Shri P Thiaga Rajan, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu

I-T - Hire-purchase agreements have two elements, one of bailment and one of sale and they are not a simple transation of giving loan or advance on which interest is payable: SC

Demonetisation carried out by way of Notification u/s 26(2) of RBI Act, was substantially legal: SC

CX - Dispute is in relation to whether the assessee was covered by exemption notification - Appeal not maintainable: HC

ST - Cenvat credit availed on inputs, input services and capital goods used for providing renting of immovable property services is proper: HC

ST - Question of law raised by department concerns classification of services and which would involve determination of rate of tax and, therefore, is not appealable before High Court: HC

GST - ITC available of GST charged by service provider in respect of canteen facility provided to direct employees: AAAR

2023-TIOL-01-SC-MISC

Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs UoI

Whether Government has the power to announce demonetisation of any series of bank notes, by taking aid of Section 26(2) of the RBI Act - YES: SC

Whether power available to Central Government u/s 26(2) of RBI Act, 1934 cannot be restricted to mean that it can be exercised only for one or some series of banknotes and not for all the series of bank notes - YES: SC

- Reference in favour of Defendant: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-01-AAAR-GST

Tata Motors Ltd  

GST - AAR by its order dated 30 July 2021 - 2021-TIOL-197-AAR-GST held that  ITC of GST paid on canteen facility is blocked credit u/s 17(5)(b)(i) of the Act and is inadmissible;  On the nominal amount recovered by applicant from employees (for usage of canteen facility) and paid to the canteen service provider, the applicant does not retain with itself any profit margin in this activity of collecting employees' portion of canteen charges and hence GST is not leviable on this amount - Applicant is aggrieved with this ruling by the AAR and hence is in appeal.

Held:  It has been clarified by the Board in Circular No. 172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 that vide the CGST (Amendment Act), 2018, clause (b) of Section 17(5) was substituted with effect from 01.02.2019 on the recommendation of GST Council's 28th meeting and accordingly, the proviso after sub-clause (iii) of Section 17(5)(b) of CGST Act, is applicable to whole clause (b) of Section 17(5) - Resultantly, Input Tax Credit will be available to the appellant in respect of food & beverages as canteen facility, is obligatorily to be provided under the Factories Act, 1948, to its employees working in the factory - However, Input Tax Credit will be available in respect of such services provided by canteen facility to its direct employees but not in respect of other type of employees including contract employees/workers, visitors etc. - Appellant during the course of personal hearing had submitted that they will not take input tax credit to the extent applicable on the amount of canteen charges recovered from their employees and will reverse the credit to that extent - Held, therefore, that Input Tax Credit (ITC) will be available to the appellant on GST charged by the service provider in respect of canteen facility provided to its direct employees working in their factory; ITC on the above is restricted to the extent of the cost borne by appellant for providing canteen services to its direct employees, but disallowing proportionate credit to the extent embedded in the cost of food recovered from such employees: AAR ruling modified: AAAR

- Appeal disposed of: AAAR

2023-TIOL-20-HC-AHM-CX

Pr.Commissioner Vs Reliance Industries Ltd

CX - Revenue is in appeal against the order of CESTAT – Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 19.11.2020 - In the order dated 28.10.2021, it is held by CESTAT that blending of Ethanol with 95% Motor Spirit does not amount to 'manufacture'; that respondent has already paid duty on EBMS and, therefore, it is not required to pay once again duty on Motor Spirit and thus, the appeal of the respondent was allowed.

Held: The dispute in the present appeal is in relation to whether the assessee was covered by the exemption notification, where the exemption notification was related directly and proximately to rate of duty applicable and, therefore as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Navin Chemicals MFG & Trading Co. Ltd - 2002-TIOL-460-SC-CUS and this court in case of Swiss Glass Coat Equipments Ltd. and Kich Industries, appeal on the question of law before the High Court would not be maintainable and an appeal under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would be maintainable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Revenue appeal dismissed: High Court

- Appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-19-HC-P&H-ST

CCGST Vs DLF Ltd

ST - Revenue is in appeal against Tribunal order setting aside the order of the Commissioner whereby Cenvat Credit availed on inputs, input services and capital goods used for the period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2010 for providing renting of immovable property services (output services) was denied.

Held: Identical issue stands dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-III vs. Bellsonica Auto Components India P. Ltd. , 2015 (40) S.T.R. 41 (P&H) - It is held in the said case that prior to the amendment of the rule 2(1) of CCR, 2004 by the 2011 amendment setting up of a factory premises of a provider for output service relating to such a factory fell within the definition of 'input service' - In the aforesaid case the assessee had availed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on civil work of constructing a plant/factory in the premises, namely, the manufacturing plant and for rental of the immovable property leased by it on which the plant was erected - By an amendment of the year 2011 to rule 2(1), construction services were excluded from the definition of "input service" - The amendment of 2011 is not retrospective and is not applicable to the respondents' case - Respondent also brings to the notice of the Bench that an information had been sought from the appellant department under the Right to Information Act and by way of response it had been informed that the decision in Bellsonica Auto Components India P. Ltd. (supra) had been accepted by the department - No patent infirmity in the findings returned by the Tribunal - The questions of law are answered against the appellant and in favour of the assessee/respondent - Revenue Appeal dismissed: High Court

- Appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-18-HC-MUM-ST

CCGST & CE Vs Ajit India Pvt Ltd

ST - Revenue is in appeal against order of CESTAT - Respondent assessee raises an issue of maintainability of this appeal submitting that the question of law at paragraph No. 5(c) refers to classification which would involve determination of rate of tax and, therefore, is not appealable before this court but under section 35L of the Excise Act which appeal would need to be filed before the Apex Court.

Held: Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited Vs. Collector of Customs - 2002-TIOL-460-SC-CUS has held that classification issue is an issue of rate of duty and, therefore, in view of section 35G(1) which specifically prohibits an appeal being entertained by the Court inasmuch as High Court would not have jurisdiction - Appeal is not maintainable before this court and the course of action available to the appellant Revenue is to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under section 35L(1)(b) of the Excise Act: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT