2022-TIOL-1133-ITAT-DEL

Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether TDS is to be deducted in respect of a payment which is not made but only a provision for which is made in books of accounts - NO: ITAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI ITAT

2022-TIOL-1132-ITAT-KOL

Padmini Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether additions framed on account of unexplained cash credit is sustainable, where assessee provides necessary details to explain all the alleged cash creditors & details of persons to whom amounts were advanced - NO: ITAT

- Appeal partly allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

2022-TIOL-1131-ITAT-AHM

Pareshbhai Rameshbhai Panchal Vs ITO

Whether it is fit case for remand where assessee is unable to furnish relevant documents before the lower authorities & an adverse order is passed without considering these documents - YES: ITAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-1279-HC-AHM-GST

Pooja Dehy Foods Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitions have been filed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner(A) as well as the order passed by Assistant Commissioner regarding non-grant of refund of CGST - Petitioners submit that in view of the notification 13/2022-CT dated 05.07.2022 excluding the time limit specified for computing the period of limitation in filing of refund application, the claim of the petitioners is admissible.

Held: Competent authority of the respondents is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with law treating each of the claims as being within time and grant refund with statutory interest, if the petitioners are found to be eligible - Such exercise is to be completed within a period of twelve weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Petitions disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1278-HC-RAJ-GST

Poonamchand Saran Vs UoI

GST - Registration of the Petitioners, dealers registered under the GST Act, 2022, was cancelled by the competent authority vide orders dated 09.09.2022 - Against the cancellation, petitioner Poonamchand Saran filed the e-appeal in time but could not submit the hard copy and his appeal was dismissed on the ground of being time-barred - Petitioners have urged that they have been left remediless for hyper technical reasons; that owning to the cancellation, the petitioners are being deprived of the opportunity of doing business which has resulted into loss of all avenues of earning livelihood and is violative of right to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution; that one more opportunity deserves to be given to file appeal in proper format.

Held: It cannot be denied that the petitioners herein would not be able to continue with their business in absence of GST registration and, thus, would be deprived of their livelihood which amounts to violation of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 - In this background, the order dated 09.09.2022 is set aside and both petitioners are given liberty to file appeal against cancellation of their GST Registration - Same shall be considered by competent authority and decided on all aspects in accordance with law excluding the bar of limitation - Petitions disposed of: High Court

- Petitions disposed of: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1277-HC-MP-GST

Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

GST - Petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed on 17.06.2022 and is appealable within a period of 90 days and the delay is also condonable - Further, that a reading of sub-section 6 and 7 of s.107 makes it clear that if the appellant deposits a sum equal to 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising out of the impugned order, the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed - Petitioner, therefore, submits that out of the total tax amount of Rs.1,88,16,111/- respondent has already recovered Rs.49,28,604/- on 19.06.2022 and which is more than 10%; that the respondent ought to have waited for the statutory period within which the petitioner could have filed the appeal; that the order passed is appealable u/s 107 of the Act, 2017.

Held: Since the respondent has already recovered more than 10% of the amount of tax confirmed, the petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to petitioner to file appeal and the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass speaking order by following the principles of natural justice - Petition disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-920-CESTAT-MAD

CC Vs R R Traders

Cus - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order by which Commissioner (A) has modified the order of Assistant Commissioner to the extent of reducing redemption imposed to Rs.1,60,000/- under Section 125 and penalty to Rs.80,000/- imposed under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 - It is discretion of authority deciding to determine quantum and fine and penalty as per the gravity of offence involved - From the order of High Court, it is quite evident that issue under consideration of High Court was in respect of absolute confiscation of goods, or allowing the same to be released on payment against redemption fine - High Court on the issue has upheld order of Tribunal permitting the release of goods on payment of redemption fine - Further, High Court has held that against total assessed value of Rs 64 lakhs, redemption fine of Rs 8 lakhs imposed by Tribunal would suffice - In this case also the goods have been allowed to be released against redemption fine which is about 8 % of value of confiscated goods - It is not even the case that Commissioner (A) has exonerated completely the respondent - The total offence which is as per order of Assistant Commissioner, is about 10% of under valuation - Against declared value of US$ 30429 (Rs 14,19,513/-), Revenue has determined the loaded value to U$ 33846.40 (Rs 15,78,935/- CIF) - The total case which involves undervaluation is not more than 10% of value of goods under importation - Thus, redemption fine as determined by Commissioner (A) on the basis of CESTAT Bangalore Bench order is above 10%, which is higher than what has been upheld by High Court - No merits found in appeal filed by Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (A) whereby he has reduced the redemption fine equivalent to 10% of undervaluation and which is in accordance with order of Bangalore CESTAT - There is sufficient power vested in Commissioner (A) to confirm, modify or annul any decision or order appealed against - Any order used in section 128 and 128A, is wide enough to include the orders passed in respect of imposition of penalty on aggrieved person - Thus, order of reducing penalty by Commissioner (A) and aligning the same with percentage of penalty as determined by Bangalore Bench cannot be faulted with - Accordingly, impugned order of Commissioner (A) is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-919-CESTAT-KOL

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd Vs CCE

ST - Appellant entered into an agreement and appointed M/s Cotunace to mediate and get the matter settled with M/s Group Chimique Tunisien (GCT) for a mediation fee of USD 10,00,000/-, which was paid by appellants to M/s Cotunace - Appellants deposited the service tax under Head "Management Consultant's Service" on reverse charge basis under protest - Appellant felt that fees paid to M/s Cotunace did not qualify under any category of taxable service and therefore, filed a refund claim which was rejected by lower authority - M/s Cotunace worked as middle man for settling the dispute, relating to outstanding dues, between appellant and M/s GCT - They have performed actual act of mediation and their work did not end with mere advice or consultancy - M/s Cotunace have not rendered any advice for running organisation of appellants in an effective manner - They have only performed the work of mediator/arbitrator in resolving dispute between appellant and M/s GCT - Actual work performed cannot be equated with advice - Therefore, M/s Cotunace did not render any management consultancy service to appellant - Therefore, appellants are not liable to pay any service tax on reverse mechanism on services rendered by M/s Contunace to appellants - Any tax paid in this regards is liable to be refunded, if otherwise in order: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2022-TIOL-918-CESTAT-AHM

Duravit India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The issue involved is, whether appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of input services namely Hotel Accommodation Service and Air Travel Agent Service - In view of appellant's own case for same services, issue is no longer res-Integra as the same has been decided in favour of appellant - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT