I-T - Summary rejection of the objections to re-assessment is insuffient & the AO is required to respond to each and every objection raised by assessee : HC

I-T - Re-assessment order merits being quashed where it is passed without considering objections raised by assessee thereto : HC

I-T - Re-assessment order warrants being quashed where based on sound information which goes to show that income otherwise taxable had escaped assessment: HC

I-T - Revenue's appeals filed in matters involving bogus LTCG arising from penny stocks, are not maintainable, where special order to file appeal is not obtained as per Circular No. 23/2019 : ITAT

I-T - Question of law settled in previous assessment years merits status quo in current assessment years, in case of identical circumstances: ITAT

I-T - Failure of AO to give full effect to order of CIT(A) in respect of appeal order, is clear cut case of mistake apparent on record: ITAT

2022-TIOL-806-HC-MUM-IT

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether summary rejection of the objections to re-assessment is insuffient & the AO is required to respond to each and every objection raised by the assessee - YES: HC

- Case remanded: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-805-HC-MUM-IT

Group M Media India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

In writ, the Court expresses consternation at the Revenue officers concerned for the inordinate delay in disbursal of refund. The Court stresses upon the fact that it is public money that is utilised for paying interest to assessees for delayed disbursal of interest. The Court also proposes that the interest payable to the assessee be recovered from the Department officers responsible for disbursal of refund. The Court also directs that a copy of the order be sent to the Central Board of Direct Taxes; the Finance Minister, Government of India; the Principal Secretary in the Prime Minister's office; the Law Minister, Government of India; and the Attorney General for India.

- Writ petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-804-HC-DEL-IT

Meenu Chaufla Vs ITO

Whether re-assessment order merits being quashed where it has been passed without considering the objections raised by the assessee thereto - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-803-HC-MAD-IT

Pachayappan Vs ITO

Whether assessment order merits being set aside where it has been passed without considering certain documents to be furnished by the assessee - YES: HC

Whether the passing of a fresh order is subject to the assessee paying tax on undiscussed income - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-802-HC-ALL-IT

Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs UoI

Whether re-assessment order warrants being quashed where it is not based on any sound information which goes to show that income otherwise taxable had escaped assessment - YES: HC

- Writ Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

GST - ITC blocking - Merely by recording that some investigation is going-on, a drastic far-reaching action under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules cannot be sustained: HC

GST - Because of change of composition from Partnership Firm to Private Limited Company, registration number changed - Such reason cannot stand in the way in claiming ITC: HC

GST - Annual sinking fund collected in July or August by RWA from its members - If the total monthly maintenance charges exceeds Rs.7500/-, it is liable to tax: AAR

GST is not leviable on electricity and water charges collected by RWA from residents: AAR

CX - Since the appellant has not filed reply/any documents with regard to nature of sale whether it is FOR or otherwise, matter needs to be reconsidered: CESTAT

Cus - If importer agreed to destuction of imported consignment for lapses in Phytosanitary Certificate, then importer cannot later turn around & contest order directing destruction, being based on importer's own confessions: HC

CX - Merely because the goods were not accounted and for which a plausible explanation has been given by partner of firm, goods cannot be confiscated and no fine or penalty can be imposed: CESTAT

ST - In absence of provision in law providing for notional addition to value/price charged, question of adding notional interest on deposit amount as a consideration received for services rendered does not arise: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-810-HC-P&H-GST

Rajnandini Metal Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Respondents blocked Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.1.9 Crore lying in Electronic Credit Ledger on 2nd of September, 2021 - The petitioner filed representations objecting to such action of the respondents which remained undecided, therefore, petition filed and which was decided on 6 th December 2021 directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the said representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of seven days - Vide order dated 17th December, 2021 respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking unblocking of its Input Tax Credit, therefore, the present petition.

Held : Impugned order in the present case when tested on the touchstone of the provision contained in Rule 86A and the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s New Nalbandh Traders [ 2022-TIOL-360-HC-AHM-GST ], Bench finds that the reason to invoke the powers conferred under Rule 86A of CGST Rules against the petitioner is an intelligence report received from Principal Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Central Tax, Vadodara Zone regarding a racket of firms indulging in fake invoices and passing of illicit ITC - Merely by recording that some investigation is going-on, a drastic far-reaching action under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules cannot be sustained - There is no reason recorded by the Authority for exercising power under Rule 86A of the CGST Act, 2017 which would show independent application of mind that can constitute reasons to believe which is sine qua non for exercising power under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules - It is trite law that a speaking order has to be self-sustainable and respondents at this stage cannot be allowed to justify the same by adding reasons to it by filing additional affidavits - From the reading of the order, it is evident that it is bereft of any material or 'reason to believe' that the petitioner is guilty of fraudulent transaction or is ineligible under Section 16 of the Act, 2017 – Impugned order is set aside and petition is allowed: High Court [para 11, 12]

- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-809-HC-MAD-GST

Travancore Mats And Mattings Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner

GST - Petitioner had paid 12% of tax for the goods he manufactured or he dealt with - However, subsequently on advise, he had come to know that, he need not pay 12% of the tax and it is only 5% - Accordingly, he started to pay 5% of tax from November 2017 till April 2019 and return was filed accordingly - Despite the reply having been made to the notice under Section 61 of the Act, once again a notice for intimating discrepancies in the return, after scrutiny under Section 61 was issued on 07.10.2021 and challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

Held: An intimation had been issued about the discrepancies with a proposal to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under other provisions of the Act, therefore, it cannot be construed that the notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 07.10.2021 which is impugned herein, is unlawful or arbitrary - Court feels that if the petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment of the remaining 7% totally 12% tax for the period from November 2017 to April 2019, it is open to the petitioner to very well claim that ITC from the concerned jurisdictional State GST Authority, where the petitioner Head Office is located - Only apprehension raised by the petitioner is that because of change of the composition of the petitioner from Partnership Firm to Private Limited Company, there was a change of GST registration number - That should not be taken as a different dealer or entity instead of the petitioner and that reason cannot stand in the way in claiming the ITC by the petitioner if he is eligible to claim under the provisions of the GST Act - Since the challenge against the impugned orders has been given up, the validity of the said orders are not decided in these writ petitions - Petitions disposed of with observations and directions: High Court [para 10, 14, 16, 17]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-66-AAR-GST

Jayabheri Orange Country Owners Association

GST - Applicant  is a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) collecting monthly maintenance charges, certain annual fee by the name sinking fund and charges for electricity used in common area - Applicant has sought a ruling on the following questions viz. Is GST applicable on monthly collection not exceeding Rs.7500 per member as total collection of the society is more than Rs.20 lakhs a year?; Is GST applicable on total monthly maintenance of Rs.7500 per member plus annual sinking fund collected in July or August month in which annual sinking fund will be collected due to monthly collection including annual sinking fund exceeding Rs.7500 per member for that month or only on sinking fund which is over and above Rs.7500 per member?; Is GST applicable on monthly collection of common area electricity charge paid by the members in addition to the Rs.7500 monthly maintenance charged on the basis of actual bill divided by carpet area of 9,01,913 sq. ft pro rata charged to respective member's flat carpet area?

Held:  Notification 12/2017-CTR as amended by notification 02/2018-CTR, Sr.no . 77 thereof, states that service by an unincorporated body or a non-profit entity to its own members is exempt upto an amount of Rs. 7500 per month per member for sourcing of goods or services from a 3rd person for the common use of its members in a housing society or a residential complex - Even if the annual turnover of the RWA is greater than Rs.20 lakhs but the monthly maintenance charged per member per month is Rs. 7500/- or less, then such RWA need not pay tax on the amounts so collected - Any amount collected periodically along with the monthly maintenance charges are covered under Entry 77 of Notification No. 12/2017-CTR, therefore, they are taxable if the total amount collected by the RWA, by whatever name i.e., monthly maintenance or sinking fund etc., exceeds Rs.7500/- - Consequently, the total amount collected in July or August month by RWA from the members i.e., the monthly maintenance charge plus sinking fund amount is liable to tax if it exceeds Rs.7500/- - Nevertheless, GST is not leviable on electricity and water charges collected from residents: AAR 

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-801-HC-KERALA-CUS

Liwa Foods Vs UoI

Cus - The present petition was filed to challenge order issued by the Department directing destruction of consignment of goods imported by the Petitioner as well as an order imposing penalty on the Petitioner - The petitioner had imported a consignment of 2nd Grade Wet Dates from Saudi Arabia - However, their entry into India was rejected on the basis of Phytosanitary certificate issued from the Department of Quarantine in Saudi Arabia - The goods were ordered to be destroyed for the sole reason that the Phytosanitary certificate does not contain the endorsement that it is "free from Palm kernel borer".

Held - Delay in approaching this Court disables the assesee from pursuing this writ petition - The order was issued as early as on 29.12.2021 while this writ petition was preferred only on 04.03.2022 - The remedy of an appeal provided under Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 is seven days - The reason for prescribing the limited period of seven days is with a purpose, since, orders of destruction or other adverse orders ought to be appealed against, if aggrieved by the appropriate person, within limited time lines - Since the assessee failed to prefer the statutory appeal within the time provided, recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution to overcome the said statutory period of limitation is not legally tenable - Besides, the assessee itself had submitted to the Additional Commissioner of Customs to grant permission to destroy the cargo especially since there was no possibility of any re-export. After making such a concession before the statutory authority, petitioner cannot turn around & challenge the order issued on the basis of own concessions - The assessee is estopped from challenging the order in question: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-479-CESTAT-AHM

Abc Tube Company Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant is challenging impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) upheld the confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalty for alleged offence that the appellant have not recorded production in their RG-1 register while checking the physical stock by the officers - The entire case was made out only on the basis of statement and physical stock taking conducted by visiting officers - In physical stock taking, stock was not found accounted for in RG-1 register - Partner of appellant firm, Shri Jugar Kishore Munot categorically stated that the production was not recorded because the concerned dealing staff was on leave - There is no rebuttal to his this statement by department - Department has not produced any other evidence to establish that said unaccounted goods were kept as there was a preparation for clandestine removal - Therefore, merely because the goods were not accounted and for which a plausible explanation has been given by partner of firm, goods cannot be confiscated and no fine or penalty can be imposed - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-478-CESTAT-AHM

Cosmo Films Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Issue involved is that whether appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit on Outward GTA - It is found prima facie that the sale is on FOR, if it is so appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in the light of judgment in case of Ultratech Cement Ltd 2019-TIOL-1420-CESTAT-AHM and Sanghi Industries 2019-TIOL-1709-CESTAT-AHM upheld by High Court of Gujarat - However, since the appellant has not filed reply/any documents with regard to nature of sale whether it is FOR or otherwise, matter needs to be reconsidered - Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh after verifying the documents: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-477-CESTAT-AHM

Marwadi Shares And Finance Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The dispute relates to service tax on interest free deposit amount collected by appellant from the demat account holders under the Scheme and in lieu of same appellant has not collected AMC charges - Appellant also produced Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant who certify that appellant have not used the amount collected by them as 'Interest Free Security Deposit' from client for any financial operations or for earning any interest and shown the said amount in Balance Sheet as Current Liability - The 'consideration for service' is absent in present case, therefore, what can be levied to Service Tax is only the consideration received for service charged and no notional interest on the deposit taken can be levied to tax - There is no provision in Service Tax law for deeming notional interest on deposit taken as a consideration for providing services - Therefore, in the absence of a provision in law providing for a notional addition to value/price charged, question of adding notional interest on deposit amount as a consideration received for services rendered does not arise - Supreme Court in M/s. Bhayana Builders 2018-TIOL-66-SC-ST , observed that any amount charged which has no nexus with the taxable service and is not a consideration for the service provided does not become part of the value which is taxable under Section 67 - Department could not bring on record any clinching evidence that the deposit has influenced the service charges, the demand is not sustainable - Thus, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT