I-T - Once writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn & petitioner is permitted to avail statutory remedy, any observation on the merits of the case ought to be avoided: HC

I-T - Where investments are made by a Cooperative society in a banking entity & not a cooperative society, then deduction u/s 80P is not allowed to the investor: HC

I-T - Re-assessment order quashed where passed before date of personal hearing sought by assessee & where AO also does not respond to assessee's request: HC

I-T - Where assessee is not given opportunity to file reply to draft assessment order & SCN, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice : HC

VAT - C-Form can be denied to assessee based on a judgment against which the Revenue has only filed SLP against & which is pending disposal : HC

GST - Mere ground of alternative remedy being available will not be the reason for Court to not entertain this petition: HC

CX - Since appellant had submitted all 144 AR3As, no lapse found on the part of appellant, matter needs to be re considered: CESTAT

CX - The subject capital goods were used by assessee in factory for production of final products and therefore, it was entitled to avail Cenvat credit of duty paid thereon: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-281-HC-DEL-VAT

Zapsell Retail Vs Commissioner, SGST

Whether C-Form can be denied to assessee based on a judgment against which the Revenue has only filed SLP against & which is pending disposal - NO: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-280-HC-AHM-GST

Torrent Power Ltd Vs UoI

GST - A notice from the Directorate General of GST (Intelligence) requiring the petitioner to give the details of road opening permit charges in respect of the AMC as well as GST paid on reverse charge basis on such services received from the AMC is the reason for the petitioner to approach this Court – Petitioner seeks quashing of the SCN dated 30.11.2022 as being wholly without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and illegal as well as stay further proceedings pursuant to the impugned SCN - During the course of routine maintenance and network enhancement, the petitioner digs out tranches on public roads, which are maintained by Municipal Corporations, which includes Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) - The dug out portion of the road and pavement is then restored by the AMC for which the AMC recovers reimbursement of road reinstatement charges from the petitioner – SCN proposes to inter alia demand GST on the payments made to the AMC – It is urged that the AMC does not supply any goods and services to the petitioner and the petitioner does not request the AMC for restoration of the road; that AMC restores the road in view of its obligation under Article 243W of the Constitution of India and claims reimbursement of the charges from the petitioner; that there is absolutely no element of supply involved in this transaction; and it is exempted from the tax under Entry 4 of Notification No.12/2017 of the Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Held: It must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable" - The petitioner has pressed for interim relief of the nature that both the proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.11.2022 be stayed - In wake of the fact that to the final show cause notice, no reply has been given and as pointed out by counsel for Revenue that investigating wing is different than the one which has presently issued the notice, Bench does not deem it appropriate to grant any kind of stay at this stage: High Court [para 10, 17]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-164-CESTAT-MAD

Operational Energy Group India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Appellant undertakes to operate and maintain power plants of various clients in terms of agreements entered with them - As per agreements, appellant is receiving maintenance charges and operational charges - Revenue has contended that appellant is paying service tax only on maintenance charges and they have not discharged service tax on operational charges received from their clients - Issue is already covered in appellant's own case for earlier periods which was allowed by Tribunal in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-2673-CESTAT-MAD - Appellant further drew attention to subsequent appeals in their own case which was also decided in their favour vide order 2019-TIOL-476-CESTAT-MAD - The appellant is not liable to pay service tax on operational charges provided by them to owners of power plants - Imposition of penalty does not arise: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-163-CESTAT-AHM

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The Adjudicating Authority has rejected refund claim partially by allowing refund of Rs. 40,68,278/- and confirmed recovery of balance amount of refund of Rs. 80,70,026/- - Appellant had submitted all 144 AR3As - There seems to be no reason on partly refund is denied out of total AR3As - Moreover, appellant much before the passing of adjudication order vide their letter brought to knowledge of commissioner referring their refund application that they had submitted all 144 AR3As along with refund application - No lapse found on part of appellant - It appears from the order that cognizance of letter was not taken by Adjudicating Authority - Therefore, matter needs to be re considered taking into consideration that appellant have submitted all 144 AR3As - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-162-CESTAT-AHM

Eimco Elecon India Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellant have two units i.e. Unit-1 and Unit-2 which are adjacent to each other - They carrying out part of process in Unit-2 on machinery installed therein and after entire process is done, Unit-1 is clearing the final products on payment of duty - Appellant have availed Cenvat credit in respect of some spares and accessories of laser cutting machines which were used in Unit-2 - Case of department is that since the spares and accessories were used in Unit-2, Cenvat credit thereof shall not be admissible to appellants i.e. Unit-1 - Excisable goods manufactured and cleared from appellant's Unit-1, therefore, it is undisputed that spares and accessories were used in or in relation to manufacture of excisable goods of appellant - Secondly, similar issue has been decided in appellant's own case in respect of capital goods i.e. machineries installed in appellant's Unit-2 vide Final order 2019-TIOL-527-CESTAT-AHM - Issue is no longer res-integra - The subject capital goods were used by appellant in factory for production of final products and therefore, it was entitled to avail Cenvat credit of duty paid thereon - Accordingly, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-161-CESTAT-AHM

Parthiv V Dave Vs CC

Cus - The exporter has made a serious offence by mis-declaring quantity i.e. against 30,000 pairs declared in export document only physical quantity found 405 pairs - Moreover, value was also shown exorbitantly high - Though the appellant has acted as CHA and it does not appear direct involvement of appellant in fraud of export goods but when against one invoice, exporter asked the appellant CHA to split the consignment and make 8 shipping Bills, that itself is a reason that appellant should have acted diligently and inquired about reason for this abnormal act of splitting consignment into 8 shipping Bills - He was also supposed to inform this to Customs authority - Customs authority also found suspicious because of 8 shipping Bills against one consignment - Therefore, this negligence of CHA resulted into attempted of fraudulent export by his client - Appellant is liable for penalty under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - However, looking to the nature of role of CHA in entire episode, penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- in each section is very harsh, therefore, penalty is reduced from 5 lakhs each under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA ibid to Rs. 2 Lakhs in each section - Accordingly, impugned order is modified: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT