I-T - Search assessment - High Court need not intervene where assessee already invoked appellate remedy; directions to CIT(A) to pass composite order in timely manner: HC

I-T - Re-assessment cannot be resorted to when not based on tangible material or when there is no belief that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment: HC

I-T - Additions framed in assessment order are invalidated when they are beyond scope of issues stated in SCN, due to which additions in order are inflated by about 50 times additions proposed in SCN : HC

I-T - As per settled law, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis: ITAT

I-T - Where assessee proves creditworthiness of loan transactions, then summons u/s 133(6) returning unserved will not disprove genuineness of loan transactions: ITAT

GST - Cancellation of registration - Right to carry on trade or profession cannot be curtailed contrary to the constitutional guarantee - State would suffer loss of revenue and the ultimate goal under GST regime will stand defeated: HC

Sales Tax - Principal ingredient of 'Good knight' is ' Transfluthrin 0.88% w/w Liquid Vaporiser' - correctly classifiable as insecticide attracting tax @4%: HC

VAT - Department cannot create a second charge over assessee's property over which Bank has already created lien to recover outstanding dues: HC

2023-TIOL-231-HC-MUM -GST

Rohit Enterprises Vs Commissioner

GST - Petitioner prays that the order of cancellation of registration be quashed and set aside - Petitioner contends that since he had undergone angioplasty, and the firm suffered financial set back in pandemic situation, GST returns from August 2021 could not be filed - Petitioner replied the show cause notice on 03-03-2022 - Citing the reason of the financial crunch, he requested for revocation of the notice, however, the State Tax Officer vide order dated 14-03-2022 cancelled the registration with effect from 21-08-2021 - Subsequently, State Tax Officer rejected the application of petitioner seeking revocation of cancellation vide order dated 17-05-2022 - Appeal filed was also rejected on the ground of limitation, therefore, the present petition. Held: Provisions of GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to any citizen and subjects - The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless of shortcomings in the scheme of GST enactment - The right to carry on trade or profession cannot be curtailed contrary to the constitutional guarantee under Art. 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India - If the person like petitioner is not allowed to revive the registration, the state would suffer loss of revenue and the ultimate goal under GST regime will stand defeated - The petitioner deserves a chance to come back into GST fold and carry on his business in legitimate manner - Since it is merely a matter of cancellation of registration, the question of limitation should not bother the Bench since it cannot be said that any right has accrued to the State which would rather be adversely affected by cancellation - Petitioner who is small scale entrepreneur cannot carry on production activities in absence of GST registration - Resultantly, his right to livelihood would be affected - Since his statutory appeal suffered dismissal on technical ground, Bench cannot allow the situation to continue - It is not in the interest of the government to curtail the right of the entrepreneur like petitioner - The petitioner must be allowed to continue business and to contribute to the state's revenue - Impugned orders are quashed and set aside - Subject to the condition that the petitioner files up to date GST returns and deposits entire pending dues along with applicable interest, penalty, late fees - Writ petition is allowed: High Court [para 9, 11, 13, 14]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-230-HC-ORISSA-CT

State Of Odisha Vs Godrej Sara Lee Ltd

Sales Tax - Classification - Mosquito Repellant “Good knight” - ACST and the Tribunal have concurrently held that the product in question is in fact an insecticide within the meaning of that expression in Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B and, therefore, amendable to tax @ 4% thereby rejecting the plea of the Department that it should be classified as 'all other goods' in terms of Part III of Schedule B of the OVAT Act, amenable to tax at 12.5% - Aggrieved, Department has filed revision petition before the High Court. Held: The literature accompanying the product reveals that one of the principal ingredients of the product is ' Transfluthrin 0.88% w/w Liquid Vaporiser' - It is explained in the said literature that Transfluthrin 0.88% w/w Liquid "is an effective insecticide recommended for the control of adult mosquitoes in the household" - Opposite Party holds a certificate of registration of insecticides under Section 9 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 for manufacture of the said insecticide transfluthrin 1.6% w/w Liquid Vaporiser - It is evident, therefore, that the product sold by the Opposite Party Dealer has been correctly categorized as an 'insecticide' under Entry 30 of Part II of Schedule B of the OVAT Act - Court is not persuaded, therefore, that the question sought to be urged by the Department in the present revision requires to be examined by this Court - Revision Petition dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition dismissed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-229-HC-AHM-VAT

Rajai Motors Vs State Of Gujarat

Whether the Tax Department can create a second charge over assessee's property over which the Bank has already created a lien in order to recover outstanding dues - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-228-HC-DEL-VAT

Jutla And Company Vs Commissioner of VAT

Whether separate application is to be filed for interest on refund of pre-deposited tax, once a favorable order has been passed - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-133-CESTAT-MUM

Vikas SSK Ltd Vs CGST

CX - Both the lower authorities have held that since the appellant has availed CENVAT credit on various inputs going into the manufacture of final products and bagasse and pressmud arising during course of manufacture and are exempt, CENVAT credit cannot be allowed - Issue is no more res integra as the question as to whether bagasse is manufactured under provisions of Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944 or otherwise and CENVAT credit availed on inputs which are used for manufacture of sugar has to be denied or otherwise has been settled by Apex Court in case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX wherein it is held that bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process, therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty - Since it is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application - Following the judgment of Apex Court, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-132-CESTAT-MAD

Chakiat Agencies Vs CC

Cus - The Commissioner (A) has imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh each on appellants under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 - Main allegation is that as a CHA, appellants have abetted in attempt to export restricted goods by misclassifying the goods - On perusal of records, it is seen that along with consignment documents, exporters have provided to appellant a test report issued by Geological and Metallurgical Laboratories, Bangalore - In impugned order, adjudicating authority has noted details of test report issued by Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. - On the basis of test report, department has concluded that consignment declared as 'Industrial Salt' (Potassium Chloride) is Muriate of Potash - Be that as it may, appellant as a CHA cannot be expected to examine and ensure the nature of goods in consignment - In impugned order, adjudicating authority has observed that when test report mentioned that samples are naturally occurring Potassium Chloride, the CHA ought to have classified the goods under ITC HS 31042000; and they ought to have not assisted the exporter in misdeclaring goods as ITC HS as 28273990 - The classification is not mentioned in test reports - Main reason for imposing penalty on appellants is that they did not ensure correct classification of goods so as to see whether goods are restricted items - There is no allegation or evidence to establish that appellant had indulged in any overt act or played any role in any manner so to assist the exporter in his attempt to export goods - Issue of classification is of complex nature - Following the decision of Tribunal in case of HIM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2016-TIOL-1208-CESTAT-DEL , it is held that penalty imposed on appellants under Section 114 of Customs Act is not warranted and are therefore set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-131-CESTAT-MAD

Waymark Logistics Vs Pr.CGST & CE

ST - Appellants are rendering CHA services - Entire dispute revolves around question whether service tax in regard to disputed services has been discharged by appellant - Appellant has been contending that M/s. Trinity Clearing and Shipping Agencies had collected the tax from customers and discharged service tax on behalf of appellant - True that it may be, that appellant cannot sublet their CHA license or allow M/s. Trinity Clearing and Shipping Agencies to use their service provider registration number, the facts reveal that service tax in regard to impugned service has been already paid to Government - The department cannot collect service tax again on impugned service - From the letter issued by Deputy Commissioner (Review and Tribunal), it has been categorically stated that an amount has been paid by M/s. Trinity Clearing and Shipping Agencies towards service tax on impugned service - The liability of service tax on impugned services having been discharged, demand cannot be confirmed - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT