I-T - In respect of proceedings where first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is attracted, benefit of TOLA' 2020 will not be available to Revenue: HC

I-T - Since construction companies are not owners of respective Toll Roads and Toll Bridges, in respect of BOT scheme entered into with Government, they are ineligible to claim depreciation on such toll bridges: HC

I-T - Re-assessment is invalidated where commenced in name of entity that ceases to exist on account of its merger with another entity : HC

I-T - Validity of orders u/s 148A and consequential notices u/s 148 which was revived as per Apex Court's ruling in Ashish Agarwal case, cannot be examined by ignoring limitation as per first proviso to Sec 149(1): HC

Cus - A quashed public notice cannot be relied upon by Revenue to refuse Advance Authorization; retrospective application of a later notification, cannot be made: HC

ST - When assessee is not directly making payment to Foreign Banker towards any service provided by said Foreign Banker to Indian Bank, they are not liable to pay service tax: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-310-HC-DEL-GST

Anil Kumar Vs GST Commissioner CGST & CX

GST - The Petitioner is a street vendor and had recently become aware that a GST registration has been obtained in his name without his knowledge or consent - The petitioner claims that he vends food items from a stall that he puts up at the boundary wall, Old Delhi Railway Station, Exit Gate, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Opposite Baba Balak Nath Mandir, Delhi-110006 - He also claims that he has a valid Vending Certificate bearing URI No.2202246 - The petitioner claims that he was desirous of obtaining a GST registration in respect of his business carried out from the said stall and, in the process of applying for the same, found that a firm by the name and style of M/s Sheel Industries (GST No.07EHCPK6460H1Z9) has already been registered by some unknown persons by misusing his Identity Card, that is, Aadhar Card and PAN Card - The said firm is registered with the GST Department at Division Shahdara, Zone-7, Ward 82 since 10.08.2021 and is active - The petitioner claims that he apprehends that a demand of GST may be raised on him on account of fraudulent actions of the persons who have registered a firm in his name - He also claims that the said unknown persons have been filing returns without his knowledge - In this context, the petitioner had also made a representation to the Delhi Police, which is pending action. Held - Direct that the present petition be treated by the Commissioner GST/ State GST Authorities as a representation and the grievance of the petitioner be examined as per law. The petitioner shall disclose the identity of his friend to whom he claims to have handed over his identity documents, to the Police Authorities as well as to the State GST authorities. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the concerned authorities and provide them all the information as required - No opinion on merits: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-309-HC-DEL-CUS

Jindal Exports And Imports Pvt Ltd Vs DGFT

Customs - Foreign Trade Policy - The Petitioner filed the present petition challenging the Directorate General of Foreign Trade's ('DGFT') stand of non-issuance of Advance Authorization for the import of Gold bars and export of manufactured Gold Jewellery and Gold Medallions by the Petitioner - The Petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing and export of gold jewellery, articles, medallions, bars, plates and rods and trading of gold, silver, platinum and palladium - It has been a recognized export house since 2017. The case of the Petitioner is that in terms of Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the DGFT is to issue Advance Authorizations for import of gold bars in order to enable manufacturing of gold jewelry and medallions. It is the case of the Petitioner that between 2015 to 2019, the Petitioner had been granted such authorizations regularly for importing gold bars and export of gold medallions - On 26th June, 2019, the Petitioner applied for issuance of an Advance Authorization - However, the same was rejected - The Respondent issued Public Notice No. 35/ (2015-2020) dated 26th September 2019 to the effect that Advance Authorization would not be issued where the items for export were 'Gold Medallions and Coins' or 'Any other jewelry/articles manufactured by a fully mechanized process. Held - A perusal of the order rejecting the review petition shows that the review has been primarily rejected only on two grounds. First, that the Petitioner was not a party to the writ petition which led to the decision of the Division Bench - This ground would be completely untenable inasmuch as the public notice which was under challenge was the identical public notice which was the basis of the Petitioner's rejection - The said public notice upon being quashed, any action taken consequential to the said public notice, would also not stand in the eyes of law - The Division Bench's judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the Petitioner's case as well - A quashed public notice cannot be relied upon by the department to refuse the Advance Authorization - Insofar as the second ground with respect to retrospective application of the notification dated 10th August, 2020 is concerned, the Advance Authorization of the Petitioner was applied for on 26th June, 2019 and the same would have to therefore, be considered in terms of the legal position prevalent on the said date - The subsequent notification cannot be applied retrospectively to reject the said Advance Authorisation. Under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, it is the settled legal position as held in Kanak Exports , that a retrospective application of a later notification, cannot be made by the Central Government: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-180-CESTAT-AHM

Rudra Engineering Vs CCE & ST

ST - Appellant is in appeal against impugned order wherein the demand of short payment of service tax has been confirmed against appellant - First issue arises for determination is, whether the appellant is eligible to benefit of Notfn 1/2006-S.T. - It cannot be considered that said entry is applicable only on supply of plant, machinery or equipment or structures - There is no dispute on the facts that appellant is Commissioning and Installation agency and for providing taxable services, appellant has provided the thermal insulating materials i.e. Hot insulation including supply of LRB and Aluminium Sheet, Cold insulation with Thermocol and Aluminium Sheet, Insulation of Pipeline with black superion sleeve providing and fixing of black superion with cellotape, insulation with black nitrile rubber foam, sheet and on supply of goods appellant also paid sales tax/ VAT - Hence, appellant are eligible to benefit of Notfn 1/2006-S.T. - No merit found in impugned order demanding service tax from appellant - Therefore, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-179-CESTAT-AHM

Dishman Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals Ltd Vs CST

ST - Assessee is in appeal against demand of service tax under category of Banking and other Financial Services on charges paid by them in respect of their foreign currency transaction on reverse charge basis - Issue under examination is if appellant is required to pay service tax on reverse charge basis for charges paid by them in respect of foreign currency transaction between their local foreign banks engaged in facilitating the transfer of foreign exchange - Matter has been examined in detail in case of Raj Petro Specialties Pvt Ltd 2019-TIOL-442-CESTAT-AHM - There are no allegation that any payment has been made directly by appellant to foreign bank - In this circumstances, no service tax can be demanded from appellant - Demand cannot be sustained and same is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-178-CESTAT-BANG

Sahney Commutators Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

CX - Appellant is manufacturing Commutators and Bare Copper Strip/wire of various sizes which are the major input for manufacture of final products - It is alleged that appellant irregularly availed CENVAT credit and also pointed that descriptions in invoices referred by appellant are not showing very same goods since descriptions in each invoices varies - There is no dispute that Bare Copper Strips with description Sample ED-192 if cut out into small pieces during initial process of manufacture was rejected at very beginning of manufacturing - If so, same cannot be invoice as in very same description - Though, there is a slight discrepancy in description in invoices, it is an admitted fact that Copper of 1028.8 Kgs were supplied by suppliers, it was returned for Job work due to defect and on completion of Job work, it is sent back to appellant for further processing by charging only the labour charges - Moreover, during investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding stock of raw material maintained by appellant and return submitted for relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by appellant - No reason found to allege that appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT