2022-TIOL-434-ITAT-DEL

DCIT Vs Shubham Chemicals And Sovents Ltd

Whether where information is plagued by doubt and suspicion, AO must conduct inquiry post receipt of information to come to any assertive belief adverse to assessee – YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-433-ITAT-DEL

Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether non compete fee is an intangible asset coming within the ambit of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act & on which depreciation is allowed - YES: ITAT

Whether non compete fee though is an intangible asset, however, it is not similar to know how, patent, copy right, their trademark, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial right of similar nature - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-432-ITAT-DEL

GM Overseas Vs ACIT

Whether assessment u/s 143 cannot be reopened after four years from end of relevant AY when assessee has disclosed fully and truly all material facts – YES: ITAT

- Assessee's Appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

Risk Insurance - Claim cannot be denied over an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous term - Date on Bill of Lading has to be considered as date of shipment - ECGC to pay Rs.2.45cr with @9% interest: SC LB

GST - Even the impugned order is not only non-speaking, but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom, basic Principles of natural justice stand violated and order needs to be quashed: HC

GST - The applicant is directed to deposit the amount in accordance with Section 107(6) of the Act within a period of two weeks, thereafter Commissioner (A) shall proceed to hear the appeal on its own merits: HC

GST - The court would like to know the exact amount payable by applicant in terms of Section 129(3), possibility of ordering provisional release of goods explored on the condition that applicant shall deposit entire amount towards penalty: HC

Cus - As two reports are on record of two different laboratories, court should not allow further detention of vessel, the Commissioner is directed to release the vessel after obtaining undertaking: HC

2022-TIOL-47-AAR-GST

BT Patil And Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt Ltd

GST - Composite supply of works contract is provided by the applicant sub-contractor to the main contractor who is further providing services specified in item (vii) to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity - Impugned supply of the applicant is covered under Sr. No. 3(x) of Notification No. 11/2017-CTR – This notification was amended vide Notification No. 15/2021-CTR dated 18.11.2021 (with effect from 01.01.2022) inasmuch as in Sr. No 3, in column (3), in the heading "Description of Services", in item (x), for the words ""Union territory, a local authority, a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity" the words "Union territory or a local authority" shall be substituted - That means the words "a Governmental authority or a Government Entity" are omitted and, therefore, with effect from 01.01.2022, the impugned services supplied by the applicant will not be covered under Sr. No. 3 (x) of Notification No. 11/2017- CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-582-HC-AHM-GST

Rajkamal Metal And Alloys Vs STO

GST - The applicant is engaged in business of metal scrap and entered into a sale transaction of brass scrap with M/s. Raj Khodal Metal - Two consignments of goods were dispatched - When goods were in transit, both the conveyance came to be intercepted - A SCN in Form GST MOV-10 issued calling upon him to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section-130 of GST Act - The principal argument of applicant is that even if authority concerned thought fit to issue notice under Section-130 of the Act in Form GST Mov-10, the authority could not have overlooked or ignored Sub-section (3) of Section-129 of the Act - The court would like to know the exact amount payable by applicant in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section- 129 - Court is exploring the possibility of ordering provisional release of goods on the condition that applicant shall deposit the entire amount towards penalty - There is some confusion as regards the exact amount due and payable towards penalty - Issue notice to the respondents: HC

- Matter listed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-581-HC-AHM-GST

Hinron Steel Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Applicant is engaged in business of supply of goods like iron and steel - They were assessed towards his liability under GST - The Joint Commissioner upon conclusion of assessment proceedings passed an order determining total liability of applicant - The applicant being dissatisfied with the order, preferred an appeal before Commissioner (A) under Section 107 of CGST Act - Appellate Authority asked the applicant to make a predeposit of 10% of his total liability - It is the case of applicant that on account of some communication gap, he was not in a position to make pre-deposit and in such circumstances, appeal came to be dismissed - No sooner the appeal came to be dismissed then the applicant started receiving notice towards recovery - Applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount in accordance with Section 107(6) of the Act - The applicant is directed to deposit the amount within a period of two weeks - If this amount is deposited within the stipulated time then the appeal shall be restored to its original file and the Commissioner (A) shall proceed to hear the appeal on its own merits: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-580-HC-AHM-GST

Asterpetal Trade And Services Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The applicant is engaged in business of trading of bullion and agricultural commodities - A SCN was issued in Form GST REG - 17/31 calling upon the applicant to show cause as to why the registration should not be cancelled - No action was taken pursuant to aforesaid SCN - Later, a fresh SCN was issued - Ultimately, final order came to be passed cancelling the registration - The SCNs and impugned order are as vague as anything - Issue is now covered by decision in case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works 2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST - Impugned order cancelling the registration and SCN is hereby quashed and set aside - The registration stands restored: HC

- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-45-SC-MISC-LB

Haris Marine Products Vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Ltd

Miscellaneous - Compensation - ECGC provides a range of credit risk insurance cover to exporters - Overseas buyer defaulted on payment and, therefore, the appellant lodged a claim with ECGC on 14.02.2013 - ECGC rejected the appellant's claim on several levels; with the final rejection by the Independent Review Committee (IRC) on 28.03.2015 - IRC's view was that the date of ‘despatch / shipment' was not clearly defined in the Policy and it placed reliance on the definition contained in the DGFT Guidelines - Inasmuch as for containerized cargo, the same was to be interpreted as the date of ‘Onboard Bill of Lading' which in the present case was 13.12.2012 and which was just a day prior to the effective date of the Policy, i.e., 14.12.2012 It was, therefore, reasoned that the appellant was not entitled to the claim amount - Aggrieved, the appellant approached the NCDRC for compensation which too upheld the rationale of the IRC and rejected the appellant's contention that in absence of a clearly specified provision in the Policy, it was entitled to the benefit of the rule of verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem (hereinafter, “contra proferentem ”) - Hence, the appeal before the Supreme Court - Issue urged by the appellant is whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] was correct in placing reliance on guidelines issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade to interpret the date of ‘despatch / shipment' in the Single Buyer Exposure Policy of the respondent and thereby deny the appellant's claim.

Held: Deviating from the rule of contra proferentem , even if in the present instance the third-party DGFT Guidelines were to be applied, it would not favour the ECGC, as a plain reading of provision 9.12 [of Handbook of Procedures (Vol I ] shows that the date on the Bill of Lading has to be considered as the date of despatch / shipment - The date of ‘onboard' Bill of Lading is not applicable to the present facts as no letter of credit was executed, much less providing for application of such date, therefore, ECGC could not have denied the appellant's claim, even on a consideration the DGFT Guidelines - Impugned order of the NCDRC is hereby set aside; the appellant's complaint is consequently allowed - ECGC is hereby directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.2.45 crores to the appellant, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a - Appeal allowed: Supreme Court LB [para 20, 22]

Export credit Risk Insurance - Compensation - ECGC enjoys a significant position in the market for export credit insurance in India - It is the only government company offering such niche services, and is exempt from following the Trade Credit Insurance Guidelines periodically revised by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India - To deny the appellant's claim over an incorrect interpretation of an ambiguous term, that too with delay amounting to only one day, goes against such duties, especially given the fact that the appellant had transacted with the respondent on several previous occasions: Supreme Court LB [para 21]

- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-583-HC-AHM-CUS

FSL-10 Pte Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, samples of subject goods were sent to CRCL for further analysis and testing - The controversy is, whether the subject goods is in form of "Liquid Paraffin" or "Light Diesel Oil" - Applicants are before this Court as their vessel has been detained - Goods have already been released on a bond executed by importer who has furnished a bank guarantee of amount equivalent to value of goods - The plain reading of report would indicate that according to CRCL, each of the samples tested was found to be "Liquid Paraffin" - It has been stated in report that each of the samples meets with requirement of Paraffinic Diesel Fuel - According to CRCL, it is other than Automotive Diesel Fuel or Light Diesel Oil - However, the DRI, would like to take up the issue further either with CRCL or in any other mode or manner as DRI still asserts that the subject goods is not "Liquid Paraffin" - The reason why the DRI is not ready to accept the report of CRCL is because the CRCL was required to undertake tests so as to ascertain 11 parameters of Indian Standard - The court do not want to come in the way of DRI if any further inquiry in this regard warranted or justified - The DRI may continue with its inquiry in its own manner in accordance with law - Court is only concerned with release of vessel - Applicants are the owners of vessel - As two reports now on record of two different laboratories, court should not allow further detention of vessel - The Commissioner (Customs) is directed to release the vessel after obtaining undertaking - The inquiry shall continue in accordance with law: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT