I-T- Once the borrowing is utilised for the purpose of business by the assessee, the interest paid on such borrowing would be squarely eligible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act : ITAT

I-T- Disallowance made for late deposit of employees' share of PF & ESI contributions, is sustainable , where made beyond due dates under relevant Acts: ITAT

I-T- Assessee society is under legal obligation to satisfy the CIT(Exemption) about the genuineness of its activity: ITAT

I-T- Penalty notice issued u/s 274 merits being set aside where irrelevant limb between concealment of income & furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not struck off: ITAT

I-T- Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) is to be allowed where assessee is found to be eligible for exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act : ITAT

GST - Process of adjudication post issuance of show-cause notice would necessitate observance of natural justice: HC

GST - Right to know reasons is a legitimate right for a litigant - Impugned order suffers from the vice of being cryptic and non-speaking, hence set aside: HC

Cus - Import of raw magnesite, whether country of origin is Pakistan or Turkey, as claimed - Goods to be provisionally released on payment of entire duty assessed and furnishing BG: HC

Cus - Pre-condition for invoking power of suspension, viz., that of temporary detriment pending initiation and conclusion of proceedings for revocation, did not appear to have been intended to be complied with at all - Consequently, suspension is set aside:CESTAT

2023-TIOL-518-HC-AHM-GST

VIP Chem Traders Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner received notice dated 06.12.2022 in which respondent no.4 Commissioner of State Tax, Ahmedabad, inter alia stated that the registration of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled - Prayer is about setting aside show-cause notice dated 06.12.2022 for cancellation registration in Form GST REG-31.

Held: There is no gainsaying that the notice since is issued for cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner, if the final order against the petitioner is to be adverse, it will operate to the detriment and prejudice to the petitioner - Therefore, the process of adjudication post issuance of show-cause notice would necessitate observance of natural justice and providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case - Petitioner shall be given four weeks' time to file reply and also shall be given personal hearing - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-517-HC-AHM-GST

Sandhya Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Cancellation of registration - Petitioner has prayed to set aside the show-cause notice dated 26.04.2022 as well as order dated 07.05.2022 passed pursuant to the said show-cause notice - The reason seeking to cancel the registration mentioned in show-cause notice was "Place and dealer found but no business board at the place and not any business activities at there ".

Held: It is to be observed that a mere perusal of the show-cause notice as well as the impugned order would indicate that the notice was vague and was without any particulars - The order did not disclose any reason for cancellation of registration - A non-speaking order which does not disclose the reason and does not specify the grounds on which the decision is rested could be said to be amounting to breach of natural justice - Right to know reasons is a legitimate right for a litigant - Absence of reasons is deprivation of reasonable opportunity as well - As the impugned order suffers from the vice of being cryptic and non-speaking, it is liable to be set aside on the said ground alone - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 5.1, 5.2, 6, 7]

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-516-HC-AHM-CUS

Jairam Traders Vs Pr.CC

Cus - Authorities suspected that the country of origin [claimed as Turkey] was different and could be Pakistan - Respondent no.2 authority has imposed condition on the petitioner for allowing provisional release of the goods - raw magnesite on furnishing bond of full value of the goods along with furnishing of the Bank Guarantee of differential duty calculated at 200% of Basic Customs Duty and IGST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to release the consignment on terms and conditions which the Court deems fit; to direct the respondents to refund the detention and demurrage charges, if any, paid by the petitioner - The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid condition sought to be imposed by the authority for provisional release of the goods is not only harsh and arbitrary but stands contrary to the order passed in Besto Tradelink Limited = 2022-TIOL-675-HC-AHM-CUS involving similar facts.

Held : In light of the decision in Besto Tradelink Limited (supra) , competent respondent authority is directed to provisionally release the goods of the petitioners, provided the petitioner pays the entire amount of duty assessed; furnishes bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs for a period to operate until the investigation process is over; shall submit a bond for differential duty under the Customs Act, 1962 - Investigation process shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within 12 weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5.2, 7]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-329-CESTAT-MUM

Godfrey Phillips India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appellant is engaged in manufacture of various brands of cigarettes - During course of manufacture and packing of cigarettes, certain waste arose in form of cigarette/CT paper, mix pulp, aluminium foil which are unusable and hence rejected - From time to time SCNs have been issued to appellant demanding duty in respect of these unusable material - Issue involved is no longer res integra and in their own case, matter has been decided by Tribunal in 2016-TIOL-1001-CESTAT-MUM - Accordingly, appeal to be considered in light of said decision - The facts being completely identical, following the decision of Tribunal in appellant's own case, impugned order needs to be set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-328-CESTAT-MUM

Eicon Impex LLP Vs CC

Cus - Suspension of 'customs broker' licence - Suspension is nothing but an interim measure and which normally does not warrant interference unless licensing authority has, itself, breached principles of natural justice or is in circumstances in which recourse to such measure is obviously inappropriate - Regulation 16 of CBLR, 2018 empowers licensing authority to suspend a 'customs broker' licence but only upon determination of immediate reaction and as intendment of temporary deprivation preceding permanent erasure - Though the provisions do saddle such empowerment with prerequisite of immediacy, there are no guidelines for determination of limits of immediacy and that is best left to licensing authority - Licence itself was suspended only after stipulated ninety days and thereby, has jeopardized the propriety of commencement of any subsequent proceedings - It is not in dispute that proceedings had not been initiated at the time of suspension and, in accordance with regulation 16 of CBLR, 2018, such instances of suspension should be followed by proceedings, including issue of chargesheet within prescribed timeframe, for it to be bona fide exercise of authority - The time limit for initiating such action in all, and any, circumstances has also lapsed - The pre-condition for invoking power of suspension, viz., that of temporary detriment pending initiation and conclusion of proceedings for revocation, did not appear to have been intended to be complied with at all - Consequently, suspension of licence, ordered to be continued by impugned order, is not in accordance with Regulations for want of intent to be taken to legal conclusion - Accordingly, suspension is set aside and licence restored for operation: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

2023-TIOL-327-CESTAT-MAD

Benchmark Consultants Vs CGST & CE

ST - The issue arises is as to whether service tax can be demanded on reimbursable expenses - From SCN itself, it is clear that demand is made for non-inclusion of reimbursable expenses in taxable value for discharge of service tax liability - Issue is settled in case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats 2018-TIOL-76-SC-ST - Following the same, demand cannot sustain - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT