2022-TIOL-1050-ITAT-CHD

C M Jewellers Vs DCIT

Whether discrepancies in silver jewellery cannot be arbitrarily said to from unexplained source, if no such fact or allegation has either been made in survey referred to by AO - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2022-TIOL-1049-ITAT-PUNE

ACIT Vs Govind Jaikrishna Dande And Sons

Whether presence and absence of entries in books of accounts do not determine true nature of transaction - YES: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1048-ITAT-VARANASI

Kamakhya Fresh Foods Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether manufacturer assessee has to cumulatively meet all the stipulated conditions u/s 80IA before any deduction can be allowed, and the onus is on the assessee to demonstrate that it complies with all the stipulated conditions - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: VARANASI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1181-HC-AP-GST

Gandhar Oil Refinery India Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax

GST - Petitioner claims that he is entitled for refund of tax paid on the supplies of trading of coal in terms of s.54 of the Act, 2017 and had accordingly filed a refund claim for the tax period of May 2018 to May 2019 on 22.09.2021 - However, a SCN was issued on 12.10.2021 by the first respondent proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground of it being time barred since the application came to be made beyond the period of two years prescribed u/s 54(14) of the Act, 2017 read with Circular dated 20.07.2021 - Accordingly, order came to be passed on 16.06.2022 rejecting the claim and hence the present petition.

Held: It would be relevant to note that the recent notification 13/2022-CT issued by the GOI, MF, DR, CBIC dated 05.07.2022 clearly postulates that the period from 1st March 2020 to 28th February 2022, for computation of period of limitation for filing refund application u/s 54 or 55 shall stand excluded - It, therefore, cannot be said that the application for refund was made beyond the period of limitation - Order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Petition disposed of: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1180-HC-MAD-GST

TCI Freight Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)

GST - Petitioner had been engaged to supply TMT bars from Hosur to the address of the consignee's work site at Trichy - Form GST MOV-2 was issued on the ground that the address for delivery did not have a corresponding GSTIN or trade name - Thereafter, order of detention was issued on 12.07.2022 and finally an order of demand of penalty in form GST MOV-09 came to be passed on 19.07.2022 and against which the present Writ petition has been filed - Two other petitions have also been filed by other petitioners and wherein too penalties have been imposed for the alleged misfeasance.

Held: The entitlement to seek release of goods u/s 129 is only qua the owner/agent/representative of the owner - This interpretation is supported by the language used in the first proviso of s.129 which specifically uses the term ‘transporter' and states that such transporter may seek release of the conveyance on payment of penalty or of a sum of Rs.1 lakhs, whichever is less - The legislature has been conscious of the roles of the various persons involved in a transaction of carriage of goods such as the consignor/agents/representatives, the consignee/purchasers and the transporter - The entitlement to seek release has also been carefully and consciously sculpted - While the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, only a limited benefit has been made available to a transporter and that too, qua the release of conveyance alone - Therefore, the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions - As far as the goods are concerned, if the owner/agent/representative does not come forward to claim the same after receipt of notices from the department and upon satisfaction of the conditions u/s 129, it is open to the revenue to take such steps as it may deem fit in that regard, therefore, this question is answered accordingly, and adverse to the transporter, the petitioner in the last petition - All three petitioners would accede to the position that statutory appeals would be filed by them in terms of s.107 of the Act, 2017 - Insofar as any interim relief viz. question of release of goods is concerned, s.107 does not specifically grant (to the appellate authority) any power of interim protection - However, in the case of MK.Mohammed Kunhi - 2002-TIOL-122-SC-IT-LB ,, Supreme Court has concluded that the ITAT must be held to have power to grant stay and such power was incidental and necessary to exercise its appellate jurisdiction - Thus the petitioners are permitted to file appeals u/s 107 accompanied by applications seeking release of the goods and the appellate authority shall hear the petitioners and pass orders within a period of one week - Petitions disposed of: High Court  [para 14, 15, 20, 21, 25]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-109-AAR-GST

Suez India Pvt Ltd

GST - Applicant has entered into agreements for design, construction and operation and maintenance of Water treatment/sewage treatment plants in the state of UP with Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam - Services provided by the applicant to UP JN qualify as Works Contract under the GST Act, 2017 - Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam is a "governmental authority" in the context of notification 11/2017-CTR - This Notification was amended by notification 15/2021-CTR dated 18 November 2021, wherein in Entry 3(iii) prescribing 6% CGST, the words 'Union Territory, a local authority, a governmental authority or a government entity' were substituted with 'Union territory or a local authority' - As the UP JN does not qualify as 'local authority' but qualifies as a 'governmental authority', tax rate of 18% is applicable on the Works Contract services provided by the applicant to UP JN by way of Entry no. 3(xii) of 11/2017-CTR: AAR

- Application disposed of: AAR

2022-TIOL-1182-HC-ALL-ST

CCGST & CX Vs Ganpati Mega Builders India Pvt Ltd

ST - Period 2013-2014 - Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the CESTAT - Facts are that the respondent is a registered contractor and the issue is demand of service tax under the head 'WCS' for construction of boundary wall, godown, shops, toilets, roads, sanitation, etc. for Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (a statutory authority created by the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964), which was set aside by the CESTAT on the ground that the services are exempted in terms of notification 25/2012-ST - It is the case of the Revenue that the constructed market shed, shops in the Mandi area are being let out by the Mandi Samiti for its business and clause 12 of the mega exemption will not be attracted as sub-clause (a) of clause 12 excludes all such construction activities which are meant for commercial, industrial, business or profession purposes; that since the Mandi Samiti earns rent from the shops/market shed it lets out, it has to be concluded that the Samiti is carrying out business activity and hence exemption is not available - Respondent submits that the Krishi Utpadan Mandal Samiti falls within the definition of Government authority under clause 2(s) of the exemption notification and hence is entitled to the exemption under clause 12.

Held:  The submission of the counsel for the Revenue is found to be misconceived since from the provisions of the Mandi Samiti Act, it is evident that the Mandi Samiti is a corporate body and all its functions and duties are directed to regulate the sale and purchase of the agricultural produce; that the Mandi Samiti is required to establish the markets to exercise superintendence and control of the markets; that the construction of markets in the Mandi area cannot be termed as business activity; the renting/leasing of the shops, market sheds etc. for consideration is another method of regulation of the Mandi area and by leasing/renting of market sheds, the activities of Samiti cannot be categorised as commercial/business activity - It is, therefore, evident that the Works Contract Services provided by the respondent to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is exempted from levy of service tax in view of the exemption notification 25/2012-ST - No infirmity found in the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the CESTAT, Allahabad, hence no interference is required - Appeal of Revenue is accordingly dismissed: High Court

- Appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT