I-T - Notices u/s 148 referable to the old regime would stand beyond prescribed permissible timeline of six years from end of A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15: HC

I-T- Re-assessment proceedings are unsustainable where SCN & order are bereft of any details: HC

I-T- Before framing additions u/s 68, onus rests with AO to establish creditworthiness of creditor & genuineness of transaction; such onus cannot be shifted onto assessee : HC

I-T- Search assessment - Addition u/s 153A not tenable in case of non-abated assessment, where no evidence incriminating the assessee is found during Search operation & where assessment gets finality before date of Search: HC

ST - Extension of time to deposit discounted tax under SVLDRS, 2019 cannot be granted since it would violate the very essence and ethos of the Scheme: HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Extension of last date - Scheme cannot be tinkered with unless the vires are challenged - Pandora's box cannot be opened: HC

GST - s.6(2)(b) - Whether duplication of proceedings - Grievance of petitioner to be considered in adjudication: HC

GST - Refund of IGST - SC has held that all persons shall have limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021 - Order set aside and matter remanded: HC

GST - Petitioner permitted to re-submit corrected GSTR-1 as there will be no loss whatsoever caused to Opposite Parties: HC

CX - Appellant is entitled to interest on refundable amount from date of deposit till the date of refund @ 12% per annum: CESTAT

Cus - Assessee is calciner and used goods as feedstock for making CPC from RPC for their customers with sulphur content ranging from 0.8% to 3.5%, Adjudicating authority is directed to release the goods provisionally to assessee: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-429-HC-MAD-GST

VGN Projects Estates Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)

GST - Petitioner has challenged show cause notice dt. 21.10.2022 in Form GST DRC-01 on the ground that the same has been issued in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the  TNGST Act, 2017  -  According to the petitioner, a similar show cause notice was issued by the Central Authority under  CGST Act, 2017  on 29.07.2022 against the petitioner, involving the very same defects and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax  Act, 2017  when the proper officer under the CGST Act has already initiated any proceedings against the petitioner on the very same subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the provisions of the  TNGST Act, 2017 . Held:  When the respondents have undertaken before this Court that they shall consider the grievance of the petitioner as raised in this Writ Petition, the question of entertaining this Writ Petition at this stage and granting relief to the petitioner will not arise - Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice within a period of three weeks and the first respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter: High Court [para 8, 10]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-428-HC-MP-GST

Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Refund of IGST - Application was rejected on the ground of same being time barred - Petitioner contends that the Apex Court in Re : Cognizance For Extension of Limitation -   2021-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB had condoned the delay and held that in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021 - Counsel for respondent fairly admitted the mistake on the part of the respondents and admitted that the Circular   No. 157/13/2021 - GST   dated 20.07.2021 is inapplicable. Held: In view of the aforesaid, petition stands partly allowed - The impugned order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the appellate authority/respondent no.2 is hereby set aside - The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority/respondent no.2 to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days: High Court [para 8]

- Petition partly allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-427-HC-ORISSA-GST

Y B Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the Opposite Parties to permit the Petitioner to rectify the GST Return filed in Form - B2B instead of B2C as was wrongly filed under GSTR-1 in order to get the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit by the principal contractor - Stand taken by Opposite Parties is that once the deadline for rectification of the Forms was crossed, then no further indulgence could be granted. Held: Fact remains that by permitting the Petitioner to rectify the above error, there will be no loss whatsoever caused to the Opposite Parties - It is not as if that there will be any escapement of tax - This is only about the ITC benefit which, in any event, has to be given to the Petitioner - On the contrary, if it is not permitted, then the Petitioner will unnecessarily be prejudiced - Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected GSTR-1 for the aforementioned periods and to enable the Petitioner to do so, a direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to receive it manually: High Court [para 5, 7]

- Petition disposed of: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-432-HC-MP-ST

Eltel Engineers Vs UoI

ST - Petition has been filed seeking direction to deposit the discounted amount of tax to the tune of Rs.17,29,494/- under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme), 2019 as per the quantification made by the Designated Committee - It is the contention of petitioner that due to reasons beyond his control [Covid-19 pandemic], the petitioner could not avail the benefit under said scheme by depositing the said amount before the last date. Held: The SVLDRS scheme is a complete code in itself - It is trite law that in tax jurisprudence, any provision relating to concession/discount/rebate are to be construed strictly and any doubt arising therefrom has to be decided in favour of the Revenue - Extension of time as sought by the petitioner to deposit the discounted tax under the Scheme cannot be granted since it would violate the very essence and ethos of the Scheme - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-431-HC-MP-ST

Rajhans Enterprises Vs UoI

ST - Petitioner could not take advantage of the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme on account of his failing to transfer the amount of discounted arrears of tax determined by the Designated Committee latest by 30.06.2020 and, therefore, has filed the present petition seeking reliefs - Petitioner submits that despite having made multiple attempts to deposit the discounted amount of arrears of tax on 30.06.2020 (last date), the said amount was shown as debited from his bank account but the same was credited back to his account on the very same day i.e. 30.06.2020 - Reliance is placed on the decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in M/s L.G.Chaudhary =  2022-TIOL-1363-HC-AHM-ST  and Board instructions dated 17.03.2021. Held: True it is that the petitioner had made an attempt but it does not appear from the record that the account of the Revenue was credited with the said discounted amount of arrears of tax determined by the Designated Committee latest by 30.06.2020 - The record also gives an impression that the said glitch was at the stage of the account of the petitioner and so not at the stage of the account of the Revenue - Court has already taken a view against the petitioner in M/s Metrics Promotions & Events that the scheme cannot be tinkered with unless the vires of the scheme is challenged; that the procedure prescribed under the scheme has to be strictly followed and the last date fixed for payment has to be strictly adhered to; that any extension to the said date which the scheme does not subscribe, would lead to opening a Pandora's box as there will be a flood of litigation bringing assessees to the Court by taking the plea of technical glitch - No merit in this petition, hence is accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to revisit the Court on assailing the constitutional validity of the scheme, if so advised: High Court [para 5 to 8]

- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-430-HC-ORISSA-ST

Satish Ch Das And Company Vs CCE & C

ST - SCN was issued on 23 April 2007 and a letter dated 30 th October 2017 was issued asking the petitioner to appear for personal hearing - Petitioner filed an application dated 9th November, 2017 before the authority expressing its inability to collect documents after such a long lapse of time - Thereafter, the present petition was filed - Department's appeal against an order of the CESTAT [in M/s. Konkan Marine Agencies ] answering the issue in favour of the assessee was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India by the order dated 11th January, 2023 [ 2023-TIOL-09-SC-ST ]. Held: Orders answering the issue in favour of the Petitioner have been upheld by the Supreme Court of India - Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 23rd April, 2007 and further letter dated 30th October, 2017 issued by the Department to the Petitioner are hereby quashed: High Court

- Petitions allowed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-288-CESTAT-KOL

CC Vs Neo Carbons Pvt Ltd

Cus - Assessee is a calciner and runs a factory to manufacture Calcined petroleum Coke for anode making in aluminum industry - They imports raw petroleum coke under license granted to it - DRI seized unused stock of RPC lying at its factory premises RPC lying at K.P. Dock under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 - Assessee sought provisional release of goods under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - The sole contention of Revenue against provisional release of impugned goods is that the said goods having sulphur content more than 4% and same cannot be used by aluminium manufacturing industry, but Revenue has not disputed the fact that assessee is calciner and used impugned goods as feedstock for making CPC from RPC for their customers with sulphur content ranging from 0.8% to 3.5% - There is no harm to release goods provisionally and merits of the case are to be dealt at the time of final adjudication of matter - Commissioner (A) in his order has considered the request of assessee for re-testing of goods by any recognized and notified laboratory as Customs Lab is not a recognized laboratory under Environment Protection Act - Adjudicating authority is directed to allow the request of assessee for re-testing of goods in question from a recognized notified Environment Laboratory - No infirmity found in impugned orders, therefore, said orders are confirmed - Accordingly, Adjudicating authority is directed to release the goods provisionally to assessee immediately: CESTAT

- Appeals dismissed: KOLKATA CESTAT

2023-TIOL-287-CESTAT-DEL

Leading Point Powertronics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & GST

CX - Issue arises is regarding grant of proper interest on amount refunded which was deposited during investigation - Issue is squarely covered on all four by precedent ruling of Division Bench of Tribunal in Parle Agro Ltd. 2021-TIOL-306-CESTAT-ALL which has also been confirmed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Riba Textile Ltd. 2022-TIOL-382-HC-P&H-CX - Appellant is entitled to interest on refundable amount from date of deposit till the date of refund @ 12% per annum: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT