TODAY'S CASE (INDIRECT TAX)

June 27, 2024

++ CX - In all cases, entities answering Article 12 cannot press into service the doctrine of alternative remedy as the China Wall against invocation of writ jurisdiction: HC

++ CX - Appellant collected excise duty from buyer and paid it to department and if it is refunded, that would be an unjust enrichment to him: HC

++ ST - CENVAT - Input services and inputs used for construction of a building or a civil structure were excluded from the definition of "input" w.e.f 01.04.2011 - Credit availed before this date is admissible: HC

++ ST - Request of petitioner to waive requirement of pre-deposit fails - s.35F w.e.f 06.08.2014 mandates pre-deposit - Citing a publication which deals with provisions holding field earlier is of no assistance: HC

++ GST - s.67(3) - It is the duty of Respondent Revenue to release the non-relied upon documents within a period of 30 days from the issuance of show cause notice: HC

++ CX - Appellant charging equalized handling charges from their customers on excisable goods is includible in assessable value for charging excise duty: CESTAT

++ Cus - Assessee have made all efforts to file Bill of Entry along with relevant documents on time but were prevented to file online due to technical glitches in ICEGATE site, late fee imposed on importer cannot sustain: CESTAT

June 26, 2024

++ Cus - The refund was granted within 3 months as prescribed under Section 18 (4) of the Act, appellant is not entitled to any interest in view of statutory provisions: CESTAT

++ CX - Appellant is eligible for Cenvat Credit of input and input services which are used in export of goods and are exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty: CESTAT

June 25, 2024

++ VAT - Usage of word 'includes' in the definition of 'sale price' makes the definition enumerative and not exhaustive - Service tax component is excluded from the ambit of 'sale price' while paying VAT: HC

++ GST - Notice uploaded under 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab - Reason given by petitioner for not responding to SCN is not convincing as petitioner is under an obligation to monitor GST portal on an ongoing basis as a registered person: HC

++ GST - ITC - non-payment to creditors - While undertaking adjudication for assessment period 2017-2018, it was incumbent on respondent to call for and examine financial statement for year ended 31.03.2018 and not 31.03.2019: HC

++ GST - Department justified in creating temporary registration where assessee did not hold registration for inter-state supply of goods: HC

++ GST - Assessee misused GST laws by issuing bills indicating that goods destined for Andhra Pradesh, were purchased from Rajasthan instead of Gujarat - Department to probe assessee's modus operandi & take appropriate action: HC

++ Cus - Endorsement in sales invoice regarding non-availability of CENVAT credit cannot be a reason to deny the SAD refund : CESTAT

++ CX - Assessee is not required to reverse the accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 11 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the conditional notification is availed: CESTAT

++ ST - Composite works can be subjected to levy of service tax only under category of Works Contract Services prior to 01.06.2007, demand under this head cannot sustain: CESTAT

June 24, 2024

++ Cus - Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) on imported goods cannot be discharged by debiting from the MEIS / SEIS Scrips: HC

++ GST - Detention of goods - Clarification 38/12/2018 dated 26.03.2018 - Respondent to consider petitioner's request for release of goods expeditiously subject to production of relevant delivery challans: HC

++ ST - Dissent expressed by Member(T) in derogation of various orders passed by coordinate benches on the very same issue, cannot be countenanced - Reference to third Member was unnecessary: HC

++ GST - Water distribution services by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply Board - Demand confirmed of 96 crores - Matter requires reconsideration - Petitioner to remit sum of 3 crores to balance revenue interest: HC

++ GST - Vehicle breakdown - Non-amendment of E-way bill upon change of transport vehicle - It is not a case where there was any intention on the part of appellant to evade tax - Imposition of tax/penalty calls for interference: HC

++ FEMA - When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation - Alternative remedy available u/ss 16(1), 19(1) and 35: HC

++ Cus - All the documents placed by appellant justify that export duty paid by them has not been passed on to the buyer, no reason found to sustain impugned order: CESTAT

++ CX - Neither in SCN nor in impugned order, grounds for invoking extended period of limitation have been discussed, imposition of penalties is not sustainable: CESTAT

++ CX - Clandestine removal - Financial flow to appellant not made out; statements of buyers of goods produced by assessee, are inadmissible; transportation of goods not made out - demands and penalty set aside: CESTAT

++ ST - Demand raised under 'Works Contract Service' against appellant who is promoter/developer for period prior to 1.7.2010 for construction of residential complexes is not sustainable: CESTAT

June 22, 2024

++ Cus - Musk Melon Dried Seeds imported by Assessee found to be unfit for human consumption; order directing re-export thereof is sustained; penalty quashed as Assessee may have been unaware of changes in import policy for this item: CESTAT

++ ST - Tax demand raised under Business Support Service - No evidence exists to show that Assessee had any contract for provision of said service; SCN itself mentions that Assessee only engaged in organizing transport of goods - demand unsustainable: CESTAT

++ CX - Since the exempted goods have been exported out of India, therefore, provisions of sub rule (1), (2) & (3) of Rule 6 of Credit Rules are not applicable: CESTAT

June 21, 2024

++ Kerala VAT - Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria - Input credit rightly denied where assessee does not file ITR in proper format; penalty for suppressing turnover upheld: HC

++ GST - Determination of imposition of taxability is a question which can only be considered by Supreme Court and would not lie to the High Court : HC

++ GST - Since the petitioner has already filed reply to SCN, this Court would not like to entertain petition filed against SCN, it is for competent authority to decide the issue : HC

++ Cus - Officers of DRI would not fall within domain of proper officer for initiating proceedings under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 : HC

++ Cus - Department is directed to decide pending appeal against the order expeditiously within a period of four months : HC

++ ST - Appellant has not supplied Lorries to oil companies, they had merely undertaken transportation of petrol / diesel of oil companies to various places which does not fall under Supply of Tangible Goods Services: CESTAT

June 20, 2024

++ GST - When petitioner has admittedly purchased raw cotton, which is a specific category of supply of goods from agriculturist, provision of s.9(3) is applicable as per Notf . 43 of 2017 - Order fastening liability of Rs.3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty is upheld: HC

++ Cus - Tribunal, while dismissing appeal in limine , overlooked trite principle that Courts/Tribunals should endeavour to decide a litigation on merits rather than on default: HC

++ Cus - Appellants are registered dealers and not fly-by-night operators - As they have obtained benefit of adjudication order, direction of Single Judge to furnish bank guarantee/property securities is modified - Simple bond-cum-undertaking suffices: HC

++ GST - Seized Jewellery released on payment of tax/penalty - Order in favour, yet appeal filed but which was dismissed on ground of delay - For this curious predicament, appellant to blame: HC

++ CX - The use of fire brick which is dismantle from under shell of kiln is not liable to duty as waste and scrap: CESTAT

++ ST - Appellant is directed to produce VCES-2 and VCES-3 as burden of proof is on them and also produce documents in support of his submissions that he is exempted under threshold limit of exemption for small scale service providers and services rendered by them are classifiable as 'works contract services': CESTAT

++ Cus - Importer ordered two parts of two different machines; foreign supplier erroneously sent wrong parts - Importer, unaware of such error on supplier's part, declared assessable value over actual value of goods received - Hence, no mala fide attributable to importer: CESTAT

++ Cus - Once the product is HDPE even though modified with miniscule quantity of other chemical it clearly falls under exemption entry provided under Notfn 12/2012-Cus and other analogous notifications: CESTAT

June 19, 2024

++ ST - Dismissal of appeal for failure to make pre-deposit - No obligation on department to issue any defect notice although it is a usual practice to point this out to assessees in the interests of fairness: HC

++ GST/CX - Transitional credit - Petitioner has availed ITC, which was not eligible to be availed, but could have resulted in wrong utilization of input tax credit - A token penalty of Rs.10,000/- is imposed since credit reversed: HC

++ ST - Invocation of jurisdiction of Court under Art.226 would ideally be only after adjudication of SCN since jurisdiction is essentially one of judicial review of the decision of a primary authority: HC

++ Cus - Commissioner(A) is not vested with power to condone delay beyond 30 days under Section 128(1) of Customs Act, 1962, no discripency found in impugned order: CESTAT

++ ST - Since there was substantial compliance of substantive clause of Notifications in question, appellant is entitled to exemption from payment of Service Tax in respect of services provided by them to SEZ units/Developers: CESTAT

++ CX - There in no evidence on record to establish suppression of facts or malafide intention to evade duty, therefore, entire demand is time barred: CESTAT

June 18, 2024

++ CX - Factum of receiving refund twice of the same amount for which the appellant was not entitled to, by concealing the facts, is not denied - Mens rea proved, penalty rightly imposed: HC

++ ST - Adjudication proceedings in relation to impugned SCNs dtd . 22.10.2010 and 21.10.2011 are not maintainable due to inordinate delay of 9 to 10 years: HC

++ ST - So far as the contractor engages in Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, he would not be required to include the gross amount charged relating to goods and material supplied for providing such services: HC

++ CX - Principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given at least three opportunities of personal hearing; case remanded where it is unclear as to how many hearings were given to the assessee: CESTAT

++ CX - Tribunal do not find any justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided: CESTAT

++ ST - Service Tax demand cannot be raised in respect of job work, where consideration received through cheque, was not encashed by assessee & in which case, consideration was never received: CESTAT

++ Cus - The imported goods are meant for protection of eyes in snowy region and not protection of eyes from sunlight which is the purpose of sun glasses, hence, they were correctly classified by importer under residual CTH 90049090: CESTAT

June 17, 2024

++ CX - s.142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 - Rebate - No re-credit in CENVAT account - Any refund that was payable to petitioner has to be paid in cash: HC

++ ST - Dismissal of ROM application - Stand of Tribunal was that irrelevant facts and arguments need not be included in the order - Such bald observation made without details indicates non-application of mind: HC

++ ST - Non-payment of amount mentioned in SVLDRS-3 - Technical glitch on portal - Petitioner should not be denied the benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019 when no fault can be attributed to them: HC

++ GST - Whether summons u/s 70 of CGST Act can be issued to an Assessee whose assessment is with SGST authorities - A  mandamus cannot be issued to restrain the performance of a statutory duty: HC 

++ GST - Personal hearing not granted although sought in replies to SCN - Orders quashed and set aside - Matter remanded, but for safeguarding revenue interest, petitioner to remit 5% of disputed tax demand: HC

++ GST - Since the appellant has produced all invoices from suppliers and it was the duty of suppliers to further file their returns, which they have not done, order is being modified that appellant will deposit 10% of amount, which is being demanded by respondents: HC

++ Kerala General Sales Tax - Review Petition has very limited scope; must be resorted to only if there is error apparent on face of record; cannot be utilised as means of re-hearing or appeal: HC

++ VAT- Process of taxation cannot be said to be adversarial adjudication but a civil adjudication to be on the basis of facts: HC

June 15, 2024

++ CX - The prescribed certificate was in possession of appellant and entitles them to eligibility for exemption, non-production at the time of clearance is entirely procedural and which has since been made good within a short lapse of time: CESTAT

June 14, 2024

++ GST - Accumulation of ITC - Bottling of LPG - No cause for denial of refund on ground that Input and output supplies are one and the same - Clause 3.2 of Board Circular 135/2020 contrary to statutory prescription: HC

++ GST - Clarification by Circular 183/2022 to deal with difference in ITC availed in FORM GSTR-3B as compared to that detailed in FORM GSTR-2A - Matter remanded: HC

++ GST - Application for refund rightly rejected since filed beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 54(1) i.e. two years from the relevant date - No ground to entertain petition: HC

++ GST - Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice; they are not meant to be used to defeat legitimate claims - Assessee cannot be denied ITC refund on being unable to file requisite documents on GST portal: HC

++ ST - As per settled legal position, other than carrying out corrections, denial/withdrawal of any relief granted earlier which is substantial in nature, cannot be made by issuing corrigendum alone: CESTAT

++ ST - Action of issuing Corringendum to deny Cenvat credit in respect of relevant services, is tantamount to reviewing own order & hence is impermissible, also where issue involved is debatable: CESTAT

++ Cus - Customs Broker carried out due diligence as per Regulation 10(n) of CBLR; only act of negligence was in not supervising activities of an employee who mis-used broker's G-Card - this lapse is not serious enough to warrant revocation of broker's license - forfeiture of security deposit & penalty are upheld, for contravening Regulation 13(12): CESTAT

++ Cus - It is settled law that once IEC is issued, the Customs Broker is nobody to challenge its authenticity: CESTAT

June 13, 2024

++ GST - Registration cancellation - Delay in filing application for revocation is condoned subject to deposit of all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. - Thereafter, Proper officer to open portal to allow return filing: HC

++ GST - Appeal rejected on account of delay of 32 days and non-deposit of pre-deposit - Financial crunch and calamity in family being the reasons attributed by petitioner - Matter remanded subject to making statutory deposit: HC 

++ GST - As the amount has already been recovered, Court is inclined to give liberty to petitioner to file statutory appeal within a period of thirty days: HC

++ GST - Order uploaded on GST portal  in 'View Additional Notices' tab - Petitioner unaware of proceedings - Matter remanded upon deposit of 10% of tax demand - Bank account attachment lifted: HC

++ Cus - determination of value proposed in SCN done as per Section 28(8), by relying on a Show Cause Notice which has yet to be adjudicated, is not tenable: CESTAT

++ Cus - An allegation which is yet to be adjudicated in a Show Cause Notice, cannot be made evidentiary basis to sustain demand in another; A weak foundation of allegation in one matter per se cannot lead to strong edifice of sustainable evidence in another matter: CESTAT

++ CX - Since Chartered Accountant certificate certified that duty incidence has not been passed on by assessee, different interpretation cannot be placed to counter findings recorded in impugned order that doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable: CESTAT

++ ST - The activity undertaken by assessee in nature of cutting, punching, drilling, heat treatment on steel plates so as to send the products to M/s. BHEL would amount to manufacture: CESTAT

++ ST - Without any evidence to hold that effective control and possession has not been transferred, it could not held that any service in nature of 'Supply of Tangible Goods' has been provided: CESTAT

June 12, 2024

++ GST - Medicine for  'Spinal Muscular Atrophy' - Ad hoc  IGST exemption - Application for exemption has not been favoured with any reply - Petitioner will be entitled to purchase drug Risdiplam without payment of GST: HC

++ GST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HC

++ GST - Respondents are directed to supply documents within three days to enable petitioner to file SCN, thereafter petitioner may file reply to SCN within ten days: HC

++ GST - Petitioner is required to be relegated to avail alternative efficacious remedy under Section 107 of GST Act to challenge impugned order before appellate authority: HC

++ Cus - The suspension of Customs Broker Licence of appellant vide impugned order cannot continue, as Department has not followed the time-limit prescribed for initiation of proceedings subsequent to suspension: CESTAT

++ Cus - A person holding H-Card, if acts for same third party without knowledge of CHA, in what way CHA would be able to control all activities undertaken by H-Card Holder is not known, order imposing penalty and forfeiture of amount of security deposit furnished by Customs Broker is set aside: CESTAT

++ ST - The proprietor of firm was passed away during course of proceeding, therefore, proceeding against appellants is not sustainable: CESTAT

++ ST - Service rendered by appellant is simply the service by way of transportation of goods which is covered under Sub-clause B of Section 66D of Finance Act, thus, appellant is wrongly held liable for payment of service tax on said activity: CESTAT

++ CX - Charge of clandestine removal levelled against assessee is a serious charge, a charge of this nature cannot be summarily proved without conducting any commensurate investigation: CESTAT

June 11, 2024

++ GST - If Proper Officer views that any further details were required, same could have been specifically sought from petitioner but no such opportunity was given to petitioner to clarify its reply, matter remitted to Proper Officer for re-adjudication: HC

++ CX - Physician samples cleared to principal manufacturer are assessable under Rule 4 r/w Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000: CESTAT

++ CX - Physician samples manufactured & cleared on job work basis for free distribution also must be assessed on value of retail sale price of similar goods & not under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000: CESTAT

++ CX - As appellant has been able to establish that the items in question have been used in fabrication of their capital goods, appellant has correctly availed the CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

++ Cus - Provisional release of seized gold bars ordered on the condition that appellant provides a Bond for full value of seized gold supported by Bank Guarantee to the extent of 25% of value of seized goods: CESTAT

++ Cus - Import of spectacle frames - confiscation u/s 111(m), redemption fine & penalty u/s 112A is upheld where frames priced upwards of USD 180 each were declared at price of USD 1.25 each - misdeclaration clearly established: CESTAT

June 10, 2024

++ GST - Complete failure of the respondent to engage with submissions of petitioner and record reasons for rejecting the same - Orders set aside and matter remanded: HC

++ GST - Entire ITC was claimed under heads of CGST and SGST instead of claiming it under IGST - GST RFD-01 to be decided expeditiously - No coercive action in the interim: HC

++ Cus - Smuggling of gold bars - Petitioner is an unsuspecting traveller who trusted the 1st petitioner and allowed him to keep gold bars in her hand bag - Son, aged 10 years is suffering from epilepsy - Malaysian passport to be returned to petitioner alone: HC

++ ST - Petitioner failed to participate in adjudication proceedings - Order set aside and matter remanded subject to petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax: HC

++ Sales Tax - Evidence collected by department, which is adversarial to the petitioner, should be made available to him for his rebuttal before finalisation of the order: HC

++ ST - Department has not brought in any evidence to the effect that extended period can be invoked, accordingly, confirmed demand for extended period is set aside on account of limitation itself: CESTAT

++ Cus - Merely on the basis of quote available on website, value cannot be enhanced: CESTAT

++ CX - Without carrying out the process as envisaged under Section 9D, adjudication is not fair, therefore matter remanded to adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after conducting examination in chief: CESTAT

++ CX - As per settled precedent, cost of After Sales Service is not to be included in assessable value of manufactured goods: CESTAT

June 08, 2024

++ ST - Benefit of deduction allowed as per Notfn No 12/2003-ST cannot be denied solely because value of goods consumed in providing taxable service, is not separately indicated in invoice or if no separate invoice for such goods is made: CESTAT

++ Cus - This being a case of willful misdeclaration of imported goods, Tribunal do not find it proper to interfere with demurrage/detention charges if any, payable by appellant: CESTAT

June 07, 2024

++ GST - CGST/SGST Act are valid legislations: HC

++ GST - ITC is in the nature of concession or entitlement, which is not an absolute right and is subject to the conditions and restrictions: HC

++ GST - Sections 16(2)(c) and s.16(4) are neither unconstitutional nor onerous on the taxpayer: HC

++ GST - ITC - s. 100, s.105 of FA, 2022 r/w 18/2022-CT - Amendments made to ease the difficulties, being procedural, has to be given retrospective effect: HC

++ GST - If on examination of evidence and documents submitted by petitioner, Assessing Officer is satisfied that claim is bonafide and genuine, petitioner should be given credit of input tax which has been denied by impugned order: HC

++ GST - It would be open to revenue to pass an appropriate order after giving a proper SCN and an opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner: HC

++ GST - If Proper Officer was of the view that further details were required, same could have been specifically sought from Petitioner, however, no such opportunity was given to Petitioner, thus matter remanded: HC

++ GST - Merely pendency of DRC-01 cannot be a ground to decline the request of tax-payer for cancellation of GST Registration: HC

++ Cus - In case the ACMM is of opinion that summons have been issued in accordance with law, petitioners shall be at liberty to file proceedings afresh, challenging summoning order: HC

++ GST - SCN simply encloses findings of Special Audit and no further reasons are given - Order set aside and matter remitted for re-adjudication: HC

++ GST - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, the same cannot be sustained: HC

++ GST - There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively - Registration to be treated as cancelled w.e.f the date when petitioner filed an application seeking cancellation: HC

++ GST - If the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought - Order set aside and matter remitted: HC

++ GST - Petitioner did not file reply to SCN assuming that proceedings u/s 73 had been closed - One opportunity to be granted for responding to SCN: HC

June 06, 2024

++ GST - Order cancelling registration is passed without assigning any reasons, whatsoever in nature - Matter remanded to Assessing officer: HC

++ CX - Exemption from excise duty on RMC used by assessee on the site - Tribunal has considered the applicability of the Notification - Appeal lies before Apex Court: HC

++ GST - Intra court appeal filed against order directing appellant to avail statutory appellate remedy - In peculiar facts and circumstances viz. issue revenue neutral, matter remanded to adjudicating authority: HC

++ GST - Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically: HC

++ GST - Accountant entrusted with GST compliance on maternity leave - Petitioner unaware of SCN proceedings - Ex- parte order passed - One opportunity needs to be granted to respond: HC

++ GST - Unsatisfactory reply - If the Proper Officer was of the view that any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought - Matter remitted: HC

++ GST - Registration cancelled upon request - Petitioner was unaware of further proceedings viz. SCN as he had no access to portal - Order passed ex parte - One opportunity to be given to respond: HC

++ CX - Item of syringe without needle is entitled for concessional rate of duty under Serial No. 310 of exemption Notification No. 12/2012-CE dt. 17.03.2012; concessional rate of tax @ 6% is applicable thereon: CESTAT

++ CX - The exclusion given under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 regarding upto the place of Removal cannot be applied to goods covered u/s 4A of Central Excise Act 1944: CESTAT

++ Cus - Mis-declaration of goods imported by appellants rendered the same liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) ibid and attracted Section 112 for imposition of penalty for improper importation thereof: CESTAT

June 05, 2024

++ GST - Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of appeal - Petitioner to approach appellate authority within a period of six weeks: HC

++ GST - Transitional credit - Initial year of rolling out of GST and petitioner unaware of documents that are required to be produced - One more opportunity to be provided: HC

++ GST - Petitioner had no opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of the registration - Order cannot sustain: HC

++ GST - Petitioner had transferred business to another entity, therefore, did not have access to portal and hence could not submit reply - One opportunity needs to be granted - Matter remitted for re-adjudication: HC

++ GST - Fact that Petitioner was made to deposit amounts at 3:10 and 3:18 AM before the search ended and the officers left at 5:00 AM, shows that deposit was not voluntary - Department to refund amount with interest @6%: HC

++ GST - Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted - If any further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought - Matter remitted for re-adjudication: HC

++ GST - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation - Order set aside and registration is restored: HC

++ GST - Proper Officer had to at least consider reply on merits and then form an opinion - Order ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remanded: HC

++ GST - Cancellation of registration retrospectively - Order modified to the limited extent that registration shall now be treated as cancelled w.e.f 06.05.2019 i.e., date when petitioner filed an application seeking cancellation of registration and the registration was suspended: HC

++ GST - Once registration stood suspended, there was no cause for petitioner to file any returns - Accordingly, cancellation of registration on the ground that petitioner has failed to file returns is not sustainable: HC

++ GST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed: HC

++ Cus - The goods since were found to be of poor quality as contrary to declaration of those being newly manufactured goods, this declaration has rightly been held basis for order of confiscation of these goods: CESTAT

June 04, 2024

++ Cus - By resorting to detention instead of seizure, the custom authorities cannot circumvent the mandate of s.110(2) of the Act - Since no SCN issued u/s 124, gold chains to be returned: HC

++ Cus - Duty drawback - Delay in sanction - Interest @6% to be paid within four weeks: HC

++ VAT - Department officers are functus officio to modify any order once an assessee files application under Amnesty Scheme: HC

++ VAT - Interest only at statutory rate and not market rate - Petitioner himself availed remedies available under DVAT Act and, therefore, it does not now lie in his mouth to challenge applicability of provisions of DVAT Act insofar as interest is concerned: HC

++ General Sales Tax - Review Petition has very limited scope; must be resorted to only if there is error apparent on face of record; cannot be utilised as means of re-hearing or appeal: HC

++ ST - Appeal filed by an assessee abates, where assessee is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC 2016 & where Resolution Plan stands approved by NCLT: CESTAT

++ ST - Appellant is engaged in construction of new railway lines and covered under Serial 14 of Notfn 25/2012-ST, thus entitled for exemption and not required to pay any service tax on services provided by them: CESTAT

June 03, 2024

++ GST - COVID - Darkest period - Writ petitions, challenging Notification 9/2023-CT extending time granted to adjudicating authorities to pass adjudication orders, fail: HC

++ GST - Legislative wisdom must remain insulated from judicial query: HC

++ GST - To read the marginal note in face of clear language of s.168A is impermissible: HC

++ GST -If reply is unsatisfactory, proper officer could have sought further details before forming an opinion: HC

++ GST - Since the very foundation of entire proceedings i.e., SCN and the order of cancellation of registration are vitiated, Bench is of the view that no purpose would be served in relegating petitioner to the stage of an appeal: HC

++ GST - Proper Officer has opined that the reply is a plain reply which is not supported with proper calculations/reconciliation and relevant documents - One opportunity needs to be granted to petitioner to respond - Matter remitted: HC

++ GST - Demand of seven crores confirmed on ground that reply uploaded is not properly filed - Such conclusion without any justification ex facie shows non-application of mind - Matter remitted for re-adjudication: HC

++ GST - Proper officer holding that the reply filed is partially non-satisfactory ex-facie shows that he has not applied his mind to the complete reply submitted - Matter remitted for re-adjudication: HC

++ Cus - No effort was made by department to ascertain the address from relevant municipal records, courier licence of appellant cannot be revoked: CESTAT

++ ST - Assessee, acting as agent of foreign principals, provided Repair & Maintenance; Installation & Commissioning service in India, but at behest of the latter - Ergo, ultimate beneficiary of services construed as being situated outside India & where consideration is received in foreign exchange - Tax demanded not tenable: CESTAT

++ ST - Reimbursed expenses received by appellant from M/s.ACCL is not liable to be included in taxable value for payment of service tax: CESTAT

++ CX - When there is sufficient evidence to establish that assessee has purchased materials for execution of work and also paid VAT on such goods, department cannot deny abatement and demand service tax on entire gross amount received: CESTAT

June 01, 2024

++ Cus - Whether product imported is Technical grade urea or of fertilizer grade is a question of fact - Court has no expertise to hold that the Chemical Examiner's report is incorrect - Petition dismissed: HC

++ Cus - Smuggling of gold in paste form concealed in rectum - Since the Customs department avers that no item, either the passport or mobile was seized, the petition seeking release of the same is infructuous: HC

++ Cus - Exemption scheme is alive - Petitioner is eligible for exemption from cost recovery charge from the date of payment of the pending arrears: HC

++ GST - Merely because firm was registered on the date of transaction, it cannot be said that department is bound to give ITC benefit since it has been revealed upon investigation that the firm was non-existent and it could not have made any actual supplies: HC

++ GST - Discrepancies between the GSTR-1 statement and the GSTR-3B returns - Demand confirmed with interest and penalty - Petitioner directed to submit reply along with documents for reconsideration: HC

++ ST - Assessee cannot be alleged to have suppressed or willfully mis-stated facts with intent to evade payment of tax, when there are divergent views on the same issue between the Departmental authorities: CESTAT