Held: Moot issue is whether the impugned product, i.e., TTW, supplied by the Appellant to M/s. MAHAGENCO, can be construed as 'purified water', or not - As per the dictionary meaning, the term 'purify' means "to make pure", or "to free from foreign, extraneous, or objectionable elements" - Accordingly, the "purified water" means such water which is free from foreign, extraneous, or objectionable elements - It is seen that the impugned product, i.e. TTW, is obtained after carrying out various physical and biological processes on the sewage water - However, even after carrying out the said physical and biological processes, water coming out from the Tertiary Treatment Plant still contains various biological contaminants, such as bacteria, virus, along with other impurities - Thus, it can be safely concluded that the resultant water is not pure due to presence of the said impurities and foreign elements - It is adequately clear that water containing anything apart from the Hydrogen and Oxygen will not be construed as pure water - In the instant case, the TTW, which is supplied by the Appellant to M/s. Mahagenco for use in the power plant, does not have any specific characteristics and usages as those of the other specific water, such as "aerated, mineral, distilled, medicinal, ionic, battery, de-mineralized and water sold in sealed container" mentioned in the exclusion clause of the entry under consideration as the said TTW can be readily replaced by any water for general-purposes - Further, it is also noteworthy that all these groups of specific water mentioned under the exclusion clause of the relevant entry are supplied in the packaged form, i.e., in the sealed container, in order to preserve their characteristics and specificity, while the same is not the case with the impugned product, i.e., TTW, which are supplied through pipelines without any such concerns - Thus, it is amply clear that the term "purified", mentioned under the exemption clause of the relevant entry, will definitely not include the TTW - Hence, the impugned product, i.e., TTW, is rightfully eligible for exemption under entry at Sl. No. 99 of the exemption notification no. 02/2017-C.T. (Rate) - By applying the canon of "purposive construction", which gives effect to the legislative purpose/intendment, Authority is inclined to hold that the impugned product, i.e., TTW, which can aptly be construed as water of general purpose is eligible for exemption under the relevant entry at Sl. No. 99 of the exemption notification no. 02/2017-C.T. (Rate) - AAR order is set aside and appeal is allowed: AAAR

- Appeal allowed: AAAR

2022-TIOL-276-CESTAT-DEL

Air Liquide North India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant have rightly taken cenvat credit on import of capital goods, under the project import regulation - The appellant has imported the machinery vide seven bills of entry and same was initially cleared provisional on payment of applicable duties and thereafter it is further evident from the record that the machinery/ parts have been installed in factory of production, as verified by certificate issued by Range Superintendent - As appellant has filed original bills of entry with Customs Department and they were not in a position to again produce the same before Excise Department, refusal to allow cenvat credit by the Court below is bad - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to cenvat credit under dispute - Thus, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-275-CESTAT-DEL

Marina Enterprises Vs CC, CGST & CE

Cus - The issue arises is, whether the claim for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) by appellant is hit by unjust enrichment - In the earlier round of litigation, matter had travelled to this Tribunal and Tribunal had remanded the matter for a decision on merit - The appellant contested the matter before Commissioner (A) on the ground that C.A. certificate is not an essential requirement for sanction of SAD refund, in terms of Notfn 102/2007-Cus. - It was further urged that the appellant have sold goods in India after importing and have paid sales tax on said goods - Further, from the sample copy of sales bill produced before Tribunal, it is evident that appellant have not given break-up of additional duty or SAD in their sale bill - Appellant have mentioned on the body of sale invoice that no benefit of additional custom duty levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act shall be admissible - Thus, evidently the buyer of goods from appellant cannot take the benefit or credit of SAD of Customs, which was paid by appellant at the time of import - It is the appellant who has borne the incidence of special additional duty (SAD) and has not passed on the same to the buyer of goods - Accordingly, Commissioner (A) have erred in holding that the refund claim was hit under the doctrine of unjust enrichment - Impugned order is set aside - Appellant is held entitled to refund of the amount of SAD: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-274-CESTAT-BANG

Techno Engineering Corporation Vs CC

ST - The appellant is an electrical contractor, providing services of execution of works contract involving composite contract, for supply of materials as well as electrical wiring and other works - It is the case of appellant that it was persuaded by Service Tax Department in October, 2004 to obtain service tax registration under 'erection, commissioning and installation' which was duly complied with by them and thereafter, started paying service tax from 30/10/2004 and continued to pay the same till June 2007 - Service tax on works contract was introduced w.e.f. 01/06/2007 which made the appellant to realise that the services rendered by it fell under newly introduced service, which prompted the appellant to approach Revenue seeking refund of tax paid by it and the said claim was made - Appellant was not liable to pay service tax on works contract up to 01/06/2007 and hence, the collection of tax/duty amounts to the one without the authority of law, which takes away the case of appellant from mischief of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - The jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in case of Way2Wealth Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-1969-HC-KAR-ST had an occasion to consider the claim of refund of tax paid when there was no mandate to pay service tax - In view of said binding ratio decidendi, denial of refund only on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained and hence, the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT