I-T - As per settled law, power u/s 264 is wide & applies not just to errors committed by Revenue authorities but also to errors committed by assessee : HC

I-T - Search - Statement of a person which is not relatable to any incriminating document found during search operation, per se cannot trigger search assessment: HC

I-T - Issuing subsequent SCN to legal heir of deceased assessee, does not validate initial action of having sent SCN in name of deceased assessee, more so where Revenue was aware of assessee having passed away: HC

I-T - Even if non-issuance of SCN along with draft assessment order was neither willful nor wanting, yet it must be supplied & non issuance of SCN contravenes rules of natural justice : HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Form SVLDRS-3 was not issued to the Petitioner due to an error on part of Respondents - Obligation to pay amount within 30 days had not arisen at all: HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner made bona fide attempt to make payment within the stipulated time but was, however, unsuccessful - To deposit the amount with interest @6% within four weeks and certificate to be issued: HC

Cus - Material irregularity - While disposing of stay application, appeal ought not to have been disposed of without posting for hearing: HC

GST - Supply of vouchers - Transaction between assessee and his clients is procurement of printed forms and their delivery - Vouchers are neither goods nor services and, therefore, cannot be taxed: HC

2023-TIOL-158-HC-KAR-GST

Premier Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Assessee is engaged in the transactions of procuring Pre-paid Payment Instruments (PPIs) of Gift Vouchers, Cash Back Vouchers and E-Vouchers from the issuers and supplying them to its clients for specified face value - Its clients issue such Vouchers to their employees in the form of incentive or to other beneficiaries under promotional schemes for use as consideration for purchase of goods or services or both as specified therein - Petitioner prays for quashing the Order number KAR/AAAR/11/2021-22 dated December 22, 2021 - = 2021-TIOL-37-AAAR-GST passed by the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling holding that the supply of vouchers is taxable as ‘goods' and the time of supply would be governed by Section 12(5) of the Act, 2017 and the rate of GST would be as per Entry No. 453 of Schedule 3 of Notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. Held: It is not in dispute that the vouchers involved in the instant petition are semi-closed Pre-paid Payment Instruments [PPIs] in which the goods or services to be redeemed are not identified at the time of issuance - Vouchers are distributed to its employees or the customers which can be redeemed by them - These PPIs do not permit cash withdrawal, irrespective of whether they are issued by banks or non-banking Companies and they can be issued only with the prior approval of RBI - In substance, the transaction between the assessee and his clients is procurement of printed forms and their delivery - The printed forms are like currency - The value printed on the form can be transacted only at the time of redemption of the voucher and not at the time of delivery of vouchers to assessee's client, therefore, the issuance of vouchers is similar to pre-deposit and not supply of goods or services - Hence, vouchers are neither goods nor services and, therefore, cannot be taxed - Writ petition is allowed - Orders of AAR & AAAR are quashed holding that vouchers do not fall under the category of goods and services and they are exempted from levy of tax: High Court [para 21 to 23]

- Petition allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-160-HC-MUM-ST

Innovative Antares Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Form SVLDRS-3 was issued by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 10 February 2020 directing the Petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 7,69,317/- to avail the benefit of the Scheme of 2019 - It is the Petitioner's case that they could not act pursuant to Form SVLDRS-3 in time in view of the lock down imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic - That the payment date was extended to 30 June 2020 and the Petitioner made payment of Rs.7,69,317/- on 24 June 2020 pursuant to Form SVLDRS 3, however, it was returned by the Bank, and the amount was refunded to the Petitioner's account - Thereafter the Petitioner tried multiple times to generate a new challan but was not successful - Petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.7,69,317/- under the Scheme and issue a discharge certificate. Held: Court had in the case of L.G. Chaudhary Versus Union of India - 2022-TIOL-1363-HC-AHM-ST held that since the Petitioner therein made bona fide attempt to make payment within the stipulated time, the petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to accept the payment; Division Bench had also directed that the payment should be made along with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum - Bench is of the opinion that indulgence as granted by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s. L.G. Chaudhary (supra) also needs to be extended to the case of Petitioner; that the interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum would be appropriate - Petition is allowed with a direction to the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 7,69,317/- under the Scheme of 2019 along with interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from 30 June 2020 till the date of payment - Petitioner will deposit the amount with interest within four weeks and steps regarding issuance of necessary certificate be undertaken within four weeks thereafter - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 11, 14, 15]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-159-HC-KERALA-CUS

CC Vs Solgen Energy Pvt Ltd

Cus - Importer has imported "Solar Inverter" and claimed the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - The Assistant Commissioner, Customs, by order dated 06.09.2016, rejected the exemption claim under the said notification - Commissioner(A) allowed the appeal and the Revenue stay application/appeal was dismissed by Tribunal which led to the present Revenue appeal - Revenue contends that it has a very good case, inasmuch as the product imported cannot be equated as Solar Power Generating System and the function it does, does not enable the importer to claim the exemption - However, the Tribunal without hearing of their appeal dismissed the same. Held : Tribunal is the final authority on a finding of fact - However, what misses the attention of the Tribunal is that the argument will certainly be different in deciding a stay petition and the appeal - Though it has not been categorically stated that the appeal has been heard and disposed of along with the stay petition, from the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, Bench is satisfied that the appeal ought not to have been disposed for hearing and without posting the appeal for considering, disposing of the appeal is unsustainable - This material irregularity has certainly vitiated the consideration - Order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal within three months: High Court [para 6]

- Matter remanded: KERALA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-100-CESTAT-AHM

Shridhar Construction Vs CST

ST - Appeal filed against impugned order whereby Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal of appellant only on the ground of limitation as appeal was filed beyond 90 days from the date of receipt of order - At this juncture, Tribunal cannot go into merit of case, for the reason that Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal only on limitation - As regard to limitation, appellant has emphatically submitted that order was not served in terms of Section 37C and he also placed heavy reliance on Supreme Court judgment in case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-154-SC-CX - This legal aspect has not been examined properly by Commissioner (A) - Therefore, Commissioner (A) needs to examine regarding provision of service of order in the light of Apex Court judgment - Accordingly, matter remanded to Commissioner (A) to reconsider the aspect of limitation and pass a fresh order: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-99-CESTAT-AHM

Marudhar Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Issue required to be decided is as to whether reversal of credit, either by payment of 6% in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or by debiting the same from Cenvat credit account, would result to satisfying the condition of notfn 30/2004-CE in question - The condition of notification is that no credit should have been availed in respect of inputs used in manufacture of such goods - Issue is no more res integra and stands settled by Supreme Court in case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Ltd. 2002-TIOL-41-SC-CX - It stands held that when credit so availed is subsequently reversed, situation would be as if no credit was ever availed - Inasmuch as appellant has reversed entire credit, either by way of payment of 8% or by debiting the same in Cenvat credit account, condition of notification is satisfied - Appellant is eligible for exemption under Notfn 30/2004-C.E. when they have reversed 6% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) - Appellant's claim on applicability of sub-rule (3D) of Rule 6 is also legally sustainable - Said sub-rule provides for a deeming provision to effect that payment of amount under sub-rule (3) should be considered as credit not taken for purpose of such exemption notification - Original authority has gravely erred in not considering the said sub-rule (3D) and relying on explanation of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Said explanation has no relevance to the facts of the present case in view of specific provision of sub-rule (3D) of Rule 6 - As regard revenue's appeal for enhancing of penalty imposed under section 11AC, since the demand itself is not sustainable, penalty being consequential would also not sustain - Impugned order is unsustainable, accordingly, same is set aside: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-98-CESTAT-AHM

KPG Enterprise Vs CCE