Whether while proceedings commenced against a deceased assessee are a nullity, participation of legal heirs in assessment or re-assessment would lead to continuation of proceedings - YES: HC

Whether where a legal heir of deceased assessee informs the AO about the assessee having passed away, the same is tantamount to legal heir's participation in proceedings - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

On appeal, the High Court observes that the appellant was not entitled to claim the tax in absence of valid registration under Section 8 of the CST Act. Under the said Section, availment of the benefit would depend upon furnishing of Form C and the buyer has to be registered dealer, whereas in the present case, it was noted that the buyers above named were not registered dealers and their registration numbers were cancelled. In this case, the Tribunal rightly found the appellant as being liable to pre-deposit the full amount of tax. Also, orders regarding pre-deposit and the extent to which the tribunal may require the assessee to make such pre-deposit, are the issues in the realm of discretion of the tribunal to be exercised subject to considerations based on the facts of each case and the prima facie view of the merits emerging from the record.

- Appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Whether HC should interfere when no substantive question of law is involved - NO: HC

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

Whether a issue which is no longer res integra requires interference of this Court - NO:HC

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

Whether where an assessee has appellate remedy available before it as well as complete machinery for assessment/re-assessment, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where such remedies are unutilised - YES: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

Whether the AO erred in serving another notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act when a prior notice had already been passed - YES:HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

In writ the High Court considers the facts and circumstances of the case and quashes the assessment order so passed as well as the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in respect of the relevant AY. The matter is remanded back to the AO for re-consideration and passing fresh order within 8 weeks' time.

- Matter remanded: DELHI HIGH COURT

CX - Issue relates refund claim that was allowed by Commissioner (A) consequent upon order passed by Tribunal but directed to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund of India on the ground that appellant failed to cross the bar of unjust-enrichment - Appellant argued with reference to judgement of jurisdictional High Court in case of Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. 2014-TIOL-364-HC-MUM-CX , Sandvik Asia Ltd. that there is clear finding in Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. to the effect that when amount had been deposited in course of investigation after clearance of excisable goods, bar of unjust enrichment would not be applicable - Revenue has relied upon the decision of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. 2005-TIOL-48-SC-CX-LB and Mahindra Engg. & Chemical Products Ltd. of Tribunal to support the reasoning of order passed by Commissioner (A) - As could be noticed, in Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. the factual distinction between Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. judgement and Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. order was made with clarity and that in Mahindra Engg. & Chemical Products Ltd. judgment of Tribunal, no reference to Sandvik Asia Ltd. is noticeable - This being legal position and precedent law available on issue in hand, findings of Commissioner (A) that unless the deposited amount is shown in Profit & Loss Account of appellant as amount receivable, doctrine of unjust enrichment would be established, is erroneous - Refund amount sanctioned and directed to be deposited in Consumer Welfare fund of India is to be refunded to appellant and not to the Welfare Fund - Department is directed to pay the same with applicable interest, if any, within two months: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

ST - So far as issue about differences in figures reflected in ST-3 Returns and in form 26AS is concerned, it has been settled by way of various decisions of Tribunal that Revenue cannot raise demand on the basis of merely differences without establishing that entire amount received by appellant as reflected in form 26AS is consideration for services provided because it is also not proper to presume that entire differential amount was on account of consideration for providing services without verifying it - Burden to prove allegations is upon department that appellants have received extra payment on which the TDS has been deducted by service recipient - In the matter of Kush Construction 2019-TIOL-1757-CESTAT-ALL, it has been held that differences in figures reflected in ST-3 Returns and form 26AS cannot be basis for raising Service Tax demand without examining the reasons for such differences and without examining whether the amount as reflected in said Income Tax Return was consideration for providing any taxable services or difference was due to any exemption or any abatement - Even otherwise in various decisions of Tribunal it has been held that figures in form 26AS are already included in Income Tax Returns in Profit & Loss account and balance sheet which is a public document and ST-3 Returns were also filed by appellants regularly therefore, no suppression can be alleged and no evidence has been adduced by Revenue to establish mala fide intention for evasion of Service Tax and therefore extended period cannot be invoked - So far as demand of Rs. 38,357/- based on four invoices is concerned, no document found in case records in support of appellant - Rather it has been submitted that appellant has made a submission before lower authorities that they were ready to pay service tax amount involved on said invoices in order to avoid interest liability and in written submission herein it has been mentioned by appellant that service tax has been deposited by them - Therefore, this issue is decided against appellant: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

Cus - The O-I-O dated 11.05.2021 was received by assessee on 17.05.2021 and appeal was filed on 14.07.2021 - From 17.05.2021, they were required to file Appeal before First Appellate authority on or before 17.07.2021 - It is not clear whether there was any delay at all or delay is of 4 days as calculated by Commissioner (A) - Even if date of communication of order is taken as 11.05.2021, delay, if any, is only of 2 days, which is condoned - It would be appropriate to remand the matter to Commissioner (A) to decide the appeal on merits without further visiting the aspect of limitation - Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to appellant: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT