2022-TIOL-676-ITAT-PUNE

Chheda Electricals And Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether reduction in book profit u/s 115JB can be sought for with the amount of deduction u/s 80IC - NO: ITAT

- Appeals dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-675-ITAT-AHM

Crest Composites And Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether prior to amendment of Section 35(2AB) w.e.f. 01.07.2016, the deduction u/s 35(2AB) would be available to an assessee having in-house R&D facility approved by competent authority - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-674-ITAT-CHD

HP Ex Servicemen Corporation Vs ACIT

Whether it is fit case for remand where the assessee has been held liable for non-deduction of TDS, but where it remains to be examined as to whether or not the receipts in question qualify as the assessee's income - YES: ITAT

- Case remanded: CHANDIGARH ITAT

GST - s.98(2), first proviso - Petitioner approached AAR only after a search was conducted and which resulted in issuance of SCN - Application rightly rejected: HC

GST - Refund rejection - Reasons assigned may be cryptic on bare perusal but are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause - not a non-speaking order: HC

Cus - 82 year old petitioner seeks redemption of 18 tolas of gold seized in year 1981 - Delay defeats equity - No case made out warranting interference after 41 years of seizure and 39 years of order: HC

Cus - After litigating in a court of law, when orders are passed in favour, they are required to be complied with in letter and spirit - Department to pay interest @10%: HC

Service Matter - Departmental proceedings commenced against public servant cannot be halted where allegations involve misconduct & have grave ramifications: HC

2022-TIOL-908-HC-MP-GST

Saisanket Enterprise Vs Authority for Advance Ruling

GST - Petitioner challenges the orders dated 10.12.2020 and 26.07.2021 passed by the AAR and the AAAR respectively - Vide order dated 10.12.2020, the AAR had declined to grant advance ruling by virtue of First Proviso of section 98(2) of CGST / MPGST Act, 2017 and this order was upheld by the Appellate authority - Petitioner submits that the Advance Ruling Authority as well as Appellate Authority, have failed to correctly interpretate the language 98(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Inasmuch as the said proviso bars the advance ruling if the question raised is pending or decided in any proceedings under any provision of the Act; that in the present case no such proceedings are pending against the petitioner, therefore, Authority ought to have decided the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of the rate of tax and, hence, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the authorities for adjudication on merit.

Held: Petitioner approached the Authority for obtaining the advance ruling only after a search was conducted on 20.03.2020 in which the evasion of SGST was found and which has resulted in issuing a show-cause notice dated 21.05.2020 - By the aforesaid impugned notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the remaining amount of GST/SGST liability and submit the reply - Since the petitioner has not paid GST @ 18% and appears to be contesting the aforesaid notice, therefore, the issue is treated to be pending before the Authority under the GST/SGST Act, 2017 hence, Authorities have rightly declined to grant advance ruling to the petitioner as the petitioner did not approach in advance before the Authority for obtaining the ruling - No ground for interference - Petition is dismissed in limine : High Court

- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-907-HC-MP-GST

Prism Johnson Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Refund of accumulated credit of compensation Cess has been denied by lower authorities, therefore, these petitions - Principal grounds of challenge to the aforesaid show cause notices and subsequent orders are that the refund despite being due in law has been wrongly denied and the consequential orders of refusal to refund are non-speaking. Held: Claim for refund has been declined by assigning reasons which may be cryptic on bare perusal but are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause for rejection of the claim for refund - The reasons assigned could have been more elaborate but that by itself cannot render the impugned orders vitiated - The reasons assigned are sufficient to save the orders from being sacrificed at the altar of natural justice (non-speaking order) - Pertinently, the reasons assigned cannot categorize the impugned orders to be non-speaking since they do not dissuade the assessee from knowing the mind of the adjudicating authority or dissuading from filing an appeal - Court declines interference and relegates the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal u/s. 107 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - Petitions dismissed: High Court [para 6, 8]

- Petitions dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-904-HC-MAD-VAT

Janaranjam Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer

Whether attachment of property merits being stayed where the assessee is unable to pre-deposit the duty demanded on account of restrictions imposed by COVID pandemic - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-903-HC-P&H-SERVICE

Baldev Singh Sandhu Vs UoI

Service Matter - The present petition was filed to contest the dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal by the CAT in respect of Departmental proceedings commenced against the Petitioner - The CAT held there to be lapse on part of successive Inquiry Officers in the sense that they failed to conclude the inquiry proceedings, despite an undertaking being given - It was claimed on behalf of the Petitioner that since the Petitioner was being prosecuted on the criminal side and a charge-sheet had been framed under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, his defence would be prejudiced in case the Departmental proceedings are allowed to continue - It was contended that Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as '1965 Rules) provided that a mandate was there that the inquiry proceedings should be concluded within a period of six months - If it was not possible to adhere to the time limit specified, the Inquiring Authority may record the reasons and seek extension from the disciplinary authority and extension was not to be allowed exceeding six months at a time while referring to sub-Rule 24 of Rule 14 of 1965 Rules - It was, accordingly, submitted that the charge-sheet had been issued on 05.10.2012 (Annexure A-1), but the proceedings had not been culminated, leading to the mis-carriage of justice to the petitioner. The petitioner had also been prosecuted on the criminal side, where charge had been framed on 07.05.2015 (Annexure A-16) on the same set of circumstances. Held - The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are considerably serious and go deep into the realm of misconduct by a public servant - Besides, the Investigating Officers probing the matter have been changed multiple times - Hence it is not appropriate to stay the Departmental proceedings: HC + The Tribunal has noticed that various inquiry officers have changed and it is a matter of fact that the petitioner also retired on 30.09.2015 and, therefore, at this stage the threat as such of dismissal will no longer loom over him. It is to be seen that many times Departmental proceedings are sought to be stayed on this ground, if the same are conducted expeditiously, which might result in dismissal of the employee, whereas on criminal side he might get the benefit of acquittal on the same set of allegations; (p 12) + It is not disputed that as observed by the Tribunal out of 195 prosecution witnesses, 32 have been examined and 63 witnesses are yet to be examined and there are also 77 covering witnesses. + A comparison of the charge-sheet issued on the Departmental side and the charge framed by the criminal Court would go on to show that they operate within a different ambit regarding the non-disclosure of the properties which had been purchased without obtaining prior permission, which is nothing to do with the factum of the prosecution on the criminal side. Similarly, the charge of maintaining absolute integrity in the duty and had acting in a manner unbecoming of public servants as contravened the provisions of service rules and nothing is interconnected with criminal proceedings and, therefore, the departmental proceedings are operating within a different framework; (p 15) + We have also noticed the delay which has occurred in the present case is on account of large number of witnesses which had been arrayed by the CBI. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no such benefit is liable to be granted for staying the proceedings as asked for, since the matter has already lingered for the last over a decade and the Tribunal has rightly directed the monitoring of the said case, so that it can be concluded at the earliest; (p 19) + Thus, keeping in mind the cumulative weightage of the precedents which are against the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the allegations levelled against him, which go deep into the misconduct of the public servant, it would not be appropriate to stay the Departmental proceedings. The fact that on an earlier occasion the petitioner himself was keen that the same should be conducted within a time bound frame is also being kept in mind. The petitioner, thus, cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at his own convenience. (p 22)

- Writ petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-906-HC-MP-CUS

Devendra Kumar Jain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Cus - Petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to return pieces of gold weighing 156.350 gm of 24 cts and 13.900 gm 22 cts as was seized on 22-10-1981; allowing a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for suffering and agony caused due to negligence of Respondents; as well as cost of petition - Petitioner submits that gold was ordered to be confiscated by order dated 22.11.1983 under section 71(1) of the Gold Control Act by Superintendent (GOID / Customs), Central Excise, Headquarters, Indore; imposition of penalty of Rs.2000/- and with an option to redeem the said gold on payment of a fine of Rs.6000/- - It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner had applied for redemption of gold on payment of fine of Rs.6,000/-, but every time, he was informed that the direction issued by the authority for redemption of gold is under challenge and the gold was not redeemed and, accordingly, the present petition has been filed. Held: Petitioner is seeking enforcement of order dated 22.11.1983, i.e., after 39 long years - The submission of the petitioner that all the time, respondent No. 2 was expressing that an appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, therefore, the gold was not redeemed, cannot be accepted because it is not the case of the petitioner that any appeal was ever filed against the order dated 22.11.1983 by any of the parties - Furthermore, the petitioner was to act vigilantly and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever tried to find out the details of the appeal or had ever approached the Appellate Authority to find out as to whether any appeal has been filed or not - More than 18 tolas of gold was seized, thus, it is clear that with passage of time, prices of gold have gone high and it appears that now the petitioner wants to take advantage of 186 grams of gold, which was seized in the year 1981 - It is well established principle of law that the delay defeats equity - No case is made out warranting interference after 41 years of seizure of gold and 39 years of order dated 22.11.1983 - Petition fails and is dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5, 7, 8]

- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-905-HC-MP-CUS

Indraprast Traders Vs CC

Cus - By the order dated 24.8.2016 = 2016-TIOL-3010-CESTAT-DEL , the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by CESTAT by setting aside the final order dated 30.4.2011 - Consequently, the petitioner was entitled for the refund of Rs.30 Lakhs, however, this refund claim was rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation as well as on merits, therefore, the present petition. Held : After litigating in a court of law when orders are passed in favour of the petitioner, they are required to be complied with in letter and spirit - Untenable grounds seeking to question the entitlement of the petitioner, does not lie with the respondents - In case the submissions of the respondents were to be accepted, the same would result in overriding the orders passed by the CESTAT and which is unacceptable - Bench is constrained to observe that in the facts of the present case, the respondents were not justified in withholding the said payments - In view of the deliberate withholding of the payments, Bench is of the considered view that not only the amount is to be returned to the petitioner but they should also be liable to pay interest on the same - Bench deems it just and necessary that the respondents be directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the CESTAT order till the date the payments are made to the petitioner - said amounts shall be paid within a period of four weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT