I-T - Search assessment commenced against assessee is invalid where not based on any fresh evidence : HC

I-T - Assessment proceedings commenced in respect of a deceased assessee are invalidated, more so where legal representatives of assessee were not brought on record : HC

I-T - Search assessment order u/s 153A cannot be passed where any material incriminating the assessee is not found during search proceedings: HC

I-T - If assessee has not furnished particulars of actual expenditure incurred by it for earning exempt income, then suo motu disallowance offered by him cannot be accepted: HC

I-T - Re-assessment notice issued after lapse of four years' period from end of relevant AY, is invalid, being hit by limitation : HC

I-T- Case can be remanded back as details submitted by assessee are required to be examined by lower Revenue Authorities before deciding issue on merits :ITAT

I-T- Assessee not entitled to deduction of amounts deposited towards employees' contribution in terms of EPF Act or any other provident fund if payment was made beyond due date as provided in respective statute: ITAT

I-T - Case can be remanded as issue of unexplained cash deposits has not been verified by AO properly : ITAT

I-T - Assessee has escaped income on account Client Code Modification : ITAT

CX - Once the Settlement Commission comes to a conclusion that there has been no full and true disclosure of facts and the manner in which the liability has been derived, it could not have proceeded to adjudicate the liability: HC

GST - Reasons are heart and soul of order and non-communication of the same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice: HC

VAT - textile fabrics would not be amenable to VAT in terms of Explanation to Schedule-B (Part-II) of the Act; duty demand quashed as very basis of assessment ceases to exist: HC

Cus - Limitation period has been calculated from date of order instead of date of communication of order: CESTAT

ST - Since the appellant had provided services of serving foods and maintaining canteen located in factories, benefit of service tax exemption as per Notfn 14/2013-ST should be available to it: CESTAT

CX - Any process which is incidental or ancillary to completion of manufactured products is to be held as the process of manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944: CESTAT

ST - Exporter of services can claim refund of unutilised credit on inputs as per Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) : CESTAT

CX - Since the parts in issue have been used for smooth and efficient functioning of machinery which has been used for manufacturing Sugar and Molasses, there is no reason not to allow credit to appellants: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1499-HC-ORISSA-VAT

Mandiraajay Gupta (HUF) Vs CST

Whether where textile fabrics would not be amenable to VAT in terms of Explanation to Schedule-B (Part-II) of the OVAT Act, hence assessment order is invalidated where very basis of assessment order is removed - YES: HC

- Writ petition allowed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1498-HC-DEL-CX

Suresh Kumar Verma Vs CC, CE & ST Settlement Commission

CX - Writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.03.2018 and corrigendum dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Settlement Commission - Pursuant to the impugned orders being passed, the respondents raised a demand [of CEX duty of Rs. 10,13,83,938/-, Penalty of Rs. 1 Crores, Interest of Rs. 5.88 Crores and Redemption fine] on the petitioners vide notice dated 06.04.2018 – Petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Settlement Commission are flawed in law, for the reason that the Settlement Commission has clearly observed in paragraph 95 of the order dated 14.03.2018 that the petitioners have not made full and true disclosure and have not cooperated in the proceedings conducted by it - Counsel for Respondent Revenue cannot but accept the position that the issue raised in the appeal stands covered by the judgment in SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. = 2019-TIOL-159-HC-DEL-CX . Held: Bench is in respectful agreement with the judgment rendered in SDL Auto Pvt. Ltd. (supra) - Once the Settlement Commission comes to a conclusion that there has been no true and fair disclosure of facts and the manner in which the liability has been derived, the Settlement Commission cannot then proceed to adjudicate the liability - This emerges upon a plain reading of Section 32E of the 1944 Act - Unless the twin conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled, the Settlement Commission cannot move further in the matter - The Settlement Commission is, necessarily, then required to remit the matter to the concerned statutory authority - In this case, the petitioners have got practically no benefit in approaching the Settlement Commission as the quantum of liability which was indicated in the aforementioned show cause notice(s) is practically what has been thrust on them via impugned orders - Impugned orders cannot be sustained, therefore, are set aside - Consequently, the notice of demand dated 06.04.2018 would also collapse and is, accordingly, quashed - Matter is remitted to the statutory authority concerned for initiation of next steps, if any, as per the law – Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6, 8, 8.2, 9, 10, 10.1, 11, 12]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

M M Scrap Trading Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 28.2.2022 for cancellation of registration, as also the order dated 26.4.2022, rejecting the application of the petitioner for revocation of cancellation of registration and an appeal order dated 12.10.2022 whereby the GST number of the petitioner is cancelled with retrospective effect - Relying upon the decision of Coordinate Bench in case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works = 2022-TIOL-504-HC-AHM-GST , petitioner submitted that considering the violation of principles of natural justice, similar issue has been decided by this court in favour of the petitioner. Held: In the opinion of this Court, it is a settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non-communication of the same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice - More so, in this case even the appeal order also does not reflect application of mind by the competent authority - Applying the same principles particularly on the ground that the show cause notice as well as the order rejecting application seeking revocation of cancellation is without assigning any reasons and thereby there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned SCN and the orders passed by the GST authority: High Court [para 7, 9]

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Latifuddin Sardar Vs CC

Cus - The O-I-O dated 28.02.2019 was communicated to appellant on 07.03.2019 and accordingly he was required to file appeal before First Appellate Authority within 60 days i.e. on or before 07.05.2019, but however, appeal was filed only on 04.06.2019 i.e. after expiry of statutory period - Though the appellant had filed appeal beyond the statutory period of 60(sixty) days, but it was filed within condonable period of 30(thirty) days - However, Commissioner (A) chose not to condone the delay and rejected the appeal before him without going into the merits of case - Limitation period has been calculated from date of order instead of date of communication of order - Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner(A) condoned and matter remanded to Commissioner (A) for deciding the appeal on merits without further visiting the aspect of limitation: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: KOLKATA CESTAT

Sai Pooja Enterprises Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue arises is, whether the service provided by appellant to their customers (factory) is in nature and scope of outdoor catering services attracting service tax, as claimed by department or said services is in nature and scope as described at Sr. No. 19A of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. as amended vide Notfn 14/2013-ST and therefore exempted from payment of service tax, as claimed by appellant - On plain reading of entry 19A in Notification dated 22.10.2013 it clearly reveals that the canteen maintained in a factory has been provided with exemption from payment of service tax - The said Notification nowhere provided that canteen maintained by or run by the factory can only be considered for benefits of such exemption - Thus, irrespective of person, who maintains the canteen in a factory, service tax exemption as per Entry 19A is available to such person and benefit cannot be restricted to owner of factory alone - Since the appellant had provided services of serving foods and maintaining the canteen located in factories, the benefit of service tax exemption as per Notfn should be available to it - Hence, services provided by appellant to the factories clearly covered under Notfn and exempted from payment of service tax - Out of total service tax demand of Rs. 58,35,451/- an amount of Rs. 57,35,420 is pertaining to said entities only - Therefore to that extent only, service tax demand dropped alongwith interest and penalty - As regard the rest of service tax demand of Rs. 1,00,031/- appellant agree for said service tax liability and paid the same alongwith interest and penalty - Hence, impugned order to the extent of service tax demand of Rs. 1,00,031/- alongwith interest is set aside - However, appellant has made out a fit case for waiver of penalty, hence the same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

Warburg Pincus India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - The Appellant company is engaged in the business of providing investment advisory service to its customers M/s. Warburg Pincus LLC, USA - The entire turnover being export of service to USA without payment of Service Tax, unutilised CENVAT Credit on input services was sought to be refunded but the refund Sanctioning Authority, had allowed part refund vide Order-in-Original dated 29.09.2017, 19.03.2018 and 28.03.2018 respectively - It had also rejected same credits as inadmissible against which Appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Mumbai who disposed of the same vide his common order dated 28.12.2018 by sanctioning refund to the tune of Rs. 2,22,87,989/- and rejecting refund of Rs. 13,55,221/- on the ground that CENVAT Credit availed on Club or Association Services, Services by Airconditioned Restaurants, Sponsorship Services, Event Management Services, Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services, Mandap Keeper Services, Convention Services and Cable Operator Services were not eligible input services as those have no nexus with the services exported by the Appellant - Legality of the said order only to the extent of rejection of refund is assailed in this appeal. Held - The issue concerning rejection of refund against credits on inputs taken by the Appellant engaged solely on export of services is not required to be decided again in evaluating the eligibility of availment of such input credits by the Appellant since judicial precedent set by this Tribunal would rule the field in the absence of any contradictory finding by the Appellate Court - Therefore, in reiterating what has been observed by me in respect of Appellant's earlier appeal that was decided on 05.07.2019 that judicial precedent is to be carried forward for maintenance of certainty and predictability in the decision making process that has already held the input services availed by the Appellant as eligible credits and in view of the fact that Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) permits refund of such unutilised credits of the exporters - Hence the O-i-A passed is modified in holding that the Appellant is eligible also to get refund of the unutilised CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.13,55,221/- with applicable interest and the Respondent-Department is directed to pay the same within two months of receipt of this order: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Voltas Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appellant is having central excise registration for manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 84 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff - During audit, it was observed that during the period 2008-09, appellant had received back forklift trucks in terms of Rule 16 of CER, 2002 - After undertaking the processes, these were cleared on payment of duty - It is the contention of Revenue that processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture and hence they were not entitled to credit of inputs used for repair of such products - From the annexure, it is quite evident that as a result of processes undertaken, goods as received were converted to different capacity and to different model number - They were even cleared to different customers - Adjudicating authority himself observed that the processes undertaken was "incidental and ancillary to completion of manufactured products" - Any process which is incidental or ancillary to completion of manufactured products is to be held as the process of manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944 - Manufacture is a question of fact and needs to be determined in accordance with the facts of the case before Tribunal - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

Vriddheshwar SSK Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The issue pertains to denial of Cenvat credit to appellants on Steel tubes, M.S. Wire, SS Welding Tube, Alloy Steel, Pipe, H.R. Steel Pipe, chain, M.S. Slate, H.R. Steel Coil, Link outer on the ground that these are not capital goods and appellant had failed to produce any evidence in support of their submission - Although while rejecting the claim, a finding has been recorded by authorities below that these parts were used for structural purposes but no evidence for arriving at such a finding has been discussed or produced anywhere by department - Apart from bald allegation, no cogent evidence has been put forth by department to show that these parts have been used for structural purpose and therefore in absence of any evidence to the contrary, claim made by appellant cannot be denied - Undoubtedly, as demonstrated by appellant, the parts in issue have been used for smooth and efficient functioning of machinery which has been used for manufacturing Sugar and Molasses and therefore there is no reason not to allow the credit in issue to appellants - Appellants are entitled for Cenvat credit of items in issue: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT