I-T - Assessment u/s 153-C merits to be quashed, if no incriminating material was found in case of either from assessee or from third party: SC

I-T - Taxability of retirement receipts in hands of retired partner cannot be decided simply on basis of sum paid to him in excess of his capital contribution, without considering if such excess is attributable to goodwill: SC

GST - Terms BETTING and GAMBLING in Entry 6 of Schedule III of CGST Act do not & cannot include games of skill within their ambit; be given the same meaning in Entry 34 of List II of Schedule VII to CGST Act & the Public Gaming Act 1947: HC

GST - Goods of petitioner as well as vehicle shall be released provided the petitioner shall deposit total amount of penalty, shall furnish Bank Guarantee for 75% of total amount and Bond for remaining 25% of amount: HC

GST - Since uploaded copy was already part of appeal, it would amount to substantial compliance of Rule 108 of Haryana GST Rules, 2017, hence, appeal could not be dismissed on the ground that certified copy was not attached with appeal: HC

CX - CENVAT credit is admissible to principal manufacture of duty paid by job worker, even if credit was availed earlier on receiving inputs, specifically when job worker had not taken any credit in respect of inputs imported by assessee: HC

2023-TIOL-531-HC-KAR-GST

Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence

GST - Issue at hand is whether offline/online games such as Rummy, which are based substantially on skill & not chance & whether played with or without stakes, is tantamount to gambling or betting as contemplated in Entry 6 of Schedule III of CGST Act.

Held - The terms BETTING and GAMBLING in Entry 6 of Schedule III of CGST Act does not and cannot include games of skill within its ambit -

+ the terms BETTING and GAMBLING must be given the same meaning in Entry 34 of List II of Schedule VII to CGST Act & the Public Gaming Act 1947

+ when words acquire a technical meaning due to authoritative construction by superior courts, they must be understood in that sense when used in similar context in subsequent legislations.

- Writ petition allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-530-HC-AHM-GST

Rohit Company Vs UoI

GST - What is prayed in this petition is to set aside the order (Form GST MOV-11) passed invoking the powers under section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 - Further prayer advanced, which is also the interim prayer for release of goods and conveyance - It is directed that goods of petitioner as well as vehicle shall be released provided the petitioner complies with conditions that they will deposit with competent authority of respondents, total amount of penalty, the tax is not assessed by authorities; towards fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee for 75% of total amount and Bond shall be given for remaining 25% of amount - Petitioner shall file undertaking on oath before this Court in which he will disclose the address of registered office of business - Authorities have not assessed the tax, therefore, condition about payment of tax is not reflected in aforesaid conditions - Upon compliance of aforesaid conditions, goods and the vehicle both shall be released by authorities - Non compliance of any of the aforesaid conditions, shall render the interim relief granted herein above, liable to be vacated: HC

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-529-HC-P&H-GST

KPMG India Pvt Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax

GST - The petitioner submits that they had filed the appeal along with digitally uploaded order on common portal and hence, appeal could not be dismissed on the ground that certified copy was not attached with appeal - Since the uploaded copy was already part of appeal, it would amount to substantial compliance of Rule 108 of Haryana Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Joint Commissioner would not dismiss the appeal by impugned order on the ground that petitioner had not submitted the certified copy of order impugned therein - Since this fact has been further clarified by notification dated 25.01.2023, impugned order is set aside and matter is being remanded back to competent authority to pass a fresh order on merits without going into the question of filing of certified copy delayed: HC

- Writ petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-528-HC-DEL-GST

BSNL Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of request for refund of GST - It is the petitioner's case that its first application was complete in the sense that it was accompanied by all documents that were required to be filed along with application for refund under Rule 89 of Rules - Although Adjudicating Authority had issued a deficiency memo calling for certain other documents, same would not render its application as non-est or one that was liable to be ignored - Thus, according to petitioner, the second application was merely to provide further documents that were required by Adjudicating Authority - The impugned order passed by Appellate Authority does not indicate that aforesaid contention was considered by Appellate Authority - It appears that Appellate Authority had proceeded on the basis that since in terms of Circular, an application for refund was required to be filed "only through online portal", petitioner's application filed on 10.02.2020 was required to be considered as its only application - This reasoning has not been specifically articulated but appears to be so from reading of impugned order - Revenue accepts notice and seeks time to take instructions and file a counter affidavit if necessary - Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within a period of one week: HC

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-527-HC-P&H-CX

Pr.CCE Vs Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt Ltd

CX - The Commissioner disallowed the CENVAT credit as availed and utilised by assessee and ordered recovery of said amount from assessee and imposed an equal penalty for misdeclaration and suppression of facts - On appeal, Tribunal held that the CENVAT credit is admissible to principal manufacture of duty paid by job worker, even if credit was availed earlier on receiving inputs, specifically when it is not disputed that job worker had not taken any credit in respect of inputs imported by assessee - It is not in dispute that job worker was liable to pay duty, if he did not avail the benefit of Notfn 214/86, as intermediate product manufactured by them was dutiable and availment of Notfn 214/86 is not mandatory - Thus, assessee had correctly taken the credit of duty paid by job worker and they are also entitled to CENVAT credit of CVD paid on such inputs - It is a case of double payment of duty on same imputs - The payment of duty twice is not disputed, thus, it would be unfair and against the scheme of CENVAT to deny credit of said duty - No substantial question of law arises - Therefore, impugned judgment passed by Tribunal does not warrant any interference: HC

- Appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT