I-T - First time discount expenses on spare part cannot be valid reason for disallowing them, where assessee is authorised automobile dealer & discounts on vehicles & purchases were duly registered in books of accounts: ITAT

I-T - It is beyond jurisdiction & scope of powers of AO u/s 154 to make addition by way of revisiting entire assessment order & thereby reassess income of assessee on debatable issue: ITAT

I-T- CIT (A) erred in making a part of disallowance only on presumption about the personal expenses of the assessee : ITAT

GST - Challenge against SCN - All issues raised can be agitated before the assessing officer - Petition disposed of: HC

GST - Notice was neither received by Petitioners nor was it made available on GSTN portal - Opportunity of hearing was impaired - Order quashed and set aside: HC

GST - Whether penalty has been rightly imposed u/s 129(1)(b) - Factual issues can be agitated before appellate authority - As alternative remedy available, petition dismissed: HC

GST - Refund of IGST withheld - Notice issued and petitioner has responded, therefore, giving declarations of law as sought by the Petitioner would be not only academic but also premature: HC

GST - Bank account is situated in West Bengal - Appellants are registered dealers in Bihar; project was executed in Bihar and proceedings had been initiated by jurisdictional officer in Patna - Petition cannot be entertained by Calcutta HC due to lack of territorial jurisdiction: HC

2022-TIOL-1530-HC-ALL-GST

North End Foods Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs State of UP

GST - Challenge in the present petition is to show cause notice dated 25.5.2021 issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 74 for the financial year 2018-19 - Petitioner raises an issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 3 to proceed under Section 74 on the basis of a survey/SIB survey dated 13.9.2019 - It is argued that as a result of the said survey, two proceedings were conducted against the petitioner viz. blocking ITC under Rule 86A and confiscation of seized goods u/s 130; that against both the orders, the petitioner had filed appeals u/s 107 and both the appeals have been allowed by the appellate authority; that, therefore, proceedings for demand and notice u/s 74 is a futile exercise; that the assessing authority cannot sit over the order of the appellate authority passed u/s 107 in relation to the same SIB survey. Held: Petitioner has come up against the show cause notice - All issues raised herein are still open to agitate before the Assessing Officer - Bench, therefore, does not find any good ground to entertain the writ petition - Petition is disposed of with the observation that all the issues raised by the petitioner, especially the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed u/s 74, in view of the order of the appellate authority dated 19.7.2022, shall be raised before the Assessing Officer in reply to the show cause notice, the subject matter of challenge herein: High Court

- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1529-HC-MUM-GST

Amn Life Science Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Notice dated 30 June 2021 was issued to petitioner stating that when exemption of Integrated Goods and Service Tax was being availed, there was no question of taking refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on such exported goods under Advance Authorisations/EOU Scheme; that, therefore, the Petitioner had availed double benefits - Petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking various declarations of law and contending that the respondent withholding refund of IGST to the tune of Rs.1,69,56,924/- and Rs.81,09,926/- is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. Held:  In the enquiry pursuant to the notice, various factual aspects arise such as whether the Petitioner's products are entirely made from imported raw material or not, whether they are manufacturing products made partly out of imported raw material, partly out of domestically procured raw material and whether the Petitioner is purchasing packing material locally and whether petitioner then is entitled to input tax credit on the said purchase - This enquiry as regards entitlement of the Petitioner to receive any refund is already under way - Letters have been issued to the Petitioner, which the Petitioner has responded - In these circumstances, to give declarations of law as sought by the Petitioner would be not only academic but also premature - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 5, 8]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1528-HC-MUM-GST

Adisan Laboratories Pvt Ltd And Aditya Ramesh Devadhar Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting their claim for refund of accumulated ITC due to inverted duty structure - Petitioner received an email from respondents on 4th March 2022 that a notice has been issued to them in respect of the refund claim filed and were advised to access noting by logging to the GSTN portal - Petitioners on 17 May 2022 wrote to the respondent that notice is neither served nor is available on GSTN portal - Nonetheless, on 27 May 2022, petitioners received the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. Held: In the present case, the Petitioners have not only asserted that notice was not received by them nor it was available on GSTN portal in the petition, but before passing the impugned order, the Petitioners had communicated to the Respondents that notice was not received nor it was available on portal - These facts have gone uncontroverted - Proceeding on the basis that the notice was neither received by the Petitioners nor it was made available on GSTN portal, it will have to be held that the opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners as envisaged under Rule 92 of the Rules of 2017 was impaired -  In light of the above, the impugned order is  quashed and set aside - Application of the Petitioners is restored directing the Respondents to follow methodology under Rule 92 of the Rules of 2017 - Respondents to pass order within eight weeks: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1527-HC-ALL-GST

Ark Infratech Vs State Of UP

GST - Petition has been filed against the order passed under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of U.P.G.S.T. Act with the assertion that the entire proceedings of search and seizure of the goods is in violation of the provisions of U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder - It is argued that though the seizure memo in GST MOV-02 was served upon the driver of the vehicle at the time of interception of the goods but copy of the detention order of the goods and vehicle in FORM GST MOV-06 has not been served - It is also argued that the grounds of detention of goods is the difference in signatures of the registered person in the partnership deed uploaded at the time of registration and the invoice and E-way bill generated for transportation of goods - It is argued by respondent revenue that in the proceedings under Section 129(3), it was held that the petitioner herein is not the owner of the goods and liability for penalty, has, thus been imposed under Section 129(1)(b). Held:  Bench finds that the remedy before the petitioner is to file appeal under Section 107 of U.P.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 against the order passed under Section 129 where under the proper officer detaining or seizing goods passed order for payment of penalty under Clause (a) and (b) of Sub Section (1) -  In the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, all factual issues being raised can very well be agitated before the appellate authority - Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed: High Court 

- Petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1526-HC-KOL-GST

Narula Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

GST - Intra-court appeal filed against the order passed by Single Judge who dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Challenge in the petition was to an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner - Petitioner submits that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in the state of West Bengal since the amount was recovered from the cash credit account of the appellants in a bank situated in the State of West Bengal. Held: Under normal circumstances, this can be construed as one of the factors to consider whether part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Court - However, in the instant case the appellants are registered dealers in the State of Bihar and the project was executed by the appellants in Bihar and the proceedings had been initiated by the jurisdictional officer in Patna - Therefore, it is appropriate for the appellants to canvass all issues before the appropriate forum in the State of Bihar - Writ petition in the given facts and circumstances is not maintainable before this Court -  Appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to approach the appropriate forum in the State of Bihar and if the appellants does so, the period during which the writ petition was pending till receipt of the copy of this order shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Appeal dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1127-CESTAT-AHM

Varrsana Ispat Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Appellant submitted a NCLT order whereby the appellant Company has been liquidated - In view of said order of liquidation the revenue has to review its decision for recovery of dues in light of above referred NCLT order the due is not recoverable, there is no purpose of deciding the appeal on merit - In view of decision in Ultratech Nathdwara , these appeals have become infructuous, therefore, same are disposed as infructuous without deciding any merit of the case - Aggrieved persons are given liberty to approach this Tribunal with appropriate application if at all anyone wants to pursue this appeal on merit: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1126-CESTAT-AHM

Schott Glass India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The limited issue to be decided is that whether assessee is liable for penalty under Rule 15(2) or the charge that assessee have availed 100% credit instead of 50% and remaining 50% to be availed in next Financial year in respect of capital goods - Assessee has not disputed excess availment of credit of 50% in advance - However, admitting the same lapse they have reversed the credit and also paid interest - No mala fide can be attributed towards assessee for this lapse as they are otherwise eligible for Cenvat credit of remaining 50% within a short time i.e. in next financial year - Therefore, this lapse is inadvertent and cannot be said that there is any intention to evade duty or fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit - Case should have been concluded on the basis of assessee's reversal of excess credit of 50% along with payment of interest thereon which could have resulted into non issuance of SCN and consequently no penalty should have been imposed - Therefore, since there is no mala fide on the part of assessee, the case is clearly covered by Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Accordingly, penalty is not imposable on assessee, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1125-CESTAT-AHM

N R Engineering And Contractors Vs CST

ST - Appellant is engaged in providing services under category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service - During audit, it was observed that appellant has issued bill to M/s GEN TEK Technology Pvt. Ltd. and paid Service tax on labour charges and not on the gross value - It was concluded that appellant have wrongly availed the benefits of Notfn 12/2003 –ST and thereby not paid /short paid Service tax - The condition in Notfn is only production of documentary proof indicating the value of goods and materials supplied - This does not in any manner mean that the goods have to necessarily be supplied under invoices - Therefore, evidence was produced before authority and sufficiency of it has to be examined - If appellant is able to show from documents filed with Sales Tax Authorities, value of goods sold and supplied to satisfaction of authorities, it would be compliance with condition provided in Notfn 12/2003-S.T. - Matter remanded to Original authority to reconsider the impugned matter afresh and pass order after permitting the appellant to lead documentary evidence to establish its claim with regard to value of goods and materials supplied in execution of its contracts for construction services for availing of benefit of Notfn 12/2003-S.T.: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT