I-T - Where assessee has sufficiently explained about impounded documents and expenses having nexus to them, no addition is warranted u/s 69C on account of unexplained expenditure: ITAT

I-T - Employee's contribution to ESI/PF, though deposited long before due dates of filing return u/s 139(1), merits disallowance u/s 36(i)(va), if same is not deposited before due date under PF Act: ITAT

I-T - If no enquiry which is warranted in facts & circumstances of case, was made by AO resulting in erroneous assessment order insofar as prejudicial to interest of Revenue, such case merits revision u/s 263: ITAT

I-T - Once AO had nowhere invoked Explanation 5A to sec.271(1)(c), there is hardly any justification on Revenue's part to quote general principles of furnishing of inaccurate particulars u/s.271(1)(c): ITAT

I-T - Refund received out of non-compete agreement cannot be construed as salary for purpose of charging to tax: ITAT

I-T - Once source of funds, capacity of investors and genuineness of transaction stand explained, then no addition is permitted u/s 68: ITAT

I-T-AO cannot entertain any new claim other than by way of revised return of income but appellate authorities can admit such claim and grant relief to the assessee : ITAT

I-T- Once tassessee has offered income u/s 44AD of the Act on presumptive basis then assessee is not required to maintain books of account on a regular basis : ITAT

GST - Court prima facie feels from complexity of allegations where very large tax evasion is involved and money trail has to be traced to its origin, demand of prosecution for custodial interrogation of petitioner appears to be reasonable: HC

Cus - Kiwi fruit imported by appellant, are perishable goods yet pending adjudication - also cleared for import by FSSAI & NABL - conditional release of goods ordered: HC

Cus - When statute provides for statutory appeal, said remedy is to be availed by litigating parties, court do not find it proper to entertain these petitions: HC

CX - When products are not intentionally manufactured but only arise during process of refining of crude vegetable oil, same should be considered as waste and they are entitled to benefit of exemption notfn 89/1995-CE: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-395-HC-KOL-GST

LCL Logistix India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - This intra-Court appeal filed by petitioner is directed against impugned order - In said petition, petitioner had challenged the order imposing tax on subject transaction - Court need not labour much to decide the issue involved in this appeal in view of decision of Supreme Court in case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 2022-TIOL-49-SC-GST-LB - In said case, it is held that levy imposed on 'service' aspect of transaction is in violation of principles of 'composite supply' enshrined under Section 2(3) read with Section 8 of CGST Act - Since Indian importer is liable to pay IGST on 'composite supply', comprising of supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance in a CIF contract, a separate levy on Indian importer for 'supply of services' by shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of CGST Act - In case on hand, observation of Supreme Court would be applicable - Thus, following the said decision of Supreme Court, impugned order is quashed and set aside: HC

- Appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-394-HC-MP-GST

Depesh Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

GST - Anticipatory bail - Petitioner though had sent a request for exempting his appearance in response to first summon issued in 2019 but thereafter as and when summons were issued and Investigating Agency tried to trace the petitioner, he was not found anywhere - The investigation qua the petitioner has come to a standstill and, therefore, is awaiting completion since long - Allegations made against petitioner need to be investigated and since a lot many Institutions and their office bearers/ proprietors/Directors are involved and money trail has to be traced to its origin, the requirement shown by prosecution for custodial interrogation of petitioner does not appear to be unreasonable - Amount of tax evasion is more than 15 crores, for which though the maximum punishment prescribed is 5 years but considering the fact that said allegations cast adverse shadow upon financial health of various institutions including Bank thereby belying the trust of common man in even tempo of economic growth, this Court declines to interfere - Court hastens to add that aforesaid comments made by this Court are merely for purpose of deciding this bail application and thus will not adverseley affect any of rights and liabilities of rival parties during investigation or trial - Consequently, looking to gravity of offence and requirement of custodial interrogation and also as informed by prosecution that petitioner has criminal antecedents of similar nature, Court declines interference - Accordingly, present bail application u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed: HC

- Application dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-393-HC-AHM-CUS

Alphabet International Vs UoI

Cus - The petitioner is a proprietorship concern, engaged in the business of import - The petitioner imported the consignments of fresh Kiwi Fruits from UAE through M/s. Anchor Global Foodstuff Trading LIC, which were originally exported from Chile - The goods were imported under Bill of Entry No. 3989898 dated 31.122022 and Bill of Entry No. 4026695 dated 4.1.2023 - The petitioner stated that it filed the necessary documents required for clearance of goods for home consumption, which are detailed in the petition - The Customs authorities proceeded to exercise their powers under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with seizure of the goods, documents and things - As per seizure memo dated 16.1.2023, which refers to only one Bill of Entry No. 3989898 dated 31.12.2022 out of the above two, it was stated therein that amongst the documents produced, the petitioner submitted Phytosanitary certificates issued by the Chile on 12.1.2023. They were Phytosanitary Certificate No. 2178019, 2171104, 2178021 and 2166630 - It was mentioned in the seizure memo that on perusal of the documents it was found by the authorities that the very Phytosanitary Certificates were used and submitted by other importers in relation to their consignments. The names of those cosigners were also mentioned in the seizure memo which inter alia included A & A Shipping Services - The Preventive Officer, Customs House, Mundra Port seized the goods 'fresh Kiwis' on the aforesaid allegation and ground.

Held - Under the statutory provisions, the seizure of the goods would follow the inquiry and investigation to be further followed by adjudication process which may or may not ultimately lead to confiscation of imported goods as contemplated in section 111 of the Act - The stage of inquiry has yet not been started - It is reflected that though goods were seized on 16.1.2023, so far the petitioner is not issued show cause notice. In any case, the adjudicatory proceedings have not started - It is not the stand of the authorities for the seizure of the goods that the goods are unfit for human consumption - On the contrary as was highlighted by the petitioner, the petitioner obtained provisional 'No Objection' certificate for clearance of imported food from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India dated 07.01.2023, report of Laboratory Analysis by accreditation or NABL laboratory dated 11.01.2023, final approval and No Objection Certificate of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Quarantined Inspection and Clearance of imported plants/ plant product by the plant quarantine station dated 30.01.2023 as well as Fumigation Certificate dated 30.01.2023, which go to suggest that the goods are worthy of human consumption - The two Bills of Entries in the present case indicated that they relate to fresh Kiwi fruits of the description mentioned therein - They are perishable foods - The adjudication is pending, not yet started - Hence goods are permitted to be released subject to fulfilment of certain conditions: HC

- Writ petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-392-HC-MP-CUS

Rama Phosphates Ltd Vs Joint Director

Cus - In present case, personal hearing was granted to petitioner before passing impugned order but documents were not supplied, even authority without invoking Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 went-on to pass order under Section 114 of Customs Act - The value of goods was not assessed or determined before passing impugned order - Petitions could not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy - Revenue submitted that personal hearing was granted to petitioner before passing of order on various occasions, therefore, contention that principle of natural justice is violated stands negated - So far as delay in deciding the issue is concerned, sufficient reasons have been assigned for same - Revenue relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited 2014-TIOL-76-SC-CX in which it is held that when statute provides for statutory appeal, said remedy is to be availed by litigating parties - In Hameed Kunju, Apex Court held that any petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India should be dismissed in limine when there is statutory provision of appeal - In another case Ansal Housing and Construction Limited, it is held that when statutory appeal is provided, then said remedy has to be availed - Looking to the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, court do not find it proper to entertain these petitions: HC

- Petitions dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-391-HC-AHM-GST

Navkar Metal Industries Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The petitioner submitted that in notice, he was called upon to appear - However, in notice neither the name nor designation of issuing authority was mentioned, nor any details were given as to on what grounds fraud was alleged against petitioner - It was submitted that notice was vague and did not reveal any specific ground to proceed against petitioner - It was submitted that breach of natural justice was evident inasmuch as in absence of any material, petitioner was not in position to defend its case - It was submitted that opportunity to defend ought to have been given to petitioner - It was submitted that vagueness in notice itself was breach of natural justice - The respondent filed affidavit-in-reply to raise various contentions - It was submitted that opportunity of personal hearing was given to petitioner and date was fixed to be 28.6.2022, but petitioner did not remain present - Subsequent to filling of petition, there is no gainsaying that detailed SCN was delivered to petitioner - Therefore, the ground raised in petition that notice was not sent with detailed reasons to the petitioner nor was uploaded on portal, no longer remained available to be advanced - The factum of receipt of SCN has been accepted by petitioner in rejoinder affidavit - Petitioner shall be given time till 15th April, 2023 to submit its reply - The date of personal hearing within this period may also be fixed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to petitioner - In order to enable competent authority to undertake aforesaid exercise and pass fresh order, impugned notice is hereby quashed and set aside: HC

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-262-CESTAT-DEL

Ratnawat Infra Construction Company LLP Vs CCE & CGST

ST - Issue involved is as to whether refund claim of service tax filed by appellant, developer of residential flats on cancellation of booking, have been rightly rejected - There is no dispute on facts with regard to booking and cancellation and refund made by appellant to buyer including amount of service tax - Further, appellant is entitled to refund, in view of Cenvat credit no longer available, in spite of being entitled to same under Rule (6)(3) of Service Tax Rules, appellant is entitled to refund of such amount u/s 142(3) of CGST Act - As admittedly, appellant have refunded the booking amount including service tax, they have satisfied the bar of unjust enrichment - Appellant is entitled to refund of the amount - Accordingly, Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund of said amount alongwith interest as per rules within 45 days: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-261-CESTAT-AHM

Adani Wilmar Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Issue to be decided is that whether during course of manufacture of vegetable refined oil which is exempted, emergence of spent earth is liable to excise duty - Very same issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of M/s. PRIYANKA REFINERIES PVT LTD UNIT II 2019-TIOL-2975-CESTAT-HYD wherein it is held that these products are not intentionally manufactured but only arise during process of refining of crude vegetable oil and therefore should be considered as waste and they are entitled to benefit of exemption notification 89/1995-CE - I ssue is no longer res-integra accordingly, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT