Vishay Components India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether functional dissimilarity and huge differences in FAR analysis calls for exclusion of such comparable for purposes of benchmarking - YES: ITAT

- Matter remanded: PUNE ITAT

Sunny Rock Estates And Developers Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT

Whether interest expenses in respect of funds which are not deployed on development project but are otherwise available for financing activities, cannot be disallowed by treating it as capitalization in project cost - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA ITAT

Gurpreet Mohan Singh Bindra Vs JCIT

Whether assessee is not in default on account of lapses committed by assessee's employer who acting as Agent of Revenue was tasked to deduct tax at source from salary of assessee and deposit it in credit of Government of India - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

Shobha Surendra Nahata Vs Pr CIT

Whether the failure on the part of the AO to carry out verifications and/or make addition/disallowance as regards such independent and unconnected issues would render the order passed by him under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s 263 of the Act- NO: ITAT

- Appeal allowed: NAGPUR ITAT

2022-TIOL-1336-HC-PATNA-GST

Chandini Electricals Vs CCGST & CE

Bihar GST - The Petitioner filed the present petition seeking directions for quashing an assessment order passed by the Revenue authorities concerned under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act - The assessee claimed that such order was passed ex parte and in complete violation of the Rules of Natural Justice - The petitioner also sought that the freezing of the petitioner's bank account be lifted and that the tax amount as per the assessment order not be realised directly from the petitioner's bank account.

Held - The High Court is not precluded from intervening in the matter where the assessment order so passed is bad in law, such as when the principles of natural justice are contravened and where fair opportunity of hearing is not given - No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed does not assign any reasons sufficient, even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee - Hence order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences - Thus on this ground alone, the assessment order merits being set aside - Fresh order be passed after hearing the assessee - 20% of the duty demand be deposited by the petitioner, pursuant to which attachment of bank account be lifted: HC

- Writ petition allowed: PATNA HIGH COURT

Sagar Rubber Products Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appeals have been filed against rejection of refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus - Appellant has not been able to satisfy why the size of aluminum foil mentioned in domestic sale in respect of which refund of SAD has been claimed did not figure in their import details - In absence of any evidence to that effect, appellant has failed to establish that goods on which SAD refund has been claimed are the same goods on which SAD was paid - Therefore, no merit found in the appeal, same is dismissed: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Rashtriya Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - This appeal disputes recovery under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, along with interest thereon under section 11AA of CEA, 1944, besides imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of CEA, 1944 for improper availment of credit of tax paid on rental of lease-hold land between August 2010 and January 2015 - Appellant had availed credit of tax paid on 'input service' deployed in rendering of 'output service' but had utilized credit for discharge of duty on 'output' cleared by them - Decision of High Court of Bombay does not appear to have been considered either by original authority or the first appellate authority - It would, therefore, be appropriate for ascertainment of relevance of these decisions to specific facts of dispute - To enable this, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to original authority for subjecting the facts to the test of law as settled by decision of High Court of Bombay in Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd 2013-TIOL-212-HC-MUM-CX that has thereafter been relied upon in decisions of the Tribunal: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT

Maa Chamunda Construction Company Vs CCGST

ST - Issue involved is, whether cenvat credit on input services have been rightly demanded and penalty has been rightly imposed under Section 78 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant is providing services under 'Works Contract Services', 'Supply of Tangible Goods' (SOTG) and 'Supply of Manpower' - They have filed the return (ST-3 and 4) and also paid admitted taxes - Based on third party data in Form No. 26AS as compared with appellant's balance sheet and ST-3 returns, it appeared to Revenue that appellant have short paid service tax for period 01.10.2014 to 30.06.2017, under aforementioned three heads of service - Accordingly, SCN was issued invoking extended period of limitation - The transaction of input service of SOTG is duly recorded in books of accounts - Appellant have received the service with supporting invoices and payment have been made in regular course of business mainly through bank transfer as is evident from copy of ledger account of service provider maintained by appellant in books of account - The amount paid are also reflected in bank account of appellant, thus, genuineness of transaction is established - Admittedly, it is not the case of Revenue that appellant is claiming credit second time - Benefit of cenvat credit cannot be denied to appellant following the precedent ruling of Tribunal in case of Meta pack and Shriji Chemicals - Penalty is not imposable under Section 78 as transaction is found recorded in books of account and short payment is mainly attributable to clerical error - Penalty under Section 78 is set aside - So far as penalty under Section 77 ibid is concerned, same is confirmed as there is admittedly failure on the part of appellant to assess and pay correct duty/ tax - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: DELHI CESTAT