I-T - Public functionary can be held liable for malicious acts in name of excercise of power : HC

I-T - If figures of sales and purchase were not doubted by AO, he cannot make additions on presumption of bogus purchases: HC

I-T - In absence of enabling provisions, CPC Bangalore lacks jurisdiction to make any disallowance in order u/s 143(1): ITAT

I-T - Additions framed on account of alleged cash receipts are invalid where no witnesses to such payments are available to testify & are based solely on statements: ITAT

I-T - Once income of trust is applied for its objects and stands maintained in seperate books of account, trust is eligible to claim exemption u/s 11: ITAT

I-T - Rejection of valuation of shares as per DCF method is without any evidence on record and can not be upheld : ITAT

S R Cold Storage Vs UoI

Whether public functionary can be held liable for malicious acts in name of excercise of power- YES: HC

- Assesse's petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Pr.CIT Vs Arvind Kumar Arora

Whether where figures of sales and purchase were not doubted by AO, he cannot make additions on presumption of bogus purchases - YES: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

Vega Technet Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

In writ, the High Court observes that there has been clear violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the Revenue never asked the assessee to explain the source of purchase of the property and passed the order on the basis that petitioner did not explain the source of the purchase. Hence the order passed u/s 148A is set aside.

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

Paath Financial Services Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether rejection of valuation of shares as per DCF method is without any evidence on record and can not be upheld - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

VAT - Entry tax can be imposed on basis of stock transfer price instead of ELP: HC

CX - Restriction imposed under Rule 9(1)(b) has no application so far as to deny credit availed by appellant on basis of supplementary invoices issued by conversion agents in absence of sale of goods by them to appellant: CESTAT

CX - If consolidated cenvat credit balance has been maintained more than the cenvat credit reversed, in such case appellant is not liable to interest post 17.3.2012: CESTAT

ST - Any issue which is not flowing from SCN being beyond SCN, need not be addressed by authority, Adjudicating Authority has correctly passed order addressing the only issue which was raised in SCN: CESTAT

ST - Composite works contract are a separate species of contracts known to trade and cannot be charged to service tax under any other head: CESTAT

GST - Rule 89 - Refund of ITC - 14/2022-CT - Benefit that gets accrued by way of legislation cannot be denied/curtailed moreso when it is clarificatory in nature: HC

GST - Refund of ITC - Production of shipping bills - Transmission of energy could not have been visualized when Rule 89(2) was incorporated in the Statute book: HC

GST - Requiring petitioners to produce shipping bills, as proof of export cannot be made applicable to electricity as export can only be through transmission line, but not through rail, road or water for which documents can be made available: HC

Castrol India Ltd Vs Commercial Taxes Department

Whether Entry tax can be imposed on basis of stock transfer price instead of ELP adopted by assessee- YES: HC

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - Only issue to be decided is, whether the restrictions from availing credit on strength of supplementary invoice would apply in terms of Rule 9(1)(b) of Credit Rules - Revenue does not dispute the legal position that aforesaid Rule restricting the credit would not apply in case the credit has been availed on goods which are not sold by supplier manufacturer - It is the case of Revenue that assessee and conversion agents are neither related nor sister unit and there is no stock transfer amongst the aforesaid parties - On perusal of Rule 9(1)(b), it is found that the bar from availing credit on supplementary invoice is only when the goods are sold to recipient who has claimed the credit on basis of supplementary invoices - There is no criterion laid down in said Rules that transferring unit should be a sister unit or a related party in order to become eligible for availing credit - Revenue has not disputed the arrangements between parties that converted aluminium ingot has not been sold by conversion agent to appellant - Restriction imposed under Rule 9(1)(b) has no application so far as to deny the credit availed by appellant on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by conversion agents in absence of sale of goods by conversion agents to appellant - Demand cannot be sustained and hence, is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - In the last round of appeal, this tribunal remanded the matter - In view of said order of Tribunal, there is no dispute that appellant is not liable to pay interest on credit reversed without utilization post 17.3.2012 - The only limited issue for consideration is that whether adjudicating authority is right in considering the balance of service tax credit only for re-quantifying the claim of interest in de-novo adjudication as submitted by appellant - However, credit of all three account is taken i.e. input, inputs service and capital goods, credit balance was maintained much more than the credit reversed by appellant on which interest was paid - Under CCR, 2004 in terms of Rule 3 all the credits such as credit of input, input service and capital goods is under one pool and no credit can be reversed on that credit - Therefore, adjudicating authority has erred in only considering the credit balance of service tax - Total credit of input, input service, and capital goods should be taken to ascertain unutilized cenvat credit - If consolidated cenvat credit balance has been maintained more than the cenvat credit reversed, in such case the appellant is not liable to interest post 17.3.2012 accordingly, claim of appellant appears to be legal and correct however, same has to be re-quantified considering the total credit of input, input service and capital goods - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to re-quantify the interest and sanction the same to appellant - Since this is second round of litigation, adjudicating authority is expected to pass a denovo order within a period of three months: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CCE & ST Vs Hazira Port Pvt Ltd

ST - Appellant was issued SCN alleging that appellant is not entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of services namely Maintenance or Repairs service, Consulting Engineer Service, Management Consultant Service, Erection & Commissioning service and Information Technology services on the ground that service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism under Section 66A of FA, 1994 whereas Rule 3 prescribes Cenvat credit in respect of service tax leviable under Section 66 - This issue was correctly decided by Adjudicating Authority inasmuch as Section 66A was added retrospectively in Rule 3 for allowing Cenvat credit - As regards the issue that whether the services in question are admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l), this issue was never raised in SCN - Therefore, it cannot be expected from Adjudicating Authority to pass order on the issue which is beyond the scope of SCN - It is settled law that any issue which is not flowing from SCN being beyond SCN, need not be addressed by authority - Therefore, no error found on the part of Adjudicating Authority for not considering the issue of admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) - Adjudicating Authority has correctly passed order addressing the only issue which was raised in SCN - All the services on which appellant has availed Cenvat credit are prima-facie appears to be input service - No infirmity found in impugned order - Accordingly, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

CST Vs Shaka Electricals

ST - Assessee is registered with Central Excise department for rendering services of erection, commissioning and installation services ECIS - On perusal of ST-3 returns filed by assessee, it was noticed by officers that prior to obtaining registration assessee was providing services such as, fabrication supply and erection of various electric poles providing street lighting during period 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 which appeared to be classifiable under ECIS - The contracts which the assessee had entered into involved both rendering of services and supply/ deemed supply of goods while rendering the services - Such services are composite contracts and are classifiable as works contract which, according to Gannon Dunkerley & Co . is a subject species of contract - Whether it is a question of sales tax or service tax, the nature of contract, i.e., whether it is for supply of goods or for rendering services or a combination of both does not change - Wherever there is a composite contract it is a works contract service - Such services can be classified only under head of "works contract" service w.e.f. 01.07.2012 under section 65 (105) (zzzza) and were not taxable prior to this date as per judgment of Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015-TIOL-187-SC-ST - Since the entire period in this case was prior to 01.07.2012, services rendered by assessee were not taxable - Work contracts cannot be treated as services simplicitor which are classifiable under various sub-clauses of clause 105 of section 65 - Registration by assessee does not conclusively determine the nature of service rendered - Assessee was not liable to pay service tax on services in dispute and impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: NEW DELHI CESTAT

Refex Industries Ltd Vs CC

Cus - A SCN was issued inter alia proposing to confiscate the goods in question under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 apart from proposing to levy penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - If gas intended to be filled in 'Empty Tin Cans' in question by appellant is held to be "compressed gas", then appellant is required to obtain licence in terms of Rule 29 ibid - Hence, the issue arises, is, whether the authorities below were correct in holding that impugned goods are covered under Gas Cylinders Rules and thereby order confiscation for want of licence - Appellant had taken technical contentions to plead that R134a gas stands excluded from definition of "compressed gas", which has not at all been considered by any of lower authorities - When such technical arguments are being advanced, concerned authority should examine the issue in light of such technical arguments both the orders of lower authorities become non-speaking orders - Both the appellant as well as Revenue had approached the authority under Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) seeking clarification, but surprisingly, said authority has issued an incomplete communication, to refer to Rule 2(xxiii) of Rules ibid. - Both the authority under PESO as well as Public Information Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Customs have replied to application under RTI Act in a slipshod manner, which is not in accordance with requirement of RTI Act - The order of confiscation/demand is one aspect, but before that, it is for Adjudicating Authority to establish first that goods in question were prohibited and hence, order of absolute confiscation also lacks merit - Orders of lower authorities cannot be sustained and hence, matter is remanded back to the file of Adjudicating Authority, who shall pass a de novo Adjudication Order after hearing the appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT