I-T - Re-opening of assessment merits being sustained where falsity of certain claims made by assessee are exposed in course of audit : ITAT

I-T - Books of accounts cannot be rejected u/s 145(3), simply because stock register is not maintained : ITAT

I-T - Income for application for charitable purpose is to be computed in accordance with commercial principles: ITAT

2022-TIOL-486-ITAT-PUNE

Goel Ganga Construction Vs ITO

Whether re-opening of assessment merits being sustained where falsity of certain claims made by the assessee are exposed in course of audit - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-485-ITAT-JAIPUR

R G Colonizers Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether books of accounts can be rejected u/s 145(3), simply because stock register is not maintained – NO: ITAT

- Assessee's Appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-484-ITAT-DEL

DCIT Vs Flt Lt Rajan Dhall Charitable Trust

Whether income for application for charitable purpose is to be computed in accordance with the commercial principles - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT

GST - Profiteering proved - Respondents should have reduced the base prices to the extent of CVD that was no longer required to be paid as well as to the extent of ITC which was available of IGST: NAA

GST - Cinema tickets - Reduction of tax - Increasing base price to maintain the same cum-tax selling price - Profiteered amount to be paid within three months - No instalment facility as no such provision exists in the Act/Rules: NAA

GST - Entire supply chain is required to be investigated by DGAP to ascertain the fact of profiteering by respondents' suppliers: NAA

ST- When both the cancellation of allocation of blocks and receipt of compensation are by operation of law, no Service Tax can be levied on amounts received by appellant as compensation: CESTAT

Cus - Since there is incorrect mention of dutiable goods in IGM, same are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-07-NAA-GST

S R Lifesciences

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges profiteering by the respondent in respect of the supply of "ECLAT SERUM" when the GST rate was reduced from 28% to 18% w.e.f 15.11.2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent has not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate by way of commensurate reduction in the prices - DGAP has observed that the base price of the subject goods were increased by the respondent when there was a reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% so that the benefit of such reduction in GST rate was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in price - DGAP has in its report stated that the total amount of profiteering on account of contravention of the provisions of s.171 of the Act, 2017 covering the period 15.11.2017 to 30.09.2019 was Rs.1,54,138/- that also included Rs.1000/- as profiteering amount collected by respondent from the applicant no. 1 - DGAP report is accepted by the Authority - DGAP vide letter dated 15.12.2020 has asserted that the respondent had issued the demand drafts on 01.12.2020 for payment of Rs.1000/- to the applicant no.1 and Rs.76,569/- to Central Consumer Welfare Fund and Maharashtra State CWF each - The interest amounts were also paid by the respondent to the applicant as well as on the amounts deposited in the CWF - Since the penalty u/s 171(3A) for contravention of the provisions of s.171(1) have come into force w.e.f 01.01.2020 and since the period involved in the present case is for the prior period, no penalty is imposable - Authority also directs the DGAP to gather information of the respondents' suppliers from the respondent and investigate the entire supply chain under rule 133(5) of the Rules, 2017 and submit the investigation report within 3 months - Present order is being passed within the period of limitation as allowed by the Supreme Court: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAPA

2022-TIOL-06-NAA-GST

Piccadilly Square Movie Complex

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged that the respondent has profiteered with respect to supply of 'Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematography films' - Applicant has contended that the respondent did not pass on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on the aforesaid movie admission tickets, from 28% to 18% w.e.f 01.01.2019 vide notification 27/2018-CTR dated 31.12.2018 and instead increased the base price to maintain the same cum-tax selling price - DGAP has in its report concluded that the base price of the admission tickets were increased as a result of which the benefit of reduction in GST rate from 28% to 18% and 18% to 12% (w.e.f 01.01.2019) was not passed on to the recipients by way of commensurate reduction in prices charged - For the period from 01.01.2019 to 18.07.2019, the respondent did not reduce the base price of the five categories of tickets in commensurate manner resorting to profiteering by an amount of Rs.9,74,638/- and for the period from 19.07.2019 to 31.01.2020 the respondent did not reduce the base prices of the four categories of tickets in commensurate manner resorting to profiteering amounting to Rs.2,32,112/- and hence the total amount of profiteering covering the period of 01.01.2019 to 31.01.2020 was Rs.12,06,750/-.

Held:  The Authority finds from the documents submitted along with the report that the respondent did not commensurately reduce the price of the tickets despite reduction in the GST rate from 28% to 18% and from 18% to 12% respectively and thus contravened the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act - Respondent has not opposed the said fact of not reducing the prices in commensurate manner after reduction of tax rate and profiteering calculation and has agreed to deposit the profiteered amount - Authority, therefore, finds that the respondent has contravened the provisions of s.171 of the Act, 2017 and the Authority agrees with the profiteering amount calculated by the DGAP - There are no specific provisions in the Act or Rules which provide for payment of determined profiteered amount in instalments - Authority directs the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.12,06,750/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central and the State government in the ratio of 50:50 as per the provisions of rule 133(3)(c) of the Rules along with interest @18% - Amount is to be deposited within a period of 3 months - Since the provisions of Section 171(3A) for imposition of penalty for contravening the provisions of s.171(1) has come into effect from 01.01.2020, penalty equivalent to ten per cent of the profiteered amount will be imposed on respondent for the amount collected after 01.01.2020 - However, no penalty shall be leviable if the profiteered amount is deposited within thirty days of the date of passing of the order - Compliance report to be submitted by Commissioners CGST/SGST concerned within a period of four months -  Order passed by NAA falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAPA

2022-TIOL-04-NAA-GST

Anutone Acoustics Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant has alleged profiteering in respect of supply of goods by the respondent - Respondent has supplied the goods as per the order placed during February 2017 on the prices agreed as per the offer of the respondents given during November 2016 - At the time of placing the order, since it was an inter-state transaction, CST of 2% was applicable and consequent upon introduction of GST, IGST @18% was applicable - respondent had been charging 2% CST prior to July 2017 and started charging 18% IGST from July 2017 but the basic price of the goods remained unchanged - Respondent, an importer of goods was not eligible to avail ITC of additional duty of customs (CVD) paid on such goods at the time of import till June 2017 as the imported goods were traded - However, with the introduction of GST, the respondents became entitled to avail ITC of IGST paid at the time of import of goods and, therefore, the incidence of tax on import of such goods stood reduced for the respondent but the respondent did not reduce the basic price of the said goods commensurate with the ITC of IGST paid at the time of import - And this, the applicant contends is profiteering made by the respondent.

Held:  Issue to be examined by the Authority is as to whether there was any net benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST - On this issue, it has been revealed from the DGAP's report that the respondent should have reduced the base prices to the extent of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) that was no longer required to be paid by the respondent as well as to the extent of the IGST paid at the time of import, the credit of which was now available - This proceeds on the fact that in the GST period the Additional duty of Customs (CVD) is subsumed under GST and in particular by the IGST that is to be paid at the time of import - On the one hand, there has been no incidence of the Additional duty of Customs (CVD) on the goods imported and supplied by the respondent to the applicant no. 1 whereas on the other hand such Additional duty of Customs (CVD) had been subsumed in the IGST paid on such goods by the respondent and ITC of such IGST was made available to the respondent for payment of IGST on the same goods supplied to Applicant no. 1 - The base price was not reduced by the respondent to the extent of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) that was not payable post GST - DGAP has calculated the amount of ITC benefit to be passed on to the applicant no. 1 during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019 as Rs.12,79,304/- on the basis of information supplied by respondent and hence the amount of profiteering computed by DGAP is correct - The profiteered amount should be refunded by the respondent to the applicant along with interest @18% from the date when the above amount was profiteered by him till the date of such refund in accordance with the provisions of rule 133(3)(b) of the Rules, 2017 - Order passed by NAA falls within the limitation prescribed under rule 133(1) of the Rules, 2017 in view of the orders dated 20.03.2020, 10.01.2022 passed by the Apex Court on the aspect of limitation - As no penalty provisions were in existence during the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2019, when the respondent had violated the provisions of s.171(1), the penalty prescribed u/s 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the respondent: NAA

- Application disposed of: NAPA

2022-TIOL-408-CESTAT-KOL

Jindal Steel And Power Ltd Vs Pr.CCGST & CE

ST - The appellant is a company inter alia engaged in business of manufacturing steel - The Supreme Court cancelled the allotment of 203 coal mines, one of which was Jitpur Coal Mine allocated to appellant - As per provisions of Section 16 of Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (CMSPA), at the time of re-allocation of cancelled coal blocks to successful bidder, prior allottees were to be compensated for transfer of right, title and interest in land and mine infrastructure to successful bidder - Accordingly, appellant being a prior allottee, received an amount as compensation in respect of land and mine infrastructure - Appellant was issued a SCN alleging that it had tolerated the act of cancellation of coal blocks by Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, in lieu of which it received compensation, on which it was liable to discharge Service Tax - The appellant had no choice of tolerating cancellation or not - Appellant has not chosen to tolerate the cancellation - The cancellation was in pursuance of order of Supreme Court and not as a result of a contract to tolerate cancellation - There was no consideration for tolerating cancellation, only a compensation provided for statutorily for investment made in mines by appellant - Both the cancellation of allocation of blocks and receipt of compensation are by operation of law - They are like the receipt of a compensation when one's land is acquired by Government in public interest or payment to a Government employee of an amount equal to salary for unused leave at the time of his/her retirement - No Service Tax can be levied on amounts received by appellant as compensation - Since the matter is decided in favour of the appellant on merits, it is not necessary to examine the question of limitation - For the same reason, all the penalties are set aside - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2022-TIOL-407-CESTAT-MUM

Kanchan Steel And Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant had declared country of origin as Malaysia as against the actual country of origin as Europe - Thus, mis-declaration is evident and the declared value is liable for rejection in terms of Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 - Bills of Entry were filed on 21/12/2009, much after the date of issuance of Notfn 38/2009-Cus. in imposing anti-dumping duty - Hence, the stand taken by appellants that such duty cannot be levied on them is factually incorrect - Appellant had not filed IGM correctly inasmuch as there is mis-declaration of goods furnished therein - Further, no amendment of IGM had ever been sought by person in-charge of vessel, before filing B/Es by appellants - Since there is incorrect mention of dutiable goods in IGM, same are liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962 - The Commissioner (A) has elaborately discussed the role played by appellants in respect of mis-declaration of goods but took a lenient view in reducing the quantum of fine and penalties imposed in original order - Since, the appellants have not submitted any plausible evidence or records to prove the case otherwise, impugned order passed by appellate authority cannot be interfered with: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-406-CESTAT-DEL

Mammon Concast Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The issue involved is regarding disallowance of Cenvat Credit on alleged ineligible capital goods and improper documents (commercial invoices), which appear to be not specified documents as prescribed under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Taking of cenvat credit has to be decided on the date of receipt of inputs or capital goods - There is no requirement of one to one correlation - Admittedly, the Court Below has found such inputs were required for fabrication of capital goods in question and further, found that these are essential for manufacture of dutiable goods - Further, there is no allegation in SCN that the appellant has clandestinely cleared any of the goods on which cenvat credit is in dispute - Impugned order so far as it has disallowed the cenvat credit of Rs.20,07,588/- is set aside - The invoices have been issued in proper format and contain the proper address of appellant as well as central sales tax and VAT No - Further, excise duty has been separately reflected in invoices - Thus, the findings of the court below are erroneous and contrary to the facts on record - Accordingly, amount of Rs. 36,232/- is available as cenvat credit - All penalties stand set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT