2022-TIOL-1142-ITAT-PUNE

Shivaji Bhimaji Gaikwad Vs ITO

Whether payments made in cash in respect of a transaction involving purchase of land, can be disallowed, where such cash payment is made in unavoidable & exceptional circumstances explained by the assessee - NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1141-ITAT-PUNE

ACIT Vs Dinesh M Raste

Whether re-opening of assessment can be sustained where based on change of opinion and not being based on any fresh material to show that taxable income escaped assessment - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: PUNE ITAT

2022-TIOL-1140-ITAT-JAIPUR

Sunrise Shikshan Sansthan Vs CIT

Whether application u/s 12AA can be allowed as allegations upon assessee are not proved and it is evident that objects of society are charitable in nature - YES : ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-1139-ITAT-AHM

Shashank Shekhar Singh Vs DCIT

Whether it is fit case for remand where the assessee is not given enough opportunities to present relevant documents before the AO - YES: ITAT

- Case remanded: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-1288-HC-ALL-GST

Tulsi Ram And Company Vs Commissioner

GST - Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, Commercial Tax, Jhansi had rejected the appeal on the ground that the mandatory deposit of 10% should have been made from the cash ledger and not the electronic credit ledger - Subsequently, on 25.6.2022, the petitioner Firm had made deposit through cash ledger - Reliance has been placed upon the clarificatory circular F. No. CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST dated 6th July 2022 wherein it has been clarified that any payment towards output tax, whether self-assessed in the return or payable as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the provisions of GST Laws, can be made by utilization of the amount available in the electronic credit ledger of a registered person – Petition filed.

Held : Court finds that pre-deposit has been made by the Firm before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority shall not insist the Firm to make deposit through electronic cash ledger and shall proceed to decide the appeal on merits strictly in accordance with law - Writ petition stands partly allowed: High Court

- Petition partly allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1287-HC-MUM-GST

Oasis Realty Vs UoI

GST - Issue is whether an Appellant, to comply with the requirements of Sub-section 6 of Section 107, can pay the amount [of 10% of the amount of Tax in dispute] utilising the credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger - It is the Revenue contention that Appellant can utilise the credit available only in the Electronic Cash Ledger? Held: Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 107 provides a precondition [for filing appeal], "unless the appellant has paid" (not deposited) a sum equal to 10% of remaining amount of Tax in dispute - It says 10% of Tax has to be paid as a precondition - That Tax can be Integrated Tax or Central Tax or the State Tax as in the case at hand, or Union Territory Tax - The amount of ITC available in the Electronic Credit Ledger can be utilised towards payment of Integrated Tax or Central Tax or State Tax or Union Territory Tax -Therefore, Petitioner having to pay 10% of the Tax in dispute under clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 107, can certainly utilise the amount of ITC available in the Electronic Credit Ledger - Bench hastens to add that in view of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 49, the party may also pay this 10% of the Tax in dispute by utilising the amount available in the cash ledger - Output tax in relation to a taxable person is defined in Clause (82) of Section 2 of MGST Act as the tax chargeable on taxable supply of goods or services or both but excludes tax payable on reverse charge mechanism - Therefore, any payment towards output tax, whether self-assessed in the return or payable as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the MGST Act can be made by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger - Hence, a party can pay 10% of the disputed Tax either using the amount available in the Electronic Cash Ledger or the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger - CBIT&C has [in its circular F. No. CBIC-20001/2/2022-GST dated 6th July 2022] itself clarified that any amount towards output tax payable, as a consequence of any proceeding instituted under the provisions of GST Laws, can be paid by utilisation of the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger of a registered person - Appeal is restored to file on the undertaking of Petitioner that it shall debit the Electronic Credit Ledger within one week towards this 10% payable under Section 107(6)(b) - Petitions disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10, 11, 14]

- Petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1286-HC-DEL-CUS

Syndicate Innovations International Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Petitioner, a manufacturer of arms has approached this Court seeking release of "Frames" and "Slides" which had been imported under Bill of Entry dated 09 June 2022, aggrieved by the fact that the said consignments had been withheld by the Customs authorities - Principal objection which is taken is that the Frames and Slides which have been imported by the petitioner are fitted and integrated with various independent components of a firearm such as trigger, trigger guard, hammer, threaded interfaces etc. and in view of the above and since according to the respondents, the import license stood restricted to a Slide and Frame only, a separate import permission should have been obtained for the additional operational components found fitted thereto; that the aforesaid clearly amounts to a violation of the import permission which was granted to the petitioner; respondents had also adverted to the provisions contained in Rule 57(4) of the 2016 Arms Rules and assert that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have obtained the permission and approval of the MHA before effecting import.

Held : In order to sustain the submission that the terms of the import permission were violated, it was imperative for the respondents to have proven that Frames and Slides are not understood or envisaged to be fitted with other operational parts of a firearm - Since the burden to prove a violation of the import permit lay squarely on their shoulders, it was necessary for them to establish that Frames and Slides when referred to in industrial or trade circles relating to firearms, are never envisaged to be pre-fitted with a safety lock, trigger action mechanism, firing pin or extractor - This, they have not only woefully failed to establish, in fact, no submissions along these lines were in fact addressed - The respondents have also failed to establish that under the prevalent import policy, the "operational parts" which were found fitted to the Frames and Slides required permissions being obtained separately and independently - The obligation to approach the MHA in terms of Rule 57(4) of 2016 Arms Rules would arise only if a person were contemplating importing parts of arms and ammunition which are not possible to be manufactured locally - Rule 57(4) thus stands confined to those cases where the part or component which is sought to be imported is not being manufactured or cannot possibly be manufactured in the country - However, in the present case it was not the contention of the respondents that the nature and character of Slides and Frames which were being imported by the petitioner could not be manufactured locally - It is pertinent to observe that neither the MHA nor the DGFT have asserted that the import of firearms is prohibited - Section 3(2) of the FTDR Act, 1992 confers a power on the Union Government to "prohibit", "restrict" or "regulate" the import or export of goods, services or technology - As would be evident from the definition of the word "restricted" [contained in Chapter 9.47 of the FTP], it is a term used to indicate that the import or export of an item is permitted subject only to an authorisation being obtained from the offices of the DGFT - The ITC(HS) and more particularly Heading 9305 in unequivocal terms prescribes that the import of parts or components of firearms falls in the “restricted” category - However, none of those provisions postulate a prohibition or restrict the import of parts of arms which can be or are being manufactured locally - Viewed in the context of the relevant statutory provisions governing the import of parts of firearms, the 1992 Act, the FTP and the ITC(HS), this Court finds itself unable to hold that the restrictive regime relating to import of firearms comprehends a prohibition in respect of items which are being manufactured locally - Court notes that Section 10 of the Act specifically deals with the power to issue licenses in connection with import of arms and parts thereof - It is that power which stands delegated and transferred to the DGFT - The DGFT has thus for all practical purposes stepped into the shoes of the MHA which was prior to the delegation acting as the licensing authority - While this issue no longer survives in this petition in light of the respondents having subsequently granted the license, it may only be observed that the DGFT while dealing with the subject of import of arms would have to ensure that compliances are affected not just with reference to the 1992 Act but also the Act and the 2016 Rules - Court notes that the liability to bear demurrage charges shifts from the importer to the licensing and the customs authorities if any delay be caused in inspecting the consignment as per Rule 88(6) of the 2016 Rules - The third respondent, however, in the facts of the present case cannot be called upon to shoulder that liability since it had dutifully inspected the consignment within the time specified in Rule 88(6) - That authority has thus not caused any delay so as to warrant any directions being framed against it and as claimed in the writ petition - More fundamentally and bearing in mind the contentious questions which came to be raised, the facts of the present case would not warrant the grant of relief (d) as claimed in the writ petition - Accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed - The respondents are consequently directed to release the consignments imported under Bills of Entry Nos. dated 09 June 2022 - The aforesaid would be subject to the petitioner complying with other statutory formalities and depositing demurrage charges as due and payable: High Court [para 50, 53, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65]

- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT