I-T - Transfer of assessment u/s 127 is invalid where assessee is not given opportunity of personal hearing before transferring assessment between jurisdictions: HC

I-T - Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) r/w Section 274 is invalid where penalty order is passed by AO not having jurisdiction to pass same, due to invalid transfer of assessment: HC

GST - SCN issued and order passed - As matter has been carried to its logical end, petitioner may assail the same, if so desired and if so advised: HC

CX - Credit can be availed on amount of insurance premium paid by appellant to insurance company for availing mediclaim of employees who had opted for VSS announced by appellant: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-05-HC-MUM-CT

S R Drugs Pvt Ltd Vs CST

Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal can be held liable for not considering the application of a precedent judgment of the High Court, where the two matters have factual distinctions, which were accounted for by the Tribunal - NO: HC

- Writ petition: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-01-HC-MAD-GST

Sri Balaji Transport Vs Pr.Secretary/CCT

GST - Writ petitioner imported Carbon Black Feedstock Oil from Singapore by sea; thereafter it was transported by Rail from Mumbai to Chennai; that in Chennai when the truck was moved by surface the truck was intercepted on 06.12.2022; that one Deepak, who was at the wheel of the truck had given a statement; that proceedings were initiated u/s 129 of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner submits that the consignment was transported by truck from the Railway yard to the weigh-bridge and the interception occurred during such transit; that the interception was owing to the reason that the writ petitioner was not in a position to produce E-way bill and this could have been applied only after weighment at the weigh-bridge - Counsel for respondent Revenue submits that the writ petitioner has made an internal weighing and, therefore, it is an ingenious but fallacious argument. Held:   In the light of the disputations and contestations, considering that the same turns heavily on facts, Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion or view on the same - Counsel for Revenue, on instructions, submits that pursuant to interception on 06.12.2022, a show-cause notice as statutorily required under Section 129(3) of Act, 2017 has been issued to the writ petitioner on 07.12.2022; the writ petitioner has sent a reply on the same day, the third respondent has considered the same and has made an order dated 09.12.2022, which has been placed before this Court - As the matter has been carried to its logical end, it is now for the petitioner to assail the aforementioned order, if so desired and if so advised - Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed: High Court [para 7, 8]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-03-CESTAT-MUM

Reliance Mediaworks Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order arises from unique deployment of constituents, that make up channel entities involved in exhibition of cinematographic films in an arrangement by which several distributors participate in sharing of revenue with assessee - Tax authorities concluded that these are distinct entities rendering service in de-mutualized capacity on 'principal-to-principal' basis and do not acquire status of partners in consequence of their agreement - Tax liability for the period from 2014-15 and up to September 2015 in 2015-16 was ordered for recovery under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with appropriate interest under section 75 besides being imposed with penalties under section 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 - Issue stands resolved by decision of Tribunal in their own matter in Reliance Mediaworks Limited 2022-TIOL-264-CESTAT-MUM - Respectfully following said decision, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-02-CESTAT-MUM

Reliance Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant had been issued with SCN for denying CENVAT credit which held as ineligible for being premium paid for group insurance to cover employees opting for 'voluntary separation scheme (VSS)' in March 2010 - Dispute stands resolved by response of Larger Bench of Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd 2022-TIOL-336-CESTAT-MUM-LB relating to denial of credit availed in March 2007 - In view of precedent decision in an identical dispute of very same appellant, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-01-CESTAT-MUM

Mirc Electronics Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Imposition of late fee i.e. equivalent to duty of imported goods under Section 46(3) of Customs Act, 1962 for filing of Bill of Entry after stipulated time and its confirmation by Commissioner (A) vide above referred order is assailed in this appeal - Before pronouncement of order by Commissioner (A), issue has been settled with much clarity by High Court of Madras in case of M/s. Heilsa Meditec LLP 2021-TIOL-2338-HC-MAD-CUS - Therefore, imposition of late fee itself and its confirmation by Commissioner (A) by erroneously holding that there was no dispute of fact that Bill of Entry was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 46(3) of Customs Act, 1962 was irregular and unsupported by any legal provision - It has also caused considerable hardship to appellant by burdening them with further unnecessary litigation and by burdening Tribunal in showing scanty respect to law of land for which, in view of decision in case of Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd., respondent is also liable to compensate the appellant by way of cost - Impugned order confirming late fee is hereby set aside with consequential relief of refund - Department is directed to pay a minimum litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to appellant within a period of three months: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT