I-T - Re-assessment proceedings based on alleged bogus purchases, are invalid where AO has some confusion regarding purchases made & also does not furnish to assessee copies of the material relied on: HC

I-T - Re-assessment proceedings commenced in name of entity which ceases to exist by way of amalgamation, is invalid: HC

I-T - Reopening initiated by AO solely on basis of audit objection, without any independent application of mind, merits to be quashed: HC

I-T - Any notice of reopening issued by Assessing Officer without any independent application of mind would laid its validity: HC

I-T - If subsidiary company is established as SPV out of stipulation of bid documents, then question of use of borrowed funds or using interest free advances is not of much consequence: ITAT

I-T -Credit of tax paid under sub-section (1) of section 115JB is to be given under MAT provisions : ITAT

I-T - Search assessment framed u/s 153A is unsustainable where no material incriminating the assessee is found in course of Search operations u/s 132 : ITAT

GST - Petitioners have been at liberty for almost two years under interim order which have not been challenged and petitioners sought only extension of protective measures, interim order continues for a period of six weeks: HC

GST - It is not permissible for revenue to simply ignore the appellate order on the ground that it proposes to file an appeal, they are directed to forthwith process petitioner's claim for refund: HC

CX - Value of freight charged by appellant for delivering cement to their buyers' premises is not to be included while assessing the value for purpose of payment of central excise duty: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-335-HC-MUM-GST

Akshay Chhabra Vs UoI

GST - The issue is regarding challenge to constitutional validity of the Act regarding liability arising from provisions of CGST Act, 2017 - A writ of mandamus is sought to restrain Respondents from filing a criminal complaint and not to take any coercive action against Petitioners - On a query was put to Petitioners as to whether they intends to prosecute the challenge to provisions of CGST Act, it is stated that instructions have been taken that they would not press these challenges, and interim order be continued for some time - Petitioners states that this is so because complaint has now been filed and as regards the remedy concerning their liberty, they, would take necessary action by approaching criminal court and for that purpose seek extension of interim order passed in these petitions - This would indicate that main prayer was for protection from arrest - Therefore, in view of decision of Nagpur Cable Operators Association's decision, petitions ought to have been filed as criminal writ petitions - Since Petitioners are not pressing petitions and seeking only extension of protective measures, court have to consider this request - Petitioners have been at liberty for almost two years under interim order which Respondents have not challenged - Therefore, court is inclined to continue interim order in these petitions for a period of six weeks: HC

- Writ petitions disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-334-HC-DEL-GST

Saurabh Singal Vs CGST

GST - Petitioner is engaged in business of supplying footwear and carries on said business under name of sole proprietorship concern, M/s Lavya International - They had applied for a refund - The counter affidavit filed by respondent indicates that the order passed by Appellate Authority was subject matter of a review order under Section 112(3) of the Act - The Principal Commissioner had directed that an appeal be filed against the same - However, respondent has not filed the appeal as yet - The time period for filing appeal has long elapsed - However, respondent could not file an appeal as a Tribunal has not been constituted as yet - Whenever parties have found the need of urgent orders, parties have filed petitions before this Court seeking such orders on the ground that since the Tribunal is not constituted, remedy of appeal is not available - Respondent has not sought any such relief - There is no order which has effect of staying the import of order of Appellate Authority - It is not permissible for respondents to simply ignore the appellate order on the ground that it proposes to file an appeal - Respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner's claim for refund - If respondent prevails in securing any further order from appellate Tribunal (as and when constituted), it would be entitled to take consequential recourse to recovery of any amount so disbursed: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-333-HC-DEL-GST

Balaji Exim Vs CCGST

GST - The petitioner had filed its refund application seeking refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit in respect of goods exported by them - The petitioner's applications were not processed as supplier from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods had allegedly received fake invoices from its suppliers - Petitioner's refund applications have been rejected merely because of suspicion without any cogent material - There is no dispute that goods have been exported; invoices in respect of which petitioner claims the ITC were raised by a registered dealer; and, there is no allegation that petitioner has not paid invoices, which include taxes - Thus, applications for refund cannot be denied - It is not required to examine the affairs of its supplying dealers - The allegations of any fake credit availed by petitioner cannot be a ground for rejecting their refund applications unless it is established that petitioner has not received goods or paid for them - There is little material to support any such allegations - Petitioner would be entitled to refund of ITC on goods that have been exported by it - Respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner's applications for refund of ITC including Cess - It is clarified that in event respondents are able to find material to establish allegations regarding non-supply of any goods by M/s Shruti Exports to petitioner, it would be open for respondents to initiate such action as may be warranted in accordance with law: HC

- Writ petitions allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-332-HC-MUM-GST

Tata Sons Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Issue relates to a notice under Rule 142(1-A) of Central Gods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which is not a SCN and therefore the challenge is premature - Petitioner submits that in light of Circular issued on 3 August 2022 by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs reiterated in Circular dated 28 February 2023, it is not necessary for this litigation to proceed further as according to them issue stands covered by said circulars which state that no GST is leviable on liquidated damages - It would be appropriate to defer hearing of petition so that ASG can take instructions whether the case of Petitioner is covered by Circulars as sought to be contended by Petitioners: HC

- Case adjourned: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-331-HC-DEL-CUS

Jagdeep Singh Vs CC

Cus - Allegations against petitioner is that he is involved in smuggling of foreign currency and deliberately violated the provisions of Customs Act read with FEMA and he was involved in dealing with anabolic steroids without a license issued by concerned authority - In addition to petitioner, SCN was also issued to one Sh. Shera, who was allegedly involved in activities of illegal export of currency and import of steroids and was also acting as a link between the petitioners - SCN has been adjudicated by two authorities - Same set of alleged offences cannot be adjudicated twice over by two authorities - Although there is a single SCN, it specifically called upon the petitioners to submit their respective replies in regard to allegations pertaining to seized currency and regarding issue of illegal import of anabolic steroids to respondent - Court cannot fault the impugned order only on account of that it has been adjudicated on the basis of a single SCN - However, insofar as impugned order is concerned, same is clearly without jurisdiction insofar as penalties have also been imposed on account of possession of anabolic steroids of foreign origin - Impugned order dated 14.02.2022 cannot be bifurcated, same is set aside - Matter remanded to respondent to decide afresh - Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of allegations made against petitioners and all rights and contentions of parties in regard to those allegations are reserved - The petitioners' challenge to impugned order dated 26.03.2022 has been considered only in the context of whether the said order could be passed on the basis of SCN - This Court has not examined the merits of allegations made in SCN and petitioners are not precluded from availing their remedies in respect of said impugned order - It is directed that if petitioners file their respective appeals against impugned order, within a period of four weeks, same would be considered by appellate authority uninfluenced by question of delay: HC

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-197-CESTAT-DEL

Kinjal Precious Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The issue involved is as to whether gold/platinum/silver findings, which are parts of jewellery, are eligible for exemption from CVD under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. as amended from time to time and from SAD under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus. - Goods involved in these appeals, namely gold/platinum/silver findings that have been imported by appellant are 'parts of jewellery' - Articles of jewellery and parts of articles of jewellery have been separately classified under restrictive sub-headings of Customs Tariff - They should, therefore, be treated as separate articles - A perusal of CVD exemption notification also shows that entry no. 199 of Chapter heading 7113 contains (I) articles of jewellery and (II) articles of silver jewellery - It does not exempt 'parts of articles of jewellery' - When this entry is compared to entry no. 199, as amended by notification dated 26.07.2016, it is seen that 'parts of articles of jewellery' have been included - Such being the position, there is no manner of doubt that it is only w.e.f. 26.07.2016 that parts of articles of jewellery have been included in CVD exemption notification - It cannot be urged that amendment made in entry no. 199 on 26.12.2016 is clarificatory in nature - It is for legislature, in its wisdom, to grant exemption from payment of CVD or SAD and an assessee cannot be permitted to urge that if articles of jewellery have been granted benefit of exemption from payment of CVD or SAD, benefit of such exemption should necessarily flow to 'parts of articles of jewellery' also - An exemption notification has to be strictly construed and burden of proving that case falls within parameters of exemption clause or exemption notification is on assessee; and if there is any ambiguity in the notification which is subject to strict interpretation, benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of revenue - This is what was observed by Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar & Company 2018-TIOL-302-SC-CUS-CB - The Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (A), therefore, committed no illegality in arriving at such a conclusion - Similar would be the position with regard to SAD exemption notification - Entry at serial no. 78 of Chapter heading 7113 describes the goods as articles of jewellery and not as parts of articles of jewellery - Commissioner (A) has recorded a finding that since they are different articles, an assessee cannot claim the benefit of SAD exemption notification on import of parts of articles of jewellery - The finding recorded by Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (A), therefore, does not suffer from any legality: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-196-CESTAT-AHM

Darcy Reservoir Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd Vs CST

ST - Appellant were providing services relating to Well Testing, Well Activation Works, Slick Line Services, Inspection and Monitoring of Well Testing Services, Inspection and Monitoring of Well Testing Services, Acquisition of Reservoir Data in relation to all exploration - As per department, activities were partly covered under inspection and certification services - Accordingly, a SCN invoking extended period was issued to appellants, who of their own had taken registration under Technical Testing and Analysis Services with effect from 12.01.2006 - Classification being a legal issue, appellants can contest the same at any time specially when legal position brings greater clarity later on - The decisions relied upon by appellants are inconsonance with board circular and largely covered the activities of appellants under "Survey and Exploration of Minerals Service" - In any case, as the cited case laws shows, department itself issued SCNs for same type of services under various different service classification - Extended period with intent to evade payment of duty cannot sustain - Accordingly, there being confusion in mind of Department itself and position having become clear through case laws in years 2014 or around, extended period of demand cannot be invoked: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-195-CESTAT-HYD

Sri Chakra Cement Ltd Vs CCT

CX - Assessee is in appeal against impugned order vide which demand of differential duty confirmed on the basis of inclusion of freight charges in assessable value for payment of central excise duty has been upheld against assessee - Issue involved herein is the same as was issue before Apex Court in Ispat Industries Ltd. 2015-TIOL-238-SC-CX - It was held in judgment that place of removal refers only to the place from where goods are to be sold by manufacturer and thus it has no reference to place of delivery which may be either the buyers premises or the premises as buyer may direct the manufacturer to send his goods - The earlier decision in case of Escorts JCB Ltd 2002-TIOL-05-SC-CX was held to have similar facts as were there in case of Ispat Industries Ltd. - Following the said ' ratio decidendi ', it is held that the value of freight charged by appellant for delivering the cement to their buyers' premises is not to be included while assessing the value for purpose of payment of central excise duty - Appellant has rightly excluded the same - The differential duty confirmed by order under challenge is therefore wrong: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT