2023-TIOL-213-HC-DEL-ST
Pr.CCGST Vs Emaar MGF Land Ltd
ST - Works Contract Services - Construction and selling of residential flats - In cases where another interpretation is plausible and an assessee proceeds to file a return on that basis, it would not be apposite to conclude that the assessee has made any mis-statement or suppressed any fact merely because the Revenue interprets the statutory provision differently - Once an assessee has truly disclosed the facts, it would not be apposite to invoke the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Act only on the ground that the assessee has classified its services under a head which the revenue considers erroneous - Bench concurs with the finding of the Tribunal that in the given facts, the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act could not be applied - Revenue Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 15, 21, 28, 30]
- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-212-HC-KERALA-ST
South Indian Bank Ltd Vs Pr.CCT & CE
ST - Review petition is filed by assessee against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the High Court on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record - Tribunal had accepted the contention raised by assessee and held that since there was no intention to evade payment of service tax, the invocation of the extended period of limitation is unavailable - Through the judgment under review, Bench has held that, merely because the review petitioner was exonerated from payment of the penalty for reasonable cause, the same yardstick cannot be applied while deciding the aspect of limitation. Held: The intelligence report points out that the short levy was from 10.09.2004 to 31.07.2007, and only on a reference by the department after the intelligence report on 02.08.2007, the bank had remitted the differential amounts - When the correct figures are not brought to the notice of the department and when the suppression is unearthed through an intelligence report, the failure of the bank in remitting the amounts thereafter i.e., nearly three years can be brought under the words 'wilful suppression' - The time for which default occasioned is equally important - Therefore, Bench is of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, and also there are no grounds to review the judgment, therefore the review petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Review petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-211-HC-KERALA-CUS
CC Vs Saurabh Overseas Traders
Cus - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - By referring to Circular No.4/2004 dated 16.01.2004, the Commissioner has taken the view that the conversion of the Free Shipping Bill into Advance License/DEPF/DFRC is impermissible - Exporter challenged the order rejecting the request for amendment of the Shipping Bill and the Tribunal, through the impugned order, set aside the order of the Commissioner and allowed the appeal, therefore, Revenue is in appeal before the High Court. Held: In the case on hand, the reasons for refusing the request are Circular No.4/2004 dated 16.01.2004 and the unilateral declaration while exporting the commodity as free duty export - The Tribunal would have done better by testing the grounds resulting in the order of rejection - The grounds now stated by the Tribunal are not examining the validity of the reasoning of the Commissioner - Impugned order is set aside - To subject the controversy to adjudication, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law - Tribunal to decide appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months: High Court [para 4]
- Appeal allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT |
