2022-TIOL-809-ITAT-MAD

Preeti Madhok Vs ITO

Whether delay of 581 days in filing appeal can be condoned on plea of ignorance of law, where assessee is shown to be aware of Income Tax proceedings & even engaged different counsels to represent the assessee - NO: ITAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-808-ITAT-MAD

George Oakes Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether loss incurred on account of embezzlement is allowable in current AY & whether such amount claimed by assessee can be disallowed in subsequent AYs - NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-807-ITAT-DEL

Eberspeacher Suetrak Bus Climate Control Systems Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether merely because the assessee had returned back the provisions in subsequent year cannot be a basis for disallowing the assessee's claim in the current year, particularly when the assessee had given specific basis for making warranty provisions - YES: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-806-ITAT-MUM

Actgen Pharma Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

On appeal, the Tribunal observes there to be no reason to controvert the findings recorded by the CIT (A) in dismissing the assessee's appeal against the order passed by the AO. Following findings recorded in respect of order passed for past AY, the order in the current AY is upheld too.

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI ITAT

2022-TIOL-805-ITAT-PUNE

Dwarka Charitable Trust Vs ITO

Whether exemption u/s 11 can not be allowed as "DMH" applied sum for benefit of assessee and sec 13 is intended to eliminate any possibility of Trusts fund being used for benefit of any interested person - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-89-AAR-GST

NTL India Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant is engaged in the support services of transport of employees to various companies - Applicant seeks to know as to whether the exemption as specified against Sl. No. 23 in Col(3) of the Table to Notification No. 12/2017-CT(rate) dated 28.06.2017, viz. services by way of access to a road or a bridge on payment of toll charges falling under the heading 9967 is applicable to the applicant as well. Held: As per s.95(a) of the Act, 2017, an applicant can seek an Advance Ruling only in relation to supply of goods or services or both undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by them - The exemption available vide Sl. No. 23 in Col(3) of the Table to Notification No. 12/2017-CT(rate) dated 28.06.2017, is available to the service provider only and not to the service receivers - When questioned during Personal hearing about whether they are providing service of providing access to a road, the Applicant answered that they are only utilizing the services on payment of toll charges, hence question No. 1 is not admissible inasmuch as the applicant is only a recipient of such toll services: AAR GST - Application also wants a ruling on the following questions viz. Whether the value of toll charges (which attracts NIL rate) is liable to be included in the value of outward supply of service? & Whether the applicant is liable to pay tax on the toll charges also by adding to outward value of supply of service. Held: Value of toll charges, being incidental expenses incurred while providing outward supply, is liable to be included in the value of outward supply of service provided by the applicant as per Section 15(3) of the CGST / TNGST Act, 2017 - Applicant is liable to pay tax on the toll charges also by adding to outward value of supply of service: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-88-AAR-GST

Trident Pneumatics Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant seeks an advance ruling on the following question - Whether Air Spring Failure Indication cum Brake Application (FIBA) proposed to be manufactured and supplied solely and principally for use in Railways can be classified under "86072100- Air Brakes and parts thereof of Section XVII? Held : First proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act, 2017 states that where the question raised is pending or decided in any proceedings under this Act, the same is not eligible for admission before the authority - It is clear that classification of FIBA, manufactured and supplied to Indian Railways by the applicant has been a part of the investigation proceedings under Authorisation for Inspection dated 01.05.2019 issued under Section 67 of the Act which establishes that the question raised is a part of the proceedings of DGGSTI and, therefore, squarely covered under proviso to Section 98(2) of the Act - For these reasons, the application is not admissible: AAR

- Application rejected: AAR

2022-TIOL-60-SC-PMLA-LB

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs UoI

Whether every process or activity indulged into by anyone, including projecting or claiming the property as untainted property, constitute an offence of money-laundering on its own - YES: SC LB

Whether offence of money-laundering is linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or the predicate offence has been committed - NO: SC LB

Whether property must be obtained directly or indirectly, 'as a result of' criminal activity relating to scheduled offence , to be treated as 'proceeds of crime' - YES: SC LB

Whether the hands of the law can be bound from proceeding against a person, if information of illegitimate monies is revealed even from an unknown source - NO: SC LB

Whether offence u/s 3 of PMLA is dependent on the wrongful and illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence - YES: SC LB

Whether the authorities under the PMLA 2002 can step in or initiate any prosecution in absence of existence of 'proceeds of crime' - NO: SC LB

- Case disposed of: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-59-SC-MISC

State of Karnataka Vs State of Meghalaya

Whether State Legislature has legislative competence to impose tax on lotteries conducted by other States in the State – YES: SC

- Appeals allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-1030-HC-MP-MISC

Kriti Industries India Ltd Vs State of MP

Whether where right to exemption of tax for fixed period accrues and conditions for exemption are fulfilled, withdrawal of exemption cannot affect already accrued right – YES: HC

- Assessees' Writ Petitions allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-58-SC-ST-LB

All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Vs UoI

ST/GST - Question is about the liability of Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) or Private Tour Operators (PTOs) to pay service tax on the service rendered by them to Haj pilgrims for the Haj pilgrimage.

Held: HGOs render services to Haj pilgrims by purchasing flight tickets, arranging and making payments for accommodation in Saudi Arabia, arranging and making available food during their stay in Saudi Arabia, arranging and making payments for transportation in Saudi Arabia and providing foreign exchange in the form of Saudi Riyals - In this case, the recipients of service from HGOs are Indian residents and accordingly, their place of residence in India will be the place of provision of service - Rule 8 of PoPS, 2012 provides that where the location of the provider of service as well as that of the recipient of service is in the taxable territory, the place of provision of service is the location of the recipient of service. - Hence, in this case, the place of provision of service is the location of the service receiver in accordance with clause (i) of Rule 2 which will be in taxable territory - HGOs do not render performance based services,therefore, Clause (b) of Rule 4 will not apply to HGOs - What will apply is Rule 3 which will mean that the place of provision of the service shall be the location of the recipient of service in accordance with Rule 2(i)(b)(iv) - Thus, service is rendered by HGOs to the Haj pilgrims within taxable territory - Even if it is assumed that the service rendered by HGOs to Haj pilgrims is transportation service, by virtue of Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules, the place of provision of service will be the location of service provider - In view of sub-Section (10) of Section 12 of the IGST Act, the place of supply of service will be the place where the passenger embarks - Therefore, the service rendered by the HGOs to Haj Pilgrims is taxable for service tax as the service to Haj pilgrims is provided or agreed to be provided in taxable territory -Adverting to sub-clause (b) of Section 5 (of Mega Exemption notification), the exemption has been granted in respect of services by a person by way of conduct of any religious ceremony - The notification does not say that service provided to the service receiver to enable him to conduct religious ceremony, has been exempted: Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 51]

Applicability of Mega Exemption notification 25/2012-ST.

ST/GST - Clause 5A of the same Mega Exemption Notification grants exemption to the service rendered by Haj Committees in respect of a religious pilgrimage - As Haj Committees render services only in respect of Haj pilgrimage, the religious pilgrimage referred to in Clause 5A as regards the Haj Committee, is Haj pilgrimage - This exemption under Clause 5A is not applicable to HGOs as the HGOs are not the specified organizations - If the intention and object was to provide service tax exemption to services provided by HGOs in respect of religious pilgrimage, the notification would have specifically provided so - The service rendered by HGOs to Haj pilgrims is to facilitate them to reach at the destination to perform rituals/religious ceremonies - No religious ceremony is performed or conducted by the HGOs -There is absolutely no ambiguity in sub-clause (b) of clause 5 and therefore, there is no occasion to apply the test laid down by this Court in the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent : Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 52]

Whether services provided by HGOs can be bifurcated?

ST/GST - HGOs render service to Haj pilgrims in respect of the Haj pilgrimage by providing a single package which consists of several parts such as making air booking, providing foreign exchange and making arrangements for stay and catering in Saudi Arabia, etc. -HGOs offer a comprehensive package of services relating to Haj pilgrimage - They receive charges from Haj pilgrims for the entire package - It is not the case of the HGOs that they charge separately for different services forming a part of the comprehensive package - Only a part of the package cannot be picked up for invoking exemption - For the purposes of levy of service tax, the service rendered cannot be dissected - The service rendered as a whole by the HGOs to the Haj pilgrims will have to be taken into account - This is apart from the fact that no part of the package offered by HGOs involves a service by way of conduct of any religious ceremony - Therefore, sub-clause (b) of clause 5 of the Mega Exemption Notification cannot be invoked by the HGOs: Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 54]

Whether there isdiscrimination while granting exemption ?

ST/GST - Haj Committee is a statutory committee which is entrusted with various functions for the welfare of Haj pilgrims - Moreover, the profit motive is completely absent in the case of the Haj Committee - The money received by the Haj Committee from the pilgrims for rendering service goes to a statutory fund created under the 2002 Act which is to be used only for the purposes specified in the 2002 Act - That is the reason why the Haj Committee constitutes a class in itself when it comes to rendering service to Haj pilgrims - It is a separate class as distinguished from HGOs - There is an intelligible differentia for this classification - The object of exemption in paragraph 5A of the Mega Exemption Notification is to promote the activity of the specified organisations of rendering service for the religious pilgrimage - Both the organisations which are specified in the notification are statutory organisations over which the Government has an effective control - Moreover, the service rendered by the specified organisations to the devotees is not with the object of making profit - Therefore, there is a nexus between the classification made and the object sought to be achieved by granting exemptions -In the matter of grant of exemptions in tax matters, latitude has to be given to the decision making - Ultimately, it is also a matter of policy -There is a rational basis for classifying specified organisations as a class and keeping out the Private Tour Operators from exemption under Clause 5A - Hence, Bench is of the considered view that the arguments based on discrimination have no substance at all, as HGOs and the Haj Committees do not stand on par and in fact, the Haj Committees constitute a separate class by themselves, which is based on a rational classification which has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved -There is no merit in the challenge in the petitions: Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 60, 64, 65]

ST/GST - The provisions of the 2012 Rules and the relevant provisions of IGST Act are to a great extent parimateria - The Exemption Notifications under the IGST and the GST Acts so far as the Haj pilgrimage is concerned, are parimateria with the Mega Exemption Notification: Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 39, 46]

- Petitions dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA