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

I-T - Assessment order confirming a huge tax demand on the assessee, in invalidated, where assessee was not given proper opportunity to file reply to SCN : HC

I-T - Duty demand raised against the Directors of a company u/s 179 of the I-T Act is sustainable, where the Directors have shown that non-recovery of tax from the company is not due to any gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of the Directors: HC

I-T- When assessee has factually demonstrated it had sufficient interest free fund available with it to take care of investment no disallowance of interest expenditure could have been made under Rule 8D(2)(ii): ITAT

I-T - If receipts reported in return are more than disclosed in Form 26AS and AO has accepted such receipts, then order passed by AO cannot be held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to interest of Revenue: ITAT

I-T - Where payment for expenses are made by person to one agent who is required to make payment in cash on behalf of such person, then rigours of section 40A(3) are not applicable: ITAT

VAT - Dismissal of appeal by VAT Tribunal is invalid, where the AO and the VAT Tribunal omitted to consider certain facts w.r.t. inter-State transactions & transport receipts: HC

VAT - Dismissal of appeal in limine on grounds of non-prosecution is valid, where VAT Tribunal omits to consider that appellant pre-deposited tax before filing appeal : HC

CX - Non registration as ISD in circumstance, where no malafides having found, is not a fact that would disentitle the appellant from Cenvat Credit: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-22-HC-AHM-VAT

Liberty Oil Mills Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

Whether dismissal of appeal by VAT Tribunal is valid, where the AO and the VAT Tribunal omitted to consider certain facts about inter-State transactions & transport receipts - NO: HC Whether the assessment order merits being stayed and no recovery of tax be made from the assessee while such facts are ascertained - YES: HC

- Appeal allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-21-HC-AHM-VAT

Manoj Automotive Vs State of Gujarat

Whether dismissal of appeal in limine on grounds of non-prosecution is valid, where the VAT Tribunal omits to consider that the appellant properly pre-deposited tax before filing appeal & where such dismissal of appeal causes financial hardship to the appellant - NO: HC

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-18-CESTAT-DEL

B L Goel And Company Vs CCE & CGST

ST - Appellant is in appeal against refusal of refund of amount of Rs. 29,36,382/- - This amount remained unadjusted due to fault of Department as well as Designated Committee under Sabka Vishwas Scheme, who have refused the adjustment of amount of pre-deposit, stating that the amount is not verifiable - This amount remained as Revenue deposit with Department and was never adjusted - Further, this amount is not a part of admitted tax - Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund of Rs. 29,36,382/- within a period of 30 days along with interest @ 12% per annum from end of three months from the date of filing of application for refund, till the date of grant of refund: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-17-CESTAT-AHM

Freudenberg Gala Household Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

Cus - The appellant during provisional assessment of bills of entry deposited the excess duty - Subsequently, appellant filed the refund claim of said excess duty deposited under section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - A major amount of refund was rejected on the ground of time bar - The sanctioning authority has considered the letter as final assessment order however on perusal of said letter, it is found that through said letter, appellant was directed to approach concerned assessing authority for finalization of assessment where provisional assessment was undertaken in their bills of entry - As per said letter, it is not clear when final assessment order was issued - Appellant has also given a sample copy of bills of entry and on the bill of entry also there is no mention of final assessment - The bond was cancelled on 04.08.2018 therefore, if there is no formal final assessment order was issued then date of cancellation of bond shall be treated as finalization of assessment, however it is not on record that whether any formal final assessment order was issued - Accordingly, matter remanded to adjudicating authority to ascertain the facts about actual date of finalization of bills of entry and to pass a reasoned order on the refund - Hence, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-16-CESTAT-AHM

Transpek Silox Industry Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appeals filed against denial of Cenvat Credit availed by appellant - The appellant has four different manufacturing units and their Head Office is located in Vadodara along at same place with one of their unit - The head quarter availed Cenvat Credit in respect of input services availed at corporate level and entire Cenvat Credit was availed in appellant's unit located in Vadodara which is at the same place as Head Office - Facts of the case are similar to the PIRAMAL GLASS PVT LTD 2021-TIOL-667-CESTAT-AHM except for the fact that in case of PIRAMAL GLASS PVT they were two manufacturing units whereas in appellant's units there are four manufacturing units - No objection regarding admissibility of Cenvat Credit on such services other than the fact that the same were received in head office has been raised in proceedings by lower authorities - Non registration as ISD in current circumstance, where no malafides having found, is not a fact that would disentitle them from Cenvat Credit - Relying on said decision of PIRAMAL GLASS PVT LTD , impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT