I-T - If reassessment orders in lender companies accepts money if at all received from companies operated by some unscrupulous persons, then money received by assessee is not non-genuine u/s 68: ITAT

I-T - Cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained money where made out of cash balances available with assessee & duly reflected in books of account: ITAT

I-T- Donations made as per guidlines formulated for corporate social responsibility for central public sector enterprises can be allowed as business expenditure : ITAT

I-T- The phrase 'by way of advance or loan' appearing in section 2(22)(e) of the Act must constitute to mean impugned advances or loans, which is enjoyed by the shareholder for merely because on account of being a partner or a Director in the company, which the beneficiary owner of shares : ITAT

GST - Assessee admitted to non-compliance qua statutory requirement, on three occasions; Section 126 of CGST Act not invokable; penalty imposed u/s 125 upheld: HC

ST - Foreclosure charges collected by banks and non-banking financial companies on premature termination of loans is not subject to levy of service tax under 'Banking and Other Financial Services': CESTAT

Cus - Since Flexi Tank Containers imported by assessee are durable containers, notfn 104/94-Cus is available to such containers: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-350-HC-MAD-GST

Suvarna Fibrotech Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt.Commissioner (ST)

GST - The present petition challenges the vires of an order passed by the Appellate Authority in the petitioner's case - petitioner is in the business of manufacturing Fibre glass composite moulded products - The petitioner filed monthly returns under C-G & ST as well as TN-G & ST Acts - The petitioner's place of business was inspected by Enforcement Wing Officials on 24.04.2019 followed by inspection on various dates, the last of the dates being 28.05.2019 - During the course of inspection, certain defects were noticed and an inspection report was made - This pertains to FY 2019-20 - There were three heads of defects and they are, (a)alleged sales suppression; (b) contravention of statutory provisions [3 in number being (i) non-maintenance of particulars of name/complete address of suppliers qua goods and services chargeable to tax; (ii) non-maintenance of particulars of name/complete address qua entities to whom goods and services were supplied and (iii) monthly production accounts showing quantitative details of raw materials used in the manufacture and quantitative details of goods manufactured including the waste and by-products not maintained qua sub-Rule(12) of Rule 56 of C-G & ST and TN-G & ST Rules] and (c) GSTR -1 filed upto 2019 but GSTR 3 B not filed, tax collected but not paid to the Government; that the first respondent being Original Authority took up the matter and made 'an order dated 23.01.2020 bearing reference GSTIN No.33AACCS3953PIZY/2019-2020' [hereinafter 'order of Original Authority' for the sake of convenience] imposing a penalty equivalent to 100% of tax as regards (a), Rs.25,000/- as regards (b) (for three contraventions) under Section 125 of TN-G & ST and C-G & ST and 100% penalty under Section 122(1) of TN-G & ST and C-G & ST as regards (c) - This order was carried in appeal by writ petitioner and the Appellate Authority sustained the order of the Original Authority. Held - all the three points on which the order of Original Authority is predicated do not call for interference even if the grounds urged/raised by the writ petitioner before the second respondent-Appellate Authority are considered on merits: HC + A careful perusal of Section 125 makes it clear that it is more in the nature of a residuary provision. In the case on hand, as there are three specific non-compliances qua statutory requirements, it was well open to the Original Authority to invoke Section 125 with regard to each of the non-compliances and levy Rs.25,000/- each, which would have added upto Rs.75,000/-. However, in the case on hand, Original Authority has levied penalty of only Rs.25,000/- for all three non-compliances put together. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that maximum penalty to which a general penalty under Section 125 can extend, has been exercised in the case on hand. To be noted, as regards three non-compliances, there is no disputation or contestation on facts. This by itself drops the curtains on the second point. As regards the third point, the point that is urged by writ petitioner is 100% penalty under Section 122(1) is not attracted and a lenient view should have been taken by resorting to Section 126. Section 122 captioned 'Penalty for certain offences' provides for a particular penalty under sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (1) (Para 10); + In the considered view of this Court, this by no means fits into Section 126 in the light of Explanation thereat. Explanation thereat makes it clear that the tax liability or the amount of tax involved should be less than Rs.5,000/- or it should be a omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable in the same as an error apparent on the face of record. Subsection (6) makes it clear that Section 126 will not be attracted, when the penalty is expressed as a fixed percentage. In the case on hand, Section 122(1)(iii) read with Section 122(1) makes it clear that it is expressed in both units namely a fixed sum as well as a fixed percentage. On this ground also Section 126 does not come to the aid of the writ petitioner. To be noted, interest under 50(1) is not subject matter of disputation or contestation (Para 11).

- Writ petitions dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-212-CESTAT-MAD

Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue arises is, whether Foreclosure charges collected by banks and non-banking financial companies on premature termination of loans is subject to levy of service tax under "Banking and Other Financial Services" as defined under Section 65 (12) of Finance Act, 1994 - The Larger Bench of Tribunal in case of Repco India Ltd. has considered the issue and held that such charges are not liable to service tax - Following the said decision, Tribunal views that the demand cannot sustain and is set aside - Impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-211-CESTAT-HYD

Qualcomm India Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CE

ST - Issue involved is, whether the services availed by appellant from Verizon Inc are liable to service tax as 'Internet Telecommunication Service' or are classifiable as 'Leased Circuit Service' (upto 31 May 2007) and thereafter 'Telecommunication Service', having been provided by an entity not qualifying to be a Telegraph Authority, liable to service tax - Issue herein is squarely covered by precedent ruling of Tribunal in TCS E-Serve Ltd 2013-TIOL-2279-CESTAT-MUM - The Tribunal held that service tax liability does not arise under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 if service is not specified under Section 65(105) of Finance Act - The Tribunal relied on ruling of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Karvy Consultants Ltd. 2005-TIOL-203-HC-AP-ST wherein question involved was levy on service of banking & financial transaction under taken by Karvy Consultants Ltd , which was registered as NBFC, but their principal business was not of receiving deposit/lending - The High Court has held that service provider should be both a company and with principle business of receiving deposit/lending - Mere registration as an NBFC is not enough under provision of service tax for levy - Applying the said ratio, Tribunal held that it is not enough that service provider provides lease services but it should also be a 'Telegraph Authority' as defined in the Act - Unless both the conditions are cumulative satisfied, service tax levy is not attracted - Impugned order is set aside - As the appeal is allowed on merits, question of limitation left open: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-210-CESTAT-AHM

Goodrich Maritime Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Assessee is in appeal against demand of Custom Duty on Flexi containers imported by them by denying benefit of Notfn 141/94-Cus - It is pointed out that issues have been answered by earlier decision of Tribunal in case of identical product in case of Jr. Roadlines Pvt Ltd with Jr. Roadlines Pvt. Ltd 2020-TIOL-1458-CESTAT-AHM wherein it is held that Flexi Tank Containers imported by assessee is durable container - Consequently notfn 104/94-Cus is available to such containers - Relying on said decision of Tribunal, the appeals are allowed: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT

2023-TIOL-209-CESTAT-AHM

Veena Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant have two separate activities one is manufacture and sale of DG sets on which excise duty is paid on transaction value and other activity is Installation & Commissioning and Repair & Maintenance which is provided through their sub contractor - There is separate contract for such services - The activity of manufacture is completed when DG set is sold by appellant from their factory on transaction value - The other activities such as supply of spares for Installation & Commissioning and Repair & Maintenance of DG sets is all together different activity which cannot be clubbed with assessable value of manufactured DG set sold by appellant - In SCN, department failed to even corelate the consumable charges raised through debit note with a particular DG set manufactured and sold by them - Therefore, case of department cannot be sustained - Issue is no longer res- integra as same was decided in appellant's own case reported at Veena Industries 2020-TIOL-113-CESTAT-AHM - Similar issue has been considered by Supreme Court in case of TVS Motors Co. Ltd 2015-TIOL-299-SC-CX wherein Apex court agree with legal position stated by High court of Bombay in case of Tata Motors Ltd 2012-TIOL-721-HC-MUM-CX - In view of said judgments, issue is no longer res- integra - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT