I-T - Re-assessment order merits being upheld where assessee did not file reply to SCN within the time limit specified :HC

I-T - Writ petition is not sustainable where assessee has equally efficacious alternate remedy of statutory appeal : HC

I-T - Substantial justice cannot be defeated by technical considerations of delay, where there is no deliberate delay or delay on account of negligence or on account of mala fide: HC

I-T - Question of applicability of its writ jurisdiction in faceless assessments where PAN AO/JAO is based outside Delhi, referred to Larger Bench: HC

I-T - Assessment order passed without considering assessee's requests for extension of time limit for filing reply to SCN; order quashed: HC

Sales tax - When the statutory authority allows the appeal of an assessee, he gives legal shape to the contours of the matter which assessing authority should have adopted: HC

Cus - Import of Dry dates - Country of origin certificate found as being genuine - No need to continue detention - goods to be released: HC

CX - Retention/detention charges are not includable in transaction value of excisable goods namely gas sold, duly packed, in gas cylinders: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1598-HC-AHM-CT

Asian Paints Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

Sales Tax - Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 - Once the order is passed by the competent authority for assessment and the appeal is preferred before the Appellate Authority against such order, the principles of doctrine of merger would squarely apply and once the order of assessment merges with the order of the Appellate Authority in appeal, the assessment is finalized by the Appellate Authority in appeal - When the doctrine of merger is borne in mind and when the statutory authority allows the appeal of an assessee, he gives legal shape to the contours of the matter which assessing authority should have adopted and, therefore, the refund claim of the assessee would essentially arise from the order of assessment - The respondent No. 3 is directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum from 13.07.2009 till the date of actual refund on the principal amount of Rs. 2,15,80,739/-, and not later than twelve weeks - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 15, 16]

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1597-HC-AHM-CUS

Krishna Shipping And Allied Services Vs CC

Cus - Import of Dry dates - Petitioner challenges the action of the respondent to illegally detain the consignment of dry dates imported by them - Counsel for Respondent Revenue informs that the petitioner has submitted required documents only on 14.12.2022 based on which it appears that the Country of Origin certificate for the said consignment is genuine; that no other evidence is available for continued detention of said goods and, therefore, DRI has no objection to release of detained goods subject to decision by the Court. Held: Considering the fact that the respondent No.3 has no objection to the release of the detained goods subject to the decision of this Court, in wake of the Country of Origin Certificate of the consignment being genuine, the respondent No. 3 has not found it necessary for any further evidence to be adduced for continuing this detention - In wake of that there will be no requirement for the Court to further adjudicate upon any of these aspects - Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous: High Court [para 5]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1176-CESTAT-MUM

R S Crane Vs CCE & ST

ST - Issue is in a very narrow compass as Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal only for the reason that appellant has filed appeal before him with a delay for which he has no power to condone - As the issue is well settled, no merits found in appeal filed by appellant - Accordingly, appeal is dismissed under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution and also on merits following the Supreme Court decision in case of Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX : CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-1175-CESTAT-AHM

Aims Industries Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Issue involved is that whether retention charges of Cylinders wherein final product viz gas supplied to Customer beyond stipulated period is includible in assessable value of gas - Same issue has been decided in appellant's own case 2019-TIOL-1442-CESTAT-AHM for their different factory wherein it is held that retention/detention charges is not a part of sale price - It is only charged when customers retain/detain cylinders beyond the period stipulated by appellant - Accordingly, retention/detention charges are not includable in transaction value of excisable goods namely gas sold, duly packed, in gas cylinders - In view of said decision of Tribunal, issue is no longer res-integra , therefore, impugned order is not sustainable, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT