I-T - Assessee who is deriving both income from profession as well as from business need not be audited u/s 44AB: HC

I-T - Writ courts not empowered to legislate or take policy decisions beyond four corners of law; intervention unwarranted as Settlement application rightly dismissed: HC

I-T - Revocation of registration u/s 12AA - Merely recording the wordings of Section 12AA is insufficient; CIT(E) must establish how Trust's activities are not genuine or not in accordance with objectives: HC

I-T- Declaring any law to be unconstitutional is the last recourse which a court may opt for: HC

I-T - Disallowance of Employee's Contribution to EPF is invalid where such payment is made within grace period given to assessee : ITAT

I-T- Revisionary proceedings can be quashed if AO passes assessment order after due application of mind and proper enquiries : ITAT

2022-TIOL-649-HC-MUM-IT

Perizad Zorabian Irani Vs Pr.CIT

Whether an assessee who is deriving income from profession as well as from business, is to be subject to audit u/s 44AB - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-648-HC-KOL-IT

Pradeep Kumar Naredi Vs UoI

Whether the writ court is empowered to monitor that every statutory body acts within the four corners of the law & that that law is properly administered - YES: HC

Whether therefore it is not the duty of writ courts to legislate the law or to issue any circular, notification of like nature or to take such type of policy decision granting relief to a claimant beyond the scope of the law - YES: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-647-HC-KOL-IT

CIT Vs Sanskriti Sagar

Whether when revoking registration granted u/s 12AA, solely mentioning the wordings of Section 12AA is insufficient & the CIT(E) must show how the activities of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with its stated objectives - YES: HC

Whether therefore, ITAT order scrapping the revocation of registration u/s 12AA is sustained where the CIT(E) did not give any factual conclusions to show how the Trust's activities were not genuine - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-646-HC-AHM-IT

Pravin Talakshibhai Kotak Vs Pr.CIT

In writ, the High Court observes that the owner of the property is since deceased and that the Revenue needs to ascertain whether or not the petitioner holds valid title over the lands in question. To this end, the Revenue needs to study the documents adduced by the petitioner. Hence the case is remanded for completion of such exercise in 2 weeks' time.

- Case remanded: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-645-HC-AHM-IT

Rachna Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.CIT

Whether declaring a law to be unconstitutional is the last recourse which a court may opt for - YES: HC

- Assessee's writ petition dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

GST - Transfer of business unit shall be treated as a supply of services - covered under Entry No. 2 of 12/2017 -CTR subject to fulfilment of conditions: AAR

GST - Supply of coal is liable for 5% GST and the supply of service of handling and distribution is liable for GST @18%: AAR

GST - Authority cannot answer the questions raised due to incomplete and inconclusive documentation submitted by the applicant: AAR

VAT - Provisional attachment under Gujarat VAT Act is permissible only during pendency of assessment or re-assessment proceedings: HC

CX - The value of bought out item which has gone directly to customer place is not includable in assessable value of PD Pumps: CESTAT

Cus - Enhancement of value based on voluntary statement concerning acceptance of value, may be for early clearance of goods, would not invoke penal provisions nor confiscation of goods can be made in lieu of redemption fine: CESTAT

Cus - The retention of goods, not validated by issue of notice, is not tenable in law and must, in accordance with the law, be released unconditionally to the appellant: CESTAT

ST - The orders are inconsistent inasmuch as the same issue is allowed for a certain period and disallowed for some other period, matter remanded to original authority to pass suitable orders in consistent manner: CESTAT

ST - When there is no malafide or suppression of facts on the part of appellant and also bonafidely deposited the tax prior to issuance of SCN, appellant is entitled to benefit under Section 180 and no penalty is imposable: CESTAT

CX - When place of removal is premises of buyer, accordingly in terms of amended provision in Rule 2(l), appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on outward transport, same has been incurred upto place of removal: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-50-AAR-GST

Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd

GST - Applicant is stated to be engaged in manufacturing of Ferro alloys and Cold Rolled Formed Sections having its factories at Barjora ("FERRO Unit") and Singur ("CRF Unit/ CRF business") respectively - It is submitted that the entire operations of the applicant are segmented in the said two units i.e. FERRO Unit and CRF Unit and both the units are functional and running independently. applicant intends to sell its CRF unit as a whole which involves transferring of all the assets to the purchaser which includes taking over all the liabilities due and payable as on the date of transfer for a lump sum consideration - Applicant seeks a ruling on the following - (i) Whether the transaction would amount as supply of goods or supply of services or supply of goods and services?& (ii) Whether the transaction would be covered under Entry No. 2 of the Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017?

Held: The term 'going concern' is not defined under the GST Act or rules framed there under - However,the concept of going concern has been defined in Accounting Standards – 1 issued by ICAI -To qualify as a 'going concern', the business must not have 'intention or necessity of liquidation or of curtailing materially the scale of the operations' - In this context, the applicant has not furnished any documentary evidences from the auditor with regard to the "entity's ability to continue in operation for the foreseeable future" in absence of which Authority is unable to conclude that the applicant has neither the intention nor the necessity of liquidation or of curtailing materially the scale of the operations - Transaction of transfer of business unit of the applicant involved in the instant shall be treated as a supply of services and t he transaction would be covered under Entry No. 2 of the Notification No. 12/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 subject to fulfilment of the conditions to qualify as a going concern: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-49-AAR-GST

Devendran Coal International Pvt Ltd

GST- Supply of coal done through a separate purchase order and the supply of Coal Handling and Distribution of coal done through a subsequent work order are two individual supplies which are not rendered in conjunction with each other and have to be treated as independent and separate supplies only - is not a composite supply - Hence the supply of coal is liable for 5% GST and the supply of service of handling and distribution is liable for GST @18%: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-48-AAR-GST

CLR Skills Training Foundation

GST - Applicant has sought a ruling as to whether the reimbursement amount received from Trainer towards "Stipend and other expenses incurred by the Applicant in accordance with AICTE (NEEM) Regulations to ensure wealth, safety and health of NEEM Trainees" is in the capacity of pure agent and hence not includible in the value of taxable supply made by the Applicant to Trainer for the purpose of payment of Goods and Services Tax. 

Held: Both the Agreements attached by the applicant as 'Specimen Copies" in respect of the subject application do not provide a clear picture of the actual facts in respect of the present matter and, therefore, the Authority cannot answer the questions raised, due to incomplete and inconclusive documentation submitted by the applicant: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2022-TIOL-644-HC-AHM-VAT

Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

Whether provisional attachment under the Gujarat VAT Act is permissible only during pendency of assessment or re-assessment proceedings - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-380-CESTAT-MUM

Neno Crystal Vs CC

Cus - Confirmation of fine and penalty by Commissioner (A) at reduced rate under Section 125 and Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, while setting aside other penal actions imposed vide O-I-O including redemption of bank guarantee has been assailed by assessee - Assessee's case is squarely covered by judgment of Madras High Court in M.R. Associates 2013-TIOL-672-HC-MAD-CUS wherein it was clearly held that enhancement of value based on voluntary statement concerning acceptance of value, may be for early clearance of goods, would not invoke penal provisions nor confiscation of goods can be made in lieu of redemption fine and Commissioner (A) has placed his reliance heavily on it but erroneously understood that in said judgment there was confirmation of confiscation and redemption fine - As could be seen from case record, assessee had filed Bill of Entry on the basis of item description mentioned by supplier in import document and had agreed to pay duty on enhanced value after the same was found to be item of different size - Commissioner (A) had observed in unequivable terms that the same assessee had cleared some goods at or around the same time at higher rate for which deliberate undervaluation or mis-declaration to avoid duty is farfetched - More importantly, he had also observed that in valuation of imported goods, there is no place for minimum Customs value but assessee preferred not to challenge departmental action - Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee had made a tie or contract for payment of higher value, so as to make him liable for violation of "Civil Obligations" for the purpose of imposing penalty on him and it has been settled through judicial precedent that voluntarily acceptance of higher value and willingness to pay the duty at the enhanced rate would exempt the assessee from liability of confiscation and redemption fine: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-379-CESTAT-MUM

Anam Bags Vs CC

Cus - Appellant had imported 'fabric' that were allegedly mis-declared with additional implication of duties of customs and was seized under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 - The competent authority, on the recommendation of investigating authority, permitted provisional release of seized goods under section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 subject to furnishing of bond and payment of security deposit of Rs. 85,00,000 - The impugned goods continue to remain under seizure of customs authorities - Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 mandates release of goods within six month from the date of seizure unless SCN proposing confiscation has been issued or on compliance with prescribed procedure, within further six months - The pendency of appeal against terms of release does not alter the prescription therein - Furthermore, even after the order dated 23rd October 2019 of Tribunal, goods continued to be under seizure despite lapse of time even thereafter - The retention of goods, not validated by issue of notice, is not tenable in law and must, in accordance with the law, be released unconditionally to the appellant - In the wake of unwillingness to responsibly aver that investigations have been widened to cover earlier imports or of the lack of demonstrated evidence of such and, considering the absence of any such assigning after intimation from appellant, the deposit of Rs. 97,00,000/- is attributable only to the seized goods - The interests of Revenue are, thus, not jeopardised by unconditional release - Consequently, the order directing deposit of Rs.75,00,000/- is set aside as insofar as present appeal, arising from the order of provisional release, is concerned, the respondent is not on sound footing: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-378-CESTAT-MUM

J B Construction Vs CCE

ST - The appellants are engaged in activity of construction of residential and commercial complex - Revenue has issued periodical SCNs to appellants on various grounds including eligibility to exemption claimed - The orders are inconsistent inasmuch as the same issue is allowed for a certain period and disallowed for some other period - On a query by the Bench, appellant submits that the legal position on the issue passed negatively is not changed - Therefore, department is not free to hold a different view on the same issues for different periods - Wherever the authorities have allowed the claim of appellants, department have not appealed against the same and therefore the issues allowed for that period attained finality - All the issues raised in periodical SCN have been concluded in favour of appellants in one period or the other - Matter remanded to original authority to pass suitable orders in a consistent manner not interfering with the benefit already extended to appellants: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-377-CESTAT-DEL

Sanghi Finance And Investment Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - The issue arises is, whether the penalty under Section 76 and 77 has been righty imposed and whether the credit for tax paid has not been given, is in accordance with the law - There is no malafide or suppression of facts on the part of appellant - The appellant have bonafidely deposited the tax prior to issuance of SCN and passing of O-I-O - Appellant is entitled to benefit under Section 180 and no penalty is imposable - Accordingly, penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 are set aside - Appellant is also entitled to credit of taxes deposited: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-376-CESTAT-DEL

Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd Vs CCGST

CX - The issue arises is, whether the appellant have rightly taken cenvat credit of service tax on outward freight during the period 01.04.2008 to March, 2009 - Appellant have admittedly made sales on FoR destination basis - Further, it is the appellant who have borne the incidence of freight and has paid service tax on the same - The place of removal is the premises of buyer, and accordingly in terms of amended provision in Rule 2(l), appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on outward transport under dispute, same has been incurred upto the place of removal - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-375-CESTAT-ALL

Wpil Ltd Vs CC, CE & CGST

CX - A ppellant is engaged in manufacture of power-driven pumps (PD Pumps) which were used for handling water - However, appellant is not manufacturing electric motor to be used as prime movers with goods manufactured by them - Electric motors are directly supplied to customers by manufacturer thereof either on behalf of appellant or on behalf of customers or purchased by customers themselves - Therefore, short issue arising is, whether the value of bought-out item which has not come to the factory of appellant and directly gone to the place of customer, value of bought out item is to be included in assessable value - The said issue has been squarely covered by Tribunal in case of Cheema Boilers Ltd. - The value of bought out item which has gone directly to customer place is not includable in assessable value of PD Pumps - No merit found in impugned order, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: ALLAHABAD CESTAT