2022-TIOL-509-HC-MUM-IT

Sodexo India Services Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, cannot be based on borrowed information - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-508-HC-DEL-IT

CIT Vs Hamdrd National Foundation India

Whether exemption given to a Trust over the past AYs can be suddenly revoked in the current AY without there being any change of facts - NO: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-507-HC-AHM-IT

Gaurav Contract Company Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Whether assessment order making high-pitched assessment warrants being quashed where passed without considering objections filed by the assessee - YES: HC

- Writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-506-HC-AHM-IT

Dr K R Shroff Foundation Vs Addl./Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO

Whether faceless assessment can put assesses to jeopardy and more particularly, when entire system is at nascent stage - NO: HC Whether merely because the State has authority to decide the manner of conducting VC, it cannot put the assessee to such a receiving end that it starts feeling itself in a helpless situation - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-505-HC-AHM-IT

Aia Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether re-opening of assessment is sustainable where based on change of opinion on part of AO without there being any failure on part of assessee to make full & true disclosure of facts - NO: HC

- Assessee's writ application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

GST - Due compliance of GST laws involves lot of technology and not just the law - Technical glitches or bottlenecks in the portal are to be attended at the earliest - Till then, SCN and order to be issued in physical form: HC

GST - Any prudent person would fail to respond to such SCN which is bereft of details thereby making the mechanism of issuing SCN a mere formality and an eye wash: HC

GST - Post facto inclusion of the address, which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill, in the GST Registration - no attempt to evade tax: HC

CX - Rule 9(1)(bb) is not applicable when credit of service tax is availed on the basis of supplementary invoices : CESTAT

ST - CENVAT credit is also admissible on renting of those premises that had been registered subsequently : CESTAT

Cus - Merely because Section 27 of Customs Act provides for a period of limitation for filing refund claim, it cannot be held that even for purposes of claiming refund in terms of Notfn, same limitation has to be applied: CESTAT

ST - When Revenue has itself granted relief which was thereafter approved by a higher appellate authority, Revenue cannot take different stands for different years, which would amount to inconsistency: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST

Aggarwal Dyeing And Printing Works Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner has inter alia sought a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to revoke cancellation of the registration of the writ applicant; direction to the Respondent No. 2 to consider the Appeal on merits; award costs etc. - Controversy in all these writ applications is in the narrow compass i.e. Whether the show cause notice seeking cancellation of registration and the consequential impugned order cancelling registration under the GST Act, 2017 is valid and sustainable in eye of law? Held: It is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non-communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice - Assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and documents produced in the case - Wherever an order is likely to result in civil consequences, though the statute or provision of law, by itself, does not provide for an opportunity of hearing, the requirement of opportunity of hearing has to be read into the provision - Show cause notice, though issued in the prescribed form does not elaborate the reasons and the one-line reason mentioned is nothing but the reproduction of either of the reasons provided under rules regarding cancellation of registration - Respondent authority i.e. the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, State tax Officer ought to have at least incorporated specific details to the contents of the show cause - Any prudent person would fail to respond to such show cause notice bereft of details thereby making the mechanism of issuing show cause notice a mere formality and an eye wash - Respondent authority has failed to extend sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing impugned order, inspite of specific request for adjournment sought for - Even the impugned order is not only non-speaking, but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom - Thus, on all counts the respondent authority has failed to adhered to the aforesaid legal position - Bench, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the basic Principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences - Liberty granted to the respondent No. 2 to issue fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with details and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants, and to pass appropriate speaking orders on merits - Writ applications allowed: High Court [para 11, 12, 12.1, 13, 13.1, 14, 19] GST - AGP submitted that on account of technical glitches in the portal, the department is finding it very difficult to upload the show cause notice as well as the final order of cancellation of registration containing all the necessary details and information therein. Held : Due compliance of the laws of GST involves lot of technology and not just the law - Until the Department is able to develop and upload an appropriate software in the portal which would enable the Department to feed all the necessary information and material particulars in the show cause notice as well as in the final order of cancellation of registration that may be passed, the authority concerned shall issue an appropriate show cause notice containing all the necessary details and information in a physical form and forward the same to the dealer by RPAD - In the same manner, when it comes to passing the final order, the same shall also be passed in a physical form containing all the necessary information and particulars and shall be forwarded to the dealer by RPAD: High Court [para 18.1]

- Petitions allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-503-HC-MAD-GST

Algae Labs Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer-I

GST - Vehicle along with spray dryer were seized by the respondent on the ground that the address of the Consignee mentioned as No. 5/150, South Karumpattor, South Thamaraikulam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu - 629708, was not a place mentioned in the GST Registration of the petitioner - Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of demand of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Act. Held: Both the petitioner and the respondent admit that as on date the above said address has been included in the petitioner's place of business in the GST Registration - Thus, there is a post facto inclusion of the address, which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill - As there is no attempt to evade tax, impugned order is quashed and set aside - Writ Petition is allowed: High Court [para 10, 11]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-502-HC-MAD-GST

RKS Agencies Vs State Tax Officer-I

GST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to release the detained vehicle - Vehicle carrying cement purchased by the petitioner from Andhra Pradesh was intercepted by the respondent Revenue Squad and they found that, there is a violation in the invoice that the full address of the buyer has not been mentioned; that there is no activities in Coimbatore Branch, where the address had been given by the petitioner buyer, therefore, goods and vehicle was detained and a notice was issued - It has been directed by the Revenue that the petitioner shall pay the penalty imposed within three days, failing which, action would be taken under Section 130. Held : To balance the interest of both sides, Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing inter alia that on payment of 25% of the demand of the penalty in each of the case by the petitioner, the goods and vehicles in question detained by the respondent shall be released - Writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 18]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-294-CESTAT-AHM

Ineos Styrolution India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Assessee is in appeal against demand of reversal of cenvat credit, interest and imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 r/w Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - It is an undisputed fact that service tax has been paid by appellant under Reverse Charge Mechanism in capacity of 'recipient of service' and not as 'provider of service' - The case of appellant would be covered under Rule 9(1)(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - This view is also supported by decision of Tribunal in case of Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1569-CESTAT-MAD and Polygenta Technologies Ltd. 2018-TIOL-320-CESTAT-MUM - The entire case of Revenue is based on invocation of Rule 9(1)(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules and since the said Rule is not applicable in respect of service tax paid by recipient of service under Reverse Charge Mechanism, demand of reversal of cenvat credit cannot be upheld - No merit found in impugned order and the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-293-CESTAT-DEL

Fibre Bond Industries Vs Pr.CIT

Cus - The issue involved is, whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD), under Customs Act, which is in lieu of sales tax, have been rightly rejected as time barred - Appellant has filed refund claim after more than one year or may be by few days more, from the date of payment of SAD - Following the decision of High Court in Sony India 2014-TIOL-532-HC-DEL-CUS , it is held that appellant is entitled to refund, as their right to claim refund of duty in terms of Notification has accrued only when the sale took place after import - The findings of High Court clearly show understanding of department with regard to clause of limitation, provided in Notfn - The condition of limitation was not the part of original notification - It was only with the introduction of Circular No. 6/2008-Cus . and Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., department started insisting on limitation period prescribed w.e.f. 1.8.2008, became applicable - Merely because Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for a period of limitation for filing refund claim, it cannot be held that even for the purposes of claiming refund in terms of Notification, same limitation has to be applied - Therefore, by following the said judgement, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-292-CESTAT-MUM

Radius Corporate Solutions India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - Issue relates to denial of CENVAT credit on renting of immovable property for want of registration and on other input services for absence of nexus - Concerning availment of CENVAT credit on those premises which were either not registered or got registered subsequent to filing of refund application for which credit was denied with consequential rejection of refund, it can be said that the issue is no more res integra , in view of plethora of decisions already pronounced wherein it is established that CENVAT credit is also admissible on premises that had been registered subsequently - In respect of rest of CENVAT credits against which refund was denied to appellant, it is to be seen if those are infect excluded from the purview of input service and falling within the definition of 'Exclusion Clause' - As can be seen from the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), arguments were led in that direction like Air Travel services and Hotel Accommodation services were taken for attending meetings/conferences/seminars with various clients of company and for annual meetings but as could be seen from the last para of order, he had distinctly observed that relevant documentary trail, and not invoices alone, can establish the purpose of use of the services if for personal or business - It would be just and proper to remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for such examination of additional proof concerning availment of input services by appellant except for Renting of Immovable property which is held in favour of appellant: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-291-CESTAT-BANG

Astra Zeneca India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

ST - The appellant filed two rebate claims under Notification No. 12/2005-S.T. on the input services availed by them for services exported - Same was rejected - The rejection on the ground that the claim for rebate could not be considered afresh under Notification No. 5/2006-S.T. as submitted, has already been addressed to in appellant's own case - For an earlier period, Adjudicating authority himself had allowed the appellant's similar claim under Notification No. 5/2006-S.T. when the initial application was under Notification No. 12/2005-S.T. and the adjudicating authority had granted partial refund - Matter had travelled up to the Tribunal and this Bench of Tribunal vide its Final Order had affirmed the said order of original authority - The order of that Bench has become final without there being any further appeal - It is thus clear that when Revenue has itself granted relief which was thereafter approved by a higher appellate authority, Revenue cannot take different stands for different years, which would amount to inconsistency - Apex Court in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. 2005-TIOL-99-SC-CX has held that the Revenue could not be permitted to take different stands - Insofar as the other reason for rejection namely, time-bar, is also not sustainable since it is clear from the records that appellant's claim was within a period of one year from the end of relevant quarter, which view has been expressed by Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TIOL-516-CESTAT-BANG-LB - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT