I-T - As per settled law, re-assessment notice issued to deceased person is invalid, unless legal heir/representative of assessee submits to jurisdiction of AO without raising any objections: HC

I-T - Assessee cannot be said to have not disclosed facts fully & truly only because, it had adopted particular method of determining Fair Market Value of shares which was otherwise permissible : HC

I-T - Re-assessment proceedings untenable where assessee duly furnishes requisite details whenever called for & cannot be said to have failed to disclose material facts truly & fully : HC

I-T - Addition for hawala purchases can be made only to extent of difference between gross profit rate on genuine purchases & gross profit rate such purchases: HC

I-T - Order passed under Faceless Assessment Scheme, without adhering to statutory mandate of allowing 7 days' time to assessee, merits being quashed : HC

I-T - An assessment order passed without granting opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, warrants interference with : HC

I-T - Interest on delay in payment in respect of audit conducted is payable if there is substantive law to such effect or if trade, usage, custom or practice, enforceable in law mandates grant of interest : HC

I-T - Faceless Assessment - Order is invalidated where assessee is given only 4 hours' time to respond to SCN: HC

I-T - Where an applicant before SETCOM has already paid tax and the same is deposited in Government treasury, then applicant cannot be expected to also pay interest on amount already paid : HC

GST - Order cancelling the petitioner's registration is unsustainable as it does not consider his response to the SCN: HC

Cus - Request seeking refund of balance amount was not an application u/s 27 but merely a request to act in accordance with law and give effect to appellate order - Bar of limitation does not arise: HC

Cus - Customs broker licence - Since notice was issued beyond the period of ninety days from the Offence Report, impugned order cannot be sustained: HC

CX - Personal hearing - It was a time when all activities of the entire nation had come to a grinding halt - There could not have been any possibility of anybody appearing in person - Order set aside and matter remitted: HC

CX - For early transfer of credit and availment thereof, appellant has paid interest due to which availment of credit shall be treated as on last date of quarter, only for early transfer, credit cannot be denied: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-217-HC-DEL-GST

Rakesh Enterprises Vs Pr.CCGST

GST - Petitioner impugns an order cancelling their registration under the Act, 2017 - Allegation against the petitioner is that it had defaulted in filing the returns for more than six months. Held : Although the impugned order dated 28.12.2020 refers to the petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice, it does not indicate as to the contents thereof or reflects any discussion in respect of the petitioner's explanation - Impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained - Respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's Registration - Petition allowed: High Court [para 7, 8, 13, 14]

- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-216-HC-DEL-CUS

Sentec India Company Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. CC

Cus - Petitioner challenges the order rejecting their refund application on the ground of limitation - Petitioner further prays that directions be issued to the respondents to process its claim for refund of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) in a time bound manner. Held: Petitioner's written request dated 22.07.2022 seeking refund of the balance amount was not an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, but merely a request to the respondents to act in accordance with law and give effect to the appellate order dated 20.06.2019 - The authority concerned overlooked the fact that the petitioner's application for refund of EDD was made on 19.02.2019 - Once the order dated 20.06.2019 partly rejecting the said application had been set aside, the natural corollary would be to process the said application and to grant the refund, if otherwise due - Thus, the question of the petitioner's claim being barred by limitation does not arise - Respondent is directed to forthwith process the petitioner's request for refund within a period of two weeks: High Court [para 11, 12, 15, 18, 20]

- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-215-HC-DEL-CUS

HIM Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Petition filed against order revoking the petitioner's Customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit and levying of penalty. Held : Allegations made in the Show Cause Notices dated 24.01.2020 issued to the petitioner and M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. were similar - M/s HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. had challenged the order dated 30.09.2020 revoking its license and the Tribunal had by its order dated 06.09.2022 [ = 2022-TIOL-821-CESTAT-DEL ] allowed their appeal - In the present case as well, the Show Cause Notice dated 24.01.2020 issued to the petitioner is clearly erroneous as it proceeds on the basis that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2019 is the Offence Report; that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2019 could not be treated as an Offence Report because the said Show Cause Notice arises out of the Offence Report dated 16.02.2015 - Since the notice in this case, was issued beyond the period of ninety days from the Offence Report, the impugned order cannot be sustained - It is also not disputed that the petitioner has not acted as a Customs Broker in respect of exports under the offending Shipping Bills - Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order: High Court [para 18, 19, 23, 24, 25]

- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-214-HC-AHM-CX

Rajputana Stainless Ltd Vs UoI

CX - Petitioner alleges gross violation of principles of natural justice without hearing the petitioner while passing the ex parte Order in original. Held: It was a time when all the activities of the entire nation had come to a grinding halt - The first time when the opportunity of personal hearing was given was on 13.4.2020 when the pandemic was at its peak due to Covid-19 virus - There could not have been any possibility of anybody appearing in person - With regard to the cross-examination of the names of the witnesses, same will need to be dealt with by the officer concerned when the matter is remanded for the purpose of adjudication afresh from the stage where it was left - Bench is of the opinion that the order impugned passed by the authority concerned deserves to be quashed and set aside remitting the matter - Entire process of adjudication shall be expedited: High Court [para 14, 15, 18]

- Matter remitted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-130-CESTAT-AHM

Transformers And Rectifiers India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant was denied Cenvat credit by Revenue on the ground that Cenvat credit of other unit, i.e., Moriya unit was transferred to appellant's unit before due date and utilized the same for payment of duty in terms of Rule 10A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - For the quarter ending December 2013, instead of transferring credit on 31.12.2013, it was transferred on 31.10.2013 - Similarly for the quarter ending September 2014, instead of transfer of credit on 30.09.2014 it was transferred on 31.07.2014 - There is no dispute that the credit which was transferred was lying accumulated in Cenvat account of transferor unit - The transfer of credit from one unit to another unit of same company in terms of Rule 10A is only a procedural requirement and it is not a case of any fresh payment of duty - The credit which is transferred is in respect of duty which was already paid - Therefore, by transfer of credit there is no Revenue implication - Moreover, for early transfer of credit and availment thereof, appellant has admittedly paid interest due to which availment of credit shall be treated as on last date of quarter in both the cases - Therefore, only for early transfer, credit cannot be denied - If at all there is lapse, it is on the part of transferor unit against which audit had already raised the issue and on payment of interest, issue was settled and no further action was taken against transferor unit - For this reason also Cenvat credit should not have been denied to appellant - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-129-CESTAT-AHM

Chiron Behring Veccines Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Before going into the merit of case that is jurisdiction issue and taxability, it is found that the appellant have made a submission about limitation and sought benefit of section 73(3) and Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - As regard the limitation, issue about taxability on reverse charge basis in respect of service received from foreign based service provider was not free from doubt as issue was finally decided by Supreme court in a landmark judgment in case of Indian National Shipowners Association - Moreover appellant have paid entire service tax even for period prior to its levy, i.e., before 18.04.2006 and they have filed ST-3 returns wherein details of payments have been declared - Demand for extended period is not sustainable - Appellant alternatively claimed the benefit of Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that entire service tax along with interest paid prior to SCN - Demand for extended period is not sustainable hence the same is set aside - Demand for normal period if any, is sustained along with interest - However, penalties are not sustainable - Accordingly, impugned order is modified: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT