Whether when investment made by assessee is neither more than amount declared by her during assessment proceedings nor outside books, then same cannot be declared as unexplained - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

Whether expenses which is incurred to bring building in same form and no new asset came into existence, are revenue in nature and hence, allowable u/s 37 - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

Whether when assessee saddled with impossible task of establishing source of source with requisite evidence, failed in his attempt, it is no basis to conclude that assessee failed test of human probability - YES: ITAT

Whether assessee's failure to explain source of source cannot be treated as his failure to discharge onus u/s 68 - YES: ITAT

Whether suspicion however strong cannot substitute documentary evidence, until proved to be false - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

GST - Sl. No. 11A of 12/2017-CTR - Applicant cannot be regarded as a 'fair price shop' as they procure Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) from IOCL and supply the same to dealers, who in turn, supply it to ration card holders: AAR

GST - Seizure order challenged - Once the information from iPhone and Oppo phone, Lenovo laptop, DVR are retrieved by Revenue, the electronic gadgets would be released and handed over: HC

GST - Notice alleging that petitioner has not paid tax on reverse charge basis on ocean freight in respect of import consignment is quashed & set aside as Entry 10 to 10/2017-IT(R) is held ultra vires: HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - No question of tinkering with the Scheme - Discounted tax cannot be deposited after last date - Relief rightly denied: HC

PC Act - As a matter of right respondent can't claim presence of his lawyers during course of recording of his statement: HC

2022-TIOL-916-HC-DEL-MISC

Directorate of Enforcement Vs Satyendar Kumar Jain

Whether as a matter of right respondent can claim presence of his lawyers during course of recording of his statement - NO : HC

- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-914-HC-AHM-GST

Ozone Procon Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Respondent-authority issued notice on 29.08.2019 alleging that the petitioner has not paid the tax on reverse charge basis on ocean freight in respect of the import consignment in view of the Entry No. 10 of the notification 10/2017-IT(R) dated 28.06.2017 - Since the petitioner had already paid the customs duties on the goods purchased, by way of present petition, they have challenged Entry No. 10 of the said notification dated 28.06.2017. Held: Judgement dated 23.01.2020 [ 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST ] passed by this Court by which Entry No. 10 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 is held ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is upheld by the Supreme Court [ 2022-TIOL-49-SC-GST-LB ] and in view of the above position, the proceedings initiated by the respondents as well as notice/communication dated 29.08.2019 are required to be quashed and set aside - petition is allowed and impugned notice/communication dated 29.08.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside: High Court [para 12, 13]

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-913-HC-AHM-GST

Shama Fatima Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Order of seizure passed by respondent No. 2 pertaining to articles belonging to the petitioner have been challenged in both the petitions. Held: In the first case, out of 21 articles which were seized by the respondent authority, 18 items have been released and have been handed over to the petitioner - Similarly, in the second case, out of five articles which were seized by the respondent authority, three items have been released and have been handed over to the petitioner - However, iPhone (2 nos.), Oppo Mobile phone, Lenovo laptop and DVR are yet to be released and the Counsel for the Revenue submits under instructions that as and when the details are retrieved from the aforesaid electronic gadgets, the same shall be released and handed over to the petitioner but not later than 31st July, 2022 - In view of above statement being made by AGP, the petitions would not survive and are disposed of accordingly: High Court [para 10 to 12]

- Petitions disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-78-AAR-GST

Provat Kumar Kundu

GST - Applicant is an agent of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and is engaged in the distribution of Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) for domestic purposes to fair price dealers - Applicant supplies the goods only to dealers which are permitted / approved by the Director of Consumer Goods, Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal - Applicant seeks a ruling on the following questions - I. Whether the applicant in the capacity of an agent would be covered within 'Fair Price shops' for the purpose of claiming the exemption? II. Whether the invoice raised by the applicant to the dealers under PDS would be covered in service 'to State Government'? III. Whether the other charges like agent's commission, agent's transport charges, stationery charges, H & E Loss etc. would be chargeable to GST or treated as exempt? IV. Whether the supply of SKO along with other charges would be treated as a composite supply wherein the principal supply would be the supply of SKO? V. If these other charges are taxable under GST, what would be the rate of GST applicable on it? VI. If these other charges are exempt under GST, would there a reversal of ITC attributable to such exempt supplies? Will the GST charged on the base price of SKO by IOCL from the applicant be treated as common input or input services for calculation of ITC reversal under Rule 42 of the CGST Rules 2017? Held: I. The applicant is found not to be a 'Fair Price Shop'. II. The applicant supplies to the S.K.Oil dealers under PDS and not to the State Government. III. Charges [like agent's commission, agent's transport charges, stationery charges, H & E Loss etc.] form a part of the value of taxable supply and, therefore, shall attract tax. IV. The applicant has been licensed to supply Superior Kerosene Oil which is supplied with transportation services. As a result, the supply can be regarded as a composite supply in terms of clause (30) of section 2 of the GST Act. V. The supply shall attract tax @ 5% vide entry serial number 164 of Notification No. 34/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017 on the entire value of supply. VI. As the supply is held taxable and tax would be levied on the entire value of supply, the applicant would not require to reverse input tax credit [u/r 42].

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-915-HC-MP-ST

Metrics Ptomotions And Events 993 Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent to accept the tax amount and further issue SVLDRS Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Form-4 in the interest of Justice - Inasmuch as petitioner failed to deposit the determined amount by 30th June, 2020 but instead the deposit was made vide challan on 14.02.2022. Held: In view of the above factual position and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court duly confirmed by the Apex Court, allowing of this petition would lead to tinkering with the Scheme, which does not provide for any extension of last date for deposit of the discounted amount of tax due - The application of the petitioner under the Scheme has to be considered within the four corners of the Scheme and as such discounted tax alleged above sought to be deposited by the petitioner after last date cannot be accepted and, therefore, Revenue was correct in denying relief under the Scheme to the petitioner - Petition stands dismissed: High Court

- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADES HIGH COURT