I-T- Reopening of assessment is not justified where AO does not derives any new information from record on investigation into facts not originally undertaken : HC

I-T- Section 80P(4) of Act is of relevance only in a case where assessee, who is a Co-operative Bank, claims a deduction u/s 80P of Act : ITAT

I-T- Since project is on verge of completion therefore addition of expenses to WIP seems unjustified however case can be remanded back for de novo adjudication : ITAT

I-T- Claim of expenses can be allowed as assessee has been consistently following methodology for claiming expenses on year to year basis and this practice has been accepted by Revenue : ITAT

I-T- Expenditure on right to use leasehold land are allowable as revenue expenditure, on which on penalty can be levied : ITAT

VAT - As per Section 38(3), a pre-deposit is not equivalent to tax; cannot be adjusted against tax liability for different AYs: HC

VAT - Unless movement of goods is predicated by contract of sale, such movement cannot be termed as inter-State sale : HC

ST - The activity undertaken by assessee is for construction of railways, same is exempted in terms of Notfn 25/2012-ST, therefore, no demand is sustainable against assessee: CESTAT

Cus - Rejecting refund claim simply on the ground of delay in filing claim before proper authority while admitting that assessee had filed claim before department on time, albeit at a wrong jurisdiction cannot be approved: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1314-HC-DEL-VAT

Femc Pratibha Joint Venture Vs CTT

Whether on a pure and simple construction of Section 38(3) (a) (ii) of the DVAT Act, a pre-deposit does not partake the character of tax or duty, and thus the Tax Department is neither entitled in law to retain the pre-deposit amount in question nor could it utilize the same for adjustment purposes towards tax liability for different assessment years - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

Berger Paints India Ltd Vs CTT

Whether unless and until movement of goods is predicated by contract of sale, movement of goods pursuant thereto could not be termed as inter-State sale thereby making transaction subject to levy of tax under CST Act - YES : HC

- Case remanded: DELHI HIGH COURT

Bridge And Roof Company India Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Assessee is engaged in activity of earth work in bridge approach and construction of three numbers of major bridges outside the plant boundary in connection with construction of railway infrastructures for Raghunathpur Thermal Power Station of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) - It was stated that such bridge was constructed outside plant boundary of DVC for use of general public for their ingress and outgress and belong to Indian Railway - The assessee has executed works for construction of railway siding including all labour and material for Durgapur Steel Thermal Power Station of DVC at Andal - It is alleged that assessee is liable to pay service tax on their activity of construction of bridges for railways during impugned period - With effect from 01.07.2012 in terms of Notfn 25/2012-ST, the assessee has been exempted from payment of service tax for services by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to an airport, port or railways, including monorail or metro - Admittedly, assessee has executed the works which pertain to construction of railways and it has been admitted that assessee has provided such services to M/s RITES Limited - The activity undertaken by the assessee is for construction of railways, therefore, the same is exempted in terms of Notfn 25/2012-ST - Therefore, no demand is sustainable against assessee - As no demand is sustainable against assessee, therefore, there is no merit in appeal filed by Revenue, same is dismissed: CESTAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT

CC Vs ECI Telecom India Pvt Ltd

Cus - The assessee has filed refund claim before Commissioner of Customs within one year from date of payment of duty - However, it is their case that same cannot be taken as date of filing before actual jurisdictional Commissionerate viz. Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) - It is Revenue's contention that filing of a refund claim in a wrong jurisdiction cannot be taken lightly and cannot be condoned - This is perhaps a very narrow view and does not fit into the role of department as a facilitator nor does it have the express sanction of law - If refund of duty paid was filed by an assessee in wrong jurisdiction before an authority who not competent to entertain the refund claim, that too within the time limit, said authority must transfer application for refund claim to competent authority, as has been correctly done in this case - As rightly held in impugned order, the period during which claim remained with wrong jurisdictional authority should not be considered for calculating time limit - The Apex Court in Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd and others held that a decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation - An authority is under legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred - Rejecting refund claim simply on the ground of delay in filing claim before proper authority while admitting that assessee had filed the claim before department on time, albeit at a wrong jurisdiction cannot be approved - The Lower Authority was right in the view it took - Since no other issue has been raised and considerable time has elapsed, refund may be sanctioned expeditiously as per law: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Tata Telecommunications Transformation Services Ltd Vs CCGST & CE

CX - The issue against impugned order upholding the order of original authority rejecting claim for monetization of accumulated CENVAT credit, is refund in lieu of transfer to successor credit account - Appellant, having taken credit in successor tax regime as provided for in Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was compelled to reverse the credit owing to retrospective operation of amendment effected on 30th August 2018 - The claim of appellant rests upon judicially determined principle of CENVAT credit being a vested credit and involuntary exclusion from future utilization owing to operation of law entitling reimbursement in cash - It is on record that several disputes relating to retrospective application of debarring, as well as other connected issues, are pending in writ proceedings before Supreme Court - Though the decision of Tribunal in re Mylan Laboratories Ltd 2020-TIOL-576-CESTAT-HYD has rejected the claim for refund of unutilized cess from ineligibility after substitution of existing tax regime with new levy, there are several other decisions which have allowed refund of this very cess - On perusal of said decisions, viz., that of Tribunal in re Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd 2021-TIOL-313-CESTAT-CHD and in re International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd, it is seen to pertain to monetization of cess - Furthermore, it is on record, that dispute arising from rejection of claim for transition into new scheme is pending before Supreme Court in Sutherland Global Services Pvt Ltd - The decision of Tribunal in re Mylan Laboratories Ltd did not have the benefit of judicial determination that prompted subsequent decisions of Tribunal - Accordingly, matter is remanded back to original authority for re-determination of eligibility in accordance with settled law on refund of accumulated CENVAT credit considering the peculiarities of facts and circumstances therein: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT