I-T - Case can be remanded to pass a de novo orders on merits on issue of reopening of assessment as there is lack of clarity on facts of case - HC

I-T - Re-assessment proceedings untenable where assessee not given opportunity to file reply to SCN: HC

I-T - Period taken by assessee for rectifying defects or curing omissions, does not entail receipt of interest u/s 244A :HC

I-T - Disallowance of depreciation on inflated URD purchases without making addition of alleged purchases is wrong : ITAT

I-T - No addition in assessment completed u/s 153C can be made without material found in course of search if unabated assessments is already completed prior to search: ITAT

I-T - Municipal Ratable Value of property or actual rent offered in return, whichever is higher, is to be adopted as fair rent : ITAT

I- T- CAM charges are subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 194C at 2% as it is in nature of contractual payments : ITAT

2022-TIOL-712-HC-MAD-IT

Fairmacs Shipping And Transport Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether case can be remanded to pass a de novo orders on merits on issue of reopening of assessment as there is lack of clarity on facts of case - YES : HC

- Assessee's writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-711-HC-DEL-IT

Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

In writ, the High Court observes that the re-assessment order is unsustainable since it was passed without enabling the assessee to file reply to SCN. Hence the AO is directed to re-hear the matter after considering the assessee's replies.

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-710-HC-AHM-IT

Shivam Investments Vs ACIT

On appeal, the High Court finds that the findings of the ITAT are based on sound appreciation of the facts of the case. Hence the Court finds no substantial question of law to arise.

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-709-HC-KERALA-IT-LB

State Bank of India Vs CCIT

Whether period taken by assessee for rectifying defects or curing omissions, does not entail receipt of interest u/s 244A - YES : HC

- Assessee's Writ Petition Dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-490-ITAT-BANG

Lifestyle International Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether CAM charges are subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 194C at 2% as it is in nature of contractual payments - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

CX - 1433 days delay in filing appeal (by Revenue) rightly condoned by Tribunal: HC

Cus - Marking 'N' instead of 'Y' in 'Reward' column - Assessee only intended to amend shipping bills so as to mention their intention to avail benefit of a particular scheme - Amendment u/s 149 rightly allowed: HC

GST - SCN is bereft of material particulars, order lacks reasons; grounds other than given in SCN; non adherence to basic principles of natural justice - Orders quashed and set aside: HC

GST - It seems that respondent has no idea about Rule 97A which permits manual filing of refund application: HC

GST - Whether the respondent authority is entitled to seize and detain the goods in transit and the conveyance, more particularly, when it is accompanied by a lawful e-way bill, invoices and without determining and offering the writ applicant opportunity to deposit tax, if any and penalty - Matters admitted: HC

ST - Impugned order is silent about sanction of interest and the law if mandates interest to flow consequent to sanction of refund that shall be covered under order of consequential relief already passed, appeal is held to be pre-mature: CESTAT

Cus - Appellant despite having knowledge of fraudulent imports by Shri Sumit Walia agreed to purchase Land Rover to be imported by them through same modus operandi, no evidence on record to prove appellant's innocence: CESTAT

CX - When duty itself was not liable to be paid by virtue of Notfn 06/2006, the argument that appellant was required to make payment holds no water, as long as Revenue does not suspect involvement of appellant as a sub-contractor: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-717-HC-AHM-GST

Rajkamal Metal And Alloys Vs State Tax Officer

GST - Moot question which arises for consideration is whether the respondent authority is entitled to seize and detain the goods in transit and the conveyance, more particularly, when it is accompanied by a lawful e-way bill, invoices and without determining and offering the writ applicant opportunity to deposit tax, if any and penalty - Whether the respondent authority were justified to distinctly proceed for confiscation proceedings by issuing notice under section 130 of the Act, 2017 - Both sides have raised substantial legal issues regarding amendment made in various sections of the Act, 2017 which is required to be considered after hearing respective parties on length - However, on ensuing summer vacation, time is constrain - For the reasons aforesaid, Bench is inclined to admit these matters - Rule returnable on 23.06.2022: High Court [para 9]

GST – Provisional release - Court has to strike balance as against the prayer of provisional release of goods and conveyance vis-a-vis securing revenue interest pending adjudication of confiscation proceedings - Pending the hearing of these petitions, Bench directs respondent authorities to provisionally release the goods and conveyance subject to the condition that the writ applicant shall deposit the total amount payable, including penalty, as determined by the respondent authority within period of one week from date of receipt of this order and upon realisation of such amount, the respondent authority shall forthwith release such goods and conveyance – Respondent authority shall conclude proceedings u/s 130 within one month – No coercive steps to be taken pursuant to any order passed u/s 130 of the Act: High Court [para 10, 11]

- Interim order passed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-716-HC-AHM-GST

Pantone Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Writ applicants have challenged the legality and validity of the orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 to 4 purporting to cancel the registration granted - Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of the order for cancellation of registration.

Held: Show cause notice issued by the respondent authority is bereft of any material particulars - Not only that, no sufficient opportunity has been provided by the respondent authority while adjudicating such show cause notice - All the show cause notices seeking cancellation of registration in this batch of writ applications are issued during the surge of Covid-19 pandemic i.e. in the month of March, 2021 - Writ applicant had specifically requested for personal hearing through video conferencing - Even the order impugned lacks the reasons - Even otherwise, the reason assigned by the respondent authority is without any basis being found in the show cause notice - Even in the show cause notice, seeking revocation of cancellation of registration, the authorities have chosen to proceed on the ground other than the reason given in the original show cause notice seeking cancellation of registration - At the stage of rejection of application for revocation, the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the basic principles of natural justice - Appellate authority has recorded the reasons and the findings in mechanical manner as in almost all these matters the reasons assigned and findings recorded are same - Impugned show cause notices as well as the consequential orders cancelling registration and further order rejecting the revocation application seeking restoration of GSTN registration are hereby quashed and set aside - Liberty is granted to the respondent authority to issue fresh show cause notice with all material particulars as well as to furnish any particular piece of evidence, which the authority desires to rely upon to the writ applicant to enable the writ applicants to respond effectively to such show cause notice - Writ applications stand allowed in aforesaid terms: High Court [para 10, 12, 13]

- Petitions allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-715-HC-AHM-GST

Ayana Pharma Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Deputy State Tax Commissioner, Circle-2, Ahmedabad has solely rejected the application of writ applicant company on the ground that instead of online application seeking refund, the writ applicant has submitted manual / physical application - Petitioner is before the High Court.

Held: It seems that the respondent No. 4 has no idea about Rule 97A of the Rules which starts with the non-obstante clause - Rule 97A clarifies that notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter X of the Rules any reference to electronic filing of an application would include manual filing of the said application - Impugned order is quashed and set aside - Writ petition succeeds in part: High Court [para 13, 15]

- Petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-714-HC-AHM-CX

Sujal Shah Vs UoI

CX - Petitioner seeks a writ prohibiting the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, completely and permanently from implementing interim order No. 5/2022 dated 24.01.2022 and also completely and permanently prohibiting the Appellate Tribunal from deciding appeals filed by the Revenue against the petitioners in respect of O/O dated 20.9.2017 - Facts are that show cause notice dated 29th September 2015 came to be issued by the Principal Additional Director General seeking to inter alia recover CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 19,09,76,410/- allegedly wrongly availed and utilised by the petitioner - Commissioner by his order dated 21st September 2017 dropped the proceedings and Revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal on 16th January 2018 -Appeal was filed only against M/s. SAL and not against any other person who was a co- noticee in the show cause notice referred to above including the writ applicants herein - Revenue preferred an application requesting the Tribunal to take up the appeal for hearing as a huge amount towards CENVAT credit was involved in the litigation - Tribunal allowed the application and fixed an early hearing in the matter - A preliminary contention was raised on behalf of M/s. SAL that as no appeal had been filed by the Revenue against any other person named in the show cause notice and the Revenue having accepted the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner against the co- noticees and dealers, the appeal against M/s. SAL may be dismissed - Tribunal thought fit to grant further time to the Revenue and adjourned the hearing of the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s. SAL - In such circumstances referred to above, 11 new appeals with 11 applications for the condonation of delay came to be filed by the 3rd respondent before Appellate Tribunal - These appeals and condonation of delay applications were against the writ applicant No. 1 herein as well as against 10 registered dealers including the writ applicant No. 2 herein - Tribunal proceeded to hear the delay condonation applications on 10th January 2021 and allowed the same by condoning the appeal of 1433 days - Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present writ petition.

Held: Tribunal could be said to have properly considered the applications for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions in this regard - In view of the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and also the sufficient cause assigned in the applications for condonation of delay, Bench is of the opinion that the Revenue has assigned sufficient cause for the purpose of getting the delay condoned and the Tribunal was justified in allowing the applications - It cannot be overlooked that the appeal against M/s. SAL has already been admitted - In the larger interests of the Revenue, the department should be given an opportunity to put forward its case against the writ applicants herein and all other co- noticee s ( dealers) in the show cause notice - writ application fails and is hereby rejected: High Court [para 15, 21, 22]

- Petition rejected: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-713-HC-AHM-CUS

CC Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd

Cus - Revenue appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the CESTAT - 2020-TIOL-394-CESTAT-AHM - Customs Broker of the assessee committed a mistake by marking "N" (No) instead of "Y" (Yes) in the "Reward" column in all the disputed shipping bills - When the Let Export Orders (LEOs) against the aforesaid shipping bills were granted, the assessee realized the mistake committed by it - Request of the Assessee for amendment in the shipping bills under section 149 of the Customs Act was rejected by the lower authorities but the CESTAT allowed their appeal holding that the issue is covered by a decision of the High Court of Kerala and further held that the amendment claimed by the Assessee is not in the nature of change of the shipping bills; that the assessee only intended to amend the shipping bills so as to mention their intention to avail the benefit of a particular scheme; that the benefit of amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act could not have been denied.

Held: High Court in the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. = 2021-TIOL-538-HC-AHM-CUS , took the view that Section 149 of the Act does not prescribe any time period and in such circumstances, the Circular 36/2010 Customs dated 23.09.2010, which was issued by the CBEC providing for three months' time period to make a request for conversion from the date of the LEO was declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - None of the three questions of law proposed by the Revenue could be said to be substantial questions of law - Tax Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed - In a given case, the delay on the part of the assessee may assume importance - Order shall not be cited as a precedent: High Court [para 18, 19]

- Appeal dismissed: GUJARAG HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-416-CESTAT-DEL

Ananda Books Vs CCGST

ST - Interest on delayed refund - Refund claim of appellant stands already allowed with consequential relief - Since the order of Commissioner (A) is silent about sanction of interest and the law if mandates interest to flow consequent to sanction of refund that shall be covered under order of consequential relief already passed by Commissioner (A) - Accordingly, Tribunal do not find any cause of action as of now available with appellant to challenge the said order - The appropriate remedy would have been sought by filing an application to Department seeking implementation of the impugned order dated 25th November, 2019 - It is mentioned by appellant that said application has been filed - Appellant is therefore, required to pursue said application as far as this present appeal is concerned - The appeal is, therefore, held to be pre-mature, accordingly, stands disposed of giving liberty to the appellant to approach the Department: CESTAT

- Appeal disposed of: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-415-CESTAT-DEL

Vikram Tokas Vs CC

Cus - The appellant admittedly runs a petrol pump - There is no denial of appellant, despite retracting his earlier statement, that Shri Sumit Walia was running a business of sale and purchase of cars including that of high end luxury imported cars from his premises of petrol pump - Despite having knowledge of modus operandi of Shri Sumit Walia, plea of appellant is not reasonable that he had no knowledge about wrong intent of Shri Sumit Walia for evading relevant customs duty on such cars - Appellant, despite having knowledge of fraudulent imports by Shri Sumit Walia agreed to purchase Land Rover in question to be imported by them through the same modus operandi - These admitted facts are opined sufficient to falsify retraction of statement of appellant - There is no other evidence on record to prove appellant's innocence as far as knowledge of fraudulent import by Shri Sumit Walia is concerned - As regards to violation of principle of natural justice, three opportunities of personal hearing were awarded to appellant, that too, with reasonable time for appearance but they fail to appear - Coming to the challenge of SCN being hit by jurisdiction for the reason that DRI Officers not being competent to issue the same, decisions relied upon by appellant in case of M/s. Mangli Impex 2016-TIOL-877-HC-DEL-CUS is no more applicable - The latest decision of Apex Court in Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB clarifies that SCNs issued for confiscation of goods do not debar the officer of DRI to be competent - It is only the SCNs for demanding differential duties as issued under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, that the DRI Officers were not held to be the proper officers - The present case relates to confiscation of land rover in question - Appellant cannot deny acquiring possession of Land Rover which is found to have been imported with a tampered chassis which is a stolen car but has been imported as a new car that too under-valuing its cost - Accordingly, no infirmity found in order under challenge, when the penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been imposed upon appellant, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-414-CESTAT-MAD

Hivelm Industries Vs CGST & CE

CX - The only issue to be decided is, whether the rejection of appellant's refund claim made under Section 11B of CEA, 1944 is in order - The deemed export did not attract any Excise Duty and hence, it is not the duty of appellant/taxpayer to repeatedly plead before authorities that the project in which it was involved was a deemed export - Moreover, the fact that the appellant filed its refund claim immediately, though before a wrong forum, itself proves the bona fides of appellant and hence, the same establishes the fact that there was an application for refund claim within limitation period prescribed in statute, though before a wrong forum - The purchase order coupled with tax invoice also reflect the said position, which sufficiently establish the fact that the duty payment, which was not required to be made, but still having been paid, could only be under protest - The main contractor itself has issued a disclaimer certificate wherein it has been clearly and categorically mentioned that appellant has paid the duty, but the same is not refunded to appellant and that it has no objection for appellant to claim refund of duty it has paid, which, takes care of the Revenue's doubts as to the non-mentioning of appellant's name in the project certificate - Further, when the duty itself was not liable to be paid by virtue of Notfn 06/2006, the argument that appellant was required to make the payment holds no water, as long as the Revenue does not suspect the involvement of appellant as a sub-contractor - No merit found in impugned order and consequently, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT