Supreme Court

Small Tax Effect: Monetary Limit To Prefer An Appeal Before The Supreme Court Is Rs. 2 crores: Supreme Court

Case Title: CIT Versus Swapnil Finance Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effects. The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the monetary limit to file an appeal before the Supreme Court is Rs. 2 crores.

Concessional Rate Of Sales Tax Not Applicable On Oxygen As It Is Not A Raw Material For Manufacture Of Steel: Supreme Court

Case Title: State of Jharkhand and others Versus Linde India Limited and Another

The Supreme Court has held that the main function of oxygen in manufacturing steel is to reduce the carbon content; therefore, it can be considered a refining agent but not a raw material, so the concessional rate of sales tax is not available on oxygen.

The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh has set aside the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court and restored the orders passed by assessing officers to revisional authority—the Joint Commissioner.

Industrial Townships Are "Local Areas" For Entry Tax Levy By States Though They Are Excluded From Municipalities : Supreme Court

Case Title: OCL India Limited vs State of Orissa

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 911

The Supreme Court upheld States' power to impose entry tax from Industrial Township/Areas.

The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and J B Pardiwala held that industrial townships are 'local area' for the purposes of entry tax.

Supreme Court Declines To Grant Relief In Department's SLP Against Judgement On Countervailing Duty

Case Title: Union of India versus Real Strips Ltd.

The Supreme Court adjourned without issuing notice, the department's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's judgement in the case of countervailing duty (CVD).

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna, and Justice J K Maheshwari, while observing in favor of the domestic industry, repeatedly directed the government to follow the judgment of the Gujarat High Court to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Supreme Court Directs Andhra Pradesh To Transfer To Jharkhand CST Collected From Tata Motors In Respect To Sale To APSRTC

Case Title: Tata Motors Limited Versus Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority & Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 847

The Supreme Court has directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC).

The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that after due verification, the amount of central sales tax paid by Tata Motors with respect to the transaction be transferred to Jharkhand immediately on verification. The State of Jharkhand was directed to adjust it towards the central sales tax liability of Tata Motors on sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, which were found to be in the nature of inter-state sales.

Disputes Related To Tax Concessions Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt Ltd. Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 774

The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable.

The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. Undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration. However, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature.

GST Council Recommendations Not Binding On Centre & States; Both Parliament & State Legislatures Can Legislate On GST : Supreme Court

Case Title : Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500

In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments.

A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud held that the Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value.

Importantly, the Court held that both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax.

Case Name: Union of India And Anr. v. M/s. Mohit Minerals Through Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500

Separate IGST On Indian Importers For Ocean Freight Against Concept Of "Composite Supply", Violates Section 8 CGST Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held when the Indian importer is liable to pay Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on the 'composite supply', which includes supply of goods and supply of services of transportation, insurance, etc. in a CIF contract, a separate levy on them for the 'supply of services' by the shipping line would be in violation of Section 8 of the CGST Act.

Indian Company Liable To Service Tax On Secondment Of Employees From Overseas Group Entities As Recipient Of Manpower Supply: Supreme Court

Case Name: C.C., C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526

The Supreme Court has held that when the Overseas group companies providing skilled employees, on secondment basis, to its Indian counterparts amounts to supply of manpower services, the Indian company would be considered as service recipient. Therefore, the Indian company is liable to pay service tax on the salaries of the seconded employees reimbursed to the overseas company.

Tax Exemption Notification Must Be Construed Strictly; Promissory Estoppel Not Applicable In Taxing Matters: Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79

The Supreme Court reinstated the order of the Revenue levying demand of purchase tax and imposing penalty on Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (erstwhile Essar Steel Ltd.) for availing tax benefits without fulfilling all the eligibility criteria/condition of the Scheme For Special Incentives to Prestigious Units floated by the Gujarat Government in 1991.

Supreme Court Rules Tata Steel Has Locus Standi To Challenge Denial Of Input Tax Credit To Its Unit

Case Title: Tata Steel Ltd Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

A Bench of Supreme Court, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, remanded a matter back to Jharkhand High Court for a fresh decision on Tata Steel's writ petition against the denial of input tax credit to its Naomundi unit.

GST Evasion Can't Be Presumed Merely Because Goods Were Delivered After Expiry Of E-Way Bill Due To External Factors Like Traffic Block: Supreme Court

Case Name: Assistant Commissioner (ST) And Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87

The Supreme Court has observed that non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage.

A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue Department assailing the order of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside the order, imposing tax and penalty passed by a Deputy Sales Tax Officer, with cost.

Service Tax - Exemption Notification Should Not Be Liberally Construed ; Assessee Has To Show That He Comes Within Its Purview: Supreme Court

Case: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, New Mandi Yard, Alwar vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203

The Supreme Court observed that exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it is for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification.

The bench comprising upheld the order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi which held that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Agricultural Produce Market Committees) located in different parts of State of Rajasthan liable to pay service tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" for the period upto 30.06.2012.

Whether Product `Nimbooz' Can Be Classified Under Item `Lemonade' Or `Fruit Pulp Or Fruit Juice Based Drinks': Supreme Court To Consider

Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise Hyderabad-I V. M/S Aradhana Foods And Juices Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether the product `Nimbooz' can be classified under item `Lemonade' and/or as `fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks' for the purpose of Central Excise levy.

States Have Legislative Competence To Levy Tax On Lotteries Run By Other States : Supreme Court Allows Appeals Of Kerala & Karnataka

Case Title : State of Karnataka and another vs State of Meghalaya and another and other connected cases

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309

In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court has held that State legislatures have the competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states.

Holding so, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna allowed the appeals filed by the States of Karnataka and Kerala challenging the judgments of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts which held that they lacked the legislative competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states like Nagaland, Meghalaya and Sikkim.

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges The Constitutional Validity Of Levy Of GST On Lease/ Rent Payments

Case Title: Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India has asked the petitioner(s) to serve an advance copy to the Additional Solicitor General to seek instructions in a plea challenging constitutional validity of levy of GST on lease/ rent payments.

Interest On Delayed Refunds Covered Under Principal Provision Of Section 56 Of CGST Act Cannot Exceed 6%: Supreme Court

Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate.

'Anardana' Be Classified Under Heading 1209 Of Tariff Entries Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 & Attract 5% Custom Duty Till Revenue Takes Policy Decision Regarding The Same: Supreme Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise, Amritsar (Punjab) v. M/s. D.L. Steels Etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 2360-2376 of 2009

The Supreme Court held that 'anardana' or dried pomegranate seeds would fall under Heading 1209 of the Tariff entries issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as classified by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, attracting a custom duty at the rate of 5%, till the Revenue takes a considered policy decision regarding its classification.

The issue before the Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi was that revenue authorities (appellant) asserted that 'anardana' falls under the Heading 0813 of the Tariff entries, and would incur custom duty at the rate of 30%, while the importers claimed that it is covered by Heading 1209 and attracts duty at the rate of 5%.

Supreme Court Allows 2-Months Extra Window For Availing Transitional Credit; Directs GSTN To Open Portal For TRAN-1/TRAN-2 Forms

Case Title : Union of India vs. M/s Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 628

In a relief to several assessees who missed the statutory deadline, the Supreme Court has directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to allow a 2-month additional window from September 1, 2022 to October 31, 2022 for claiming Transitional Credit.

TRAN-1 and TRAN-forms were brought to allow assessees to carry forward pre-GST credits to the GST system. As per the GST Rules, such claims had to be filed within 90 days from the date when the GST Act came into force (July 1, 2017). Different High Courts passed directions for extending the timeline, against which the GST department approached the Supreme Court.

Advise States To Implement Digital DIN System : Supreme Court To Centre & GST Council

Pradeep Goyal vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 654

The Supreme Court has directed the GST Council to issue advisory / instructions / recommendations to the respective States regarding implementation of the system of electronic (digital) generation of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the indirect tax administration.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the system, which is already being implemented by the States of Karnataka and Kerala, would be in the larger public interest and enhance good governance. It will bring in transparency and accountability in the indirect tax administration, which are so vital to efficient governance, the bench said.

Service Tax On Composite Works Contracts Not Leviable Prior To 2007 Amendment To Finance Act 1994 : Supreme Court

Case Name: M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 656

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that service tax could not be levied on composite works contracts prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007, which by amending the Finance Act, 1994 had introduced Section 65(105)(zzzza) defining works contracts. The Apex Court noted that in the absence of a charging section and the modalities to levy and assess, service tax cannot be levied on the service element of works contract.

Delhi High Court

Tax deposited During Search Not Voluntary: Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Return Rs.1.80 Crores With Interest

Case Title: M/s. Vallabh Textiles Versus Senior Intelligence Officer

The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to return the amount of Rs. 1.80 crores along with 6% interest as the recovery of tax made during the search was not voluntary.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection, or investigation unless it is voluntary.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection Against Retrospective Denial Of Concessional Rate Of Customs Duty To Solar Units

Case Title: ReNew Hans Urja Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection against the retrospective denial of the vested right of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under project import regulations granted to solar power developers.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju have directed the customs authorities to refrain from taking any precipitative steps at the time of import of goods pursuant to the registration of contracts under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Release Laptop, Computer, Documents, Seized By DGGI During Search

Case Title: Dhruv Krishan Maggu Versus Principal Directorate General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1187

The Delhi High Court has refused to release laptops, computers, documents, and other things that were seized by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) during the search.

The single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has observed that the "documents, books, or things" can be retained for a maximum period of four and a half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of the erroneous refund.

Export Proceeds Not Remitted Within Time; Duty Drawback To Be Recovered: Delhi High Court

Case Title: R.K. Overseas Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI

The Delhi High Court has held that the exporter is otherwise not entitled to duty drawback and, if already paid, is liable to be reimbursed because the buyer did not send any export proceeds within the required time frame.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that since the amount that is lying credited to the petitioner's account, concededly, represents a part of the duty drawback sanctioned in favor of the petitioner against 20 shipping bills, no such direction can be issued that would ultimately result in the petitioner getting access to the funds.

SCN Without Any Reasons: Delhi High Court Quashes Order Cancelling GST Registration

Case Title: Balaji Enterprises Versus Principal Additional Director General

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 986

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Range Inspector has physically verified the premises, neither by serving any notice of the physical verification nor in the report generated after the verification was uploaded on the portal.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that there was an infraction of the provisions of Rule 25 of the CGST and the order has gone beyond the frame of the Show Cause Notice.

Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund After Deducting Differential Amount Of Duty Drawback

Case Title: Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 949

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to grant IGST refund paid on the goods exported after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the Jurisdictional Commissionerates shall be entitled to verify the extent of duty drawback availed by the petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback/CENVAT Credit of Central Excise & Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them. If any adjustment is to be made, it shall be made by the jurisdictional commissionerate.

Preventing Docket Explosion - Pre-SCN Consultation Should Be Held : Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 950

The Delhi High Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the concerned officer to ensure that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice (SCN), a pre-notice consultation is held with the person chargeable with customs duty or interest.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the person chargeable with duty or interest was required to be given fifteen days to make his submission, in writing, concerning the grounds communicated to him in the pre-consultation notice, which is required to be served prior to the issuance of the SCN.

Rate Reduction Benefit By Reduction In Prices: Delhi High Court Directs Loreal To Deposit Principal Profiteered Amount

Case Title: Loreal India Private Limited Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has directed Loreal to deposit the principal profiteered amount after deducting the GST imposed on the net profiteered amount in six equal instalments.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has observed that the interest amount directed to be paid by the department as well as the penalty proceedings and investigation by the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in respect of other products sold by Loreal has stayed till further orders.

Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized CENVAT Credit On Account Of Export Of Legal Services: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST Delhi East Versus Anand and Anand

The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on account of the export of legal services under rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that, as per Rule 5, as long as the service provider provides an output service which is exported without payment of service tax, such a service provider will be eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit.

Delhi High Court Orders To De-seal Business Premises, Directs Assessee To Produce Documents

Case Title: M/s Shakti Oil And Chemical Co. Versus Commissioner of DGST Delhi

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 556

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam S. Bamba has ordered the department to de-seal business premises and directed the assessee to produce documents.

Bail Amount Can Be Paid By Cash Ledger, Debit Ledger Of ITC: Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of A Person Accused of Fraudulently Availing ITC

Case Title: Amit Gupta Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence Headquarters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 426

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has ruled that the bail amount can be paid by cash ledger and debit ledger of the Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Challan Can Be Rectified To Correct Bonafide Errors: Delhi High Court Directs VAT Dept. To Allow Changes in Tax Period

Case Title: : La Mode Fashions Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Value Added Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 195

The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, directed the Value Added Tax (VAT) department to allow rectification of bonafide errors in the tax period of the challan.

Physical verification of business premises; GST dept failed to issue notice : Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bimal Kothari Versus Assistant Commissioner

The Delhi High Court has held that the GST department failed to issue the notice to the person who must be present at the time of physical verification of business premises.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the verification report, though generated, has not been uploaded, as required, in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal.

GST Provisional Attachment Order Not Valid After Expiry Of 1 Year: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.

Revenue Fails To Discharge Onus Of Grant Of Personal Hearing, Delhi High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Refund Application Under GST Act

Case Title: Richie Rich Exim Solutions versus Commissioner of CGST Delhi South

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 310

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order rejecting an applicant's refund application under GST Act on the ground that the revenue authority had breached the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity to the applicant before rejecting its refund application.

Show Cause Notice Completely Deficient In Material Particulars: Delhi High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Order

Case Title: Fada Trading Private Limited Versus Commissioner Goods and Service Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam Bamba has quashed the order cancelling the GST registration as the Show Cause Notice was completely deficient in material particulars.

Voluntary Statement Made Before The Revenue Authorities Cannot Substitute A Statutory Pre-Show Cause Consultation Notice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Gulati Enterprises versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 604

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a voluntary statement made before the revenue authorities cannot substitute a statutory pre-show cause consultation notice, as contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, as it stood before 15.10.2020.

The Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed the contentions of the revenue department that because the petitioner's authorized representative gave a voluntary statement before the concerned officer, the need for issuing a pre-show cause consultation notice was waived.

Inapplicability Of MOOWR Scheme On Solar Power Generating Units: Delhi High Court Says No Coercive Action

Case Title: ACME Heergarh Powertech Private Limited vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Anr.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju issued notice and restrained the customs officer from taking any coercive action against the petitioners assailing the legality of Board Instruction No. 13/2022 dated 9.07.2022. The instruction was issued by the CBIC with regards to the inapplicability of the Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse (no. 2) Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR Scheme) on solar power generating units.

Inapplicability Of MOOWR Scheme On Solar Power Generating Units: Delhi High Court Stays SCN Seeking To Revoke MOOWR License

Case Title: ACME Heergarh Powertech Private Limited vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Anr.

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Vitasta Ganju has stayed the show cause notice issued by the commissioner to revoke the licence under the Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse (no. 2) Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR).

Intention To Evade Tax Is Absent, Taxpayer Needs To Be Given Another Chance: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner/taxpayer needs to be given another chance to establish why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of the e-way bill.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has remanded the matter to the respondent to take a fresh decision on the matter, after giving the petitioner due opportunity to produce relevant material and evidence to establish its case.

EOU Entitled To Claim Deemed Export Drawback On Inputs Which Remained Unutilized With Then-Existing DTA Unit: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has held that duty drawback for goods should extend to unutilized goods which were available at the time of conversion of the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit into a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakhdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the restriction against the claim of concession in duties and taxes applied only vis-à-vis plants, machinery and equipment that had already been installed. The petitioner was allowed to carry forward the advance authorization to the convertedunit,t i.e., 100% EOU, and thereafter fulfil the outstanding export commitment.

Physical Verification Of Business Premises For GST Registration Without Issuing Notice Is Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 905

The Delhi High Court has held that the physical verification of business premises for GST registration without issuing a notice is a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The division bench of Justice Rajeev Shakdher and Justice Taravitasta Ganju has noted that the proper officer opted to have the petitioner's business premises inspected, albeit without the presence of its authorised representative. Had notice or intimation been given, the glitch could have been overcome.

GST Not Payable On Renting Of A Residential Dwelling For Personal Use: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Seema Gupta Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has held that Goods and Service Tax is not payable on renting a residential dwelling for personal use.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh has observed that the rental of a residential dwelling to a proprietor of a registered proprietorship firm who rents it in his personal capacity for use as his own residence and not for use in the course or furtherance of the business of his proprietorship firm and such renting is on his own account and not that of the proprietorship firm, shall be exempt from tax under Notification No.04/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022.

Bombay High Court

Failure To Furnish Certified Octroi Exemption Form; Importer Not Ineligible For Refund Of Octroi Under Section 194(2) Of MMC Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hyprecision Hydraulik versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that failure to furnish a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector, would not render the importer ineligible for refund of Octroi Duty under Section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that production of a duly certified octroi exemption form is not a substantive requirement but merely a procedural requirement to enable an eligible party to claim refund of Octroi under Section 194(2), on imports made in pursuance of a specified contract executed with the Government.

Time Limit To Refer Statement Of Case By CESTAT To High Court, Under Section 130A (4) Of The Customs Act, Is Directory: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Asit C. Mehta Financial Services Limited versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the time limit within which the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is required to refer the statement of the case to the High Court, as prescribed in Section 130A (4) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only directory and not imperative in nature.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor held that the CESTAT is a judicial body, over whose actions the revenue authorities have no control. It added that if the time limit within which the CESTAT is required to make a reference, as provided in Section 130A (4), is construed as mandatory, it might deprive the revenue authorities of their right to have a question of law considered by the High Court.

Assessee Can't forgo the deemed excise credit: Bombay High Court Orders Tran 1 Or Tran 2 to be filed on GST portal

Case Title: Euro Pratik Sales Corporation Vs. Union of India and Ors

The Bombay High Court has held that it will be wholly unfair if the assessee ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit, particularly when under Section 29(3) his liability will continue even after cancellation of registration.

Notification Granting IGST Exemption To Capital Goods Imported Under EPCG scheme Is Clarificatory, Curative: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017, amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs and granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) is clarifying and curative.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Sriram and Justice Arif S. Doctor has directed the department to refund in cash the IGST paid on imports of capital goods made during the period 01.07.2017 to 12.10.2017.

Import Of New/Unused Jewellery For Remaking After Melting In An SEZ, Is Permissible; Bombay High Court Sets Aside Levy Of Customs Duty

Case Title: M/s. Renaissance Global Limited versus Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2003 of 2009)

The Bombay High Court has ruled that import of finished jewellery for the purpose of melting and remaking of fresh pieces of jewellery in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is an authorised operation. Therefore, the Court held that there is no prohibition on import of finished jewellery for remaking, without payment of Customs Duty, in terms of Rule 27(1) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (SEZ Rules).

Bombay High Court Allows Nuvoco Vistas To File GST TRAN-1 For Availing Transitional ISD Credit

Case Title: Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has allowed the assessee, Nuvoco Vistas, to file GST TRAN-1 to avail of the transitional Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of service tax.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has observed that the GST TRAN-1 or revised GST TRAN-1 filed by the units or offices will be based on the manual ISD invoices to be issued by the petitioner's ISD, subject to aggregate credit not exceeding the ISD credit available to the petitioner.

Subleasing Of Containers; Deemed Sale, Service Tax Not Applicable; Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nayana Premji Savala versus The Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 404

The Bombay High Court has ruled that service tax would be applicable on transfer of goods only in cases where there is no "transfer of right to use" the said goods.

The bench of Justices K. R. Shriram and A. S. Doctor ruled that in view of Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution of India, transfer of right to use goods is a deemed sale, which is subject to Sales Tax/VAT. The Court added that Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution does not distinguish between an owner or a lessor of the goods. Thus, the bench ruled that lease of goods for valuable consideration on a "transfer of right to use" basis is a deemed sale, even if the transferor is not the owner of the said goods.

Financial Benefits To Assessee Can't Be A Ground To Levy Interest Without A Statutory Provision: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. versus Union of India & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that penalty or interest on additional customs duty (CVD) and special additional duty of customs (SAD), or surcharge, which is not connected to the basic customs duty, cannot be imposed in the absence of an explicit substantive provision.

The Division Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor observed that there was no substantive provision which obligated the assessee to pay interest or penalty on CVD or SAD, leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or on the surcharge leviable under the Finance Act, 2000.

Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayer To Utilise Amount Available In Electronic Credit Ledger to Pay Pre-Deposit

Case Title: Oasis Realty Versus The Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer may utilise the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger to pay the 10% of tax in dispute as prescribed under Sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor restored the appeal on the taxpayer's promise to debit the Electronic Credit Ledger within one week of the order being uploaded towards the 10% payable under Section 107(6)(b).

Minimum 30 Days Time To Be Granted To File Reply To GST SCN: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sheetal Dilip Jain Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has held that Section 73(8) of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act (MGST Act) permits a person chargeable with tax for a period of 30 days from the issuance of the show-cause notice to make payment of such tax along with interest payable. If he does not wish to make payment, then within the 30 day period he could file a reply to the show-cause notice.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has observed that to file a reply to the show-cause notice, the statutory period cannot be arbitrarily reduced to 7 days by the assessing officer.

Secured Creditors Shall Take Priority Over Government Dues Under SARFAESI Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9

The Bombay High Court has held that the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts shall have priority over government dues, including revenues, taxes, cesses, and rates due to the Central Government, State Government, or local authority under the SARFAESI Act.

The three judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta, Justice M.S.Karnik and Justice N.J. Jamadar has observed that the Sales Tax Commissioners did not claim that they registered the claim with the CERSAI to adhere to the mandate contained in section 26B(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Non-registration of the claim and/or order of attachment entails the consequences envisaged under section 26C (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, dual disability sets in. Firstly, in the absence of material to show that the first charge under section 37 of the MVAT Act was enforced by a valid attachment order before the registration of security interest by the petitioner/secured creditors with the CERSAI, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the right of priority under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Secondly, with the registration of the security interest with the CERSAI on July 9, 2020, coupled with the absence of registration of the department's demand and order of attachment, the claim of the respondents/department becomes subservient to the right of the secured creditor.

Bombay High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging CGST Rules

Case Title – SAT Industries Limited v. Union of India & Anr.

The Bombay High Court on Monday issued notice to Maharashtra government and central government in a petition challenging amendment to Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

"Petitioner is challenging both CGST as well as MGST Rules in this regard. Therefore, notice has to be issued to the learned Attorney General of India as well as the Advocate General", the court stated.

Justices K.R. Shriram and A.S. Doctor, were dealing with a writ petition challenging the amendment to Rule 21A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

It Is The Bonafide Mistake Of Taxpayer Paying To Railways Instead Of GST Department: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Arun Krishnachandra Goswami Vs. Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that the taxpayer has made a mistake and instead of paying the Government of India through the CGST authorities and the State of Maharashtra through the SGST authorities, the entire amount was paid to the Government of India through Indian Railways.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor has directed that the amounts which have been wrongly paid to railways should be paid to the CGST authorities and SGST authorities within two weeks.

Limitation Period Starts After Affixing Signatures On GST Registration Cancellation Order: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ramani Suchit Malushte Versus Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has held that the limitation period would start only after the affixing of signatures on the GST registration cancellation order.

"Only on the date on which the signature of Respondent issuing authority was put on the order dated November 14, 2019, for the purpose of attestation, would time to file an appeal commence," the division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice A.S. Doctor said.

Exporter Not Required To Hold IEC Number To Avail Benefits Under 'Service Exports From India' Scheme: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the requirement of holding an Import Export Code (IEC) number at the time of rendering services in order to avail the benefits under the Services Export from India Scheme (SEIS), as imposed by the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 (FTP), is against the intent and purpose of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act).

The Division Bench of Justices S.V. Gangapurwala and Vinay Joshi held that the said condition cannot be termed as mandatory in nature for availing the benefits under the SEIS since it is against the principal legislation, i.e., the FTDR Act.

Assessee Eligible For SVLDRS Declaration Since The Demand Of Duty Quantified On Or Before June 30, 2019: Bombay High Court

Case Title: B. Chopda Construction Private Limited V/s. Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has allowed the declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the grounds that although there was an audit, the amount of duty quantified has also been quantified before 30th June 2019.

The division bench of Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Milind N. Jadhav has observed that the rejection of the petitioner's declaration on the ground that the final audit report was issued after June 30, 2019 was incorrect.

Customs Authorities Cannot Encash Bank Guarantee Before Expiry Of The Limitation Period For Filing An Appeal: Bombay High Court

Case Title: S. J. Enterprises & Anr. versus Union of India

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that Customs Authorities cannot encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by the assessee before the expiry of the statutory period available for filing an appeal.

The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Sonak ruled that despite the assurances given to the Bombay High Court in the case of Legrand (India) Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India (2007), the Customs Authorities had breached the law by adopting coercive measures and encashing the Bank Guarantees before the expiry of the limitation period available for filing a statutory appeal.

Bombay High Court Directs CBIC To Issue Clarification Regarding Distribution/ Reporting Of ISD Credit

Case Title: Unichem Laboratories Limited versus Union of India and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue a clarification in relation to the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.

The Bench of Justices K.R. Shriram and Gauri Godse was dealing with a batch of writ petitions, highlighting the difficulties faced by the petitioners in the distribution/ reporting of the ISD credit.

Services Rendered Abroad Amounts to Export Of Services, No GST Applicable: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jar Productions Private Limited Versus The Union of India & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has held that GST does not apply to the services rendered abroad as they amount to the export of services.

The division bench of Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice M.G. Sewlikar has allowed the GST refund to the petitioner/assessee as the department has failed to establish that the incidence of tax was passed on to the client amounted to unjust enrichment.

Service Recipient Liable To Pay GST On Interest Amount Under Arbitral Award For Delayed Payment: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s Angerlehner Structural and Civil Engineering Company Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

The Bombay High Court has held that the service recipient is liable to pay the GST to the government on interest under an arbitrary award and it can not be deducted from the dues payable to the service provider.

The single bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla has observed that service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability for service tax.

COVID-Supreme Court Order Suspending Limitation Is Applicable For Refund Under GST Act – Bombay High Court

Case Title: Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 6

The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST refusing refund of GST paid by a private export company on the ground that the company's application was time barred or not filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) Act.

A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and SM Modak observed that the Supreme Court's decision from March, 2020, extending the time limit prescribed under the general or special laws, for proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic, would apply in the present case.

Issue Norms As To How Many Times Summons Can Be Issued During Investigations: Bombay High Court Directs GST Dept

Case Title: Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 64

The Bombay High Court has directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department to issue norms as to how many times summons can be issued during investigations.

The division bench of Justice S.M.Modak and Justice R.D.Dhanuka has directed the Department/respondents to indicate as to how many time summons were issued by the respondents to the petitioners, for what purpose and the progress of the investigation during this period. Affidavit shall also indicate as to when the investigation would be completed by the respondents against the petitioners.

Appeal Against CESTAT Order, On Classification Of Goods, And Determination Of Customs Duty Lies Before The Supreme Court: Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs II versus Axiom Cordages Ltd

The Bombay High Court has ruled than an appeal from an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), involving the question with respect to classification of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, would lie before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, since it is primarily related to determination of the rate of customs duty applicable.

Dept. To Decide Whether Corrected Form TRAN-1 Would Be Entertained As Per Transitional Provision Under GST: Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayers To Correct Form TRAN-1

Case Title: Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed the taxpayers to correct Form TRAN-1. The court has directed the department to consider the issue of whether Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed or corrected by the petitioner can be entertained in accordance with provisions of section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not.

Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court

Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court has ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both.

The three-judge bench of Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Justice Nitin W. Sambre, and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that the fiscal legislation can very well stipulate as a requirement of law a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority. Thus, section 129E of the Customs Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional.

Roaming Services And International Long Distance Services Provided By Vodafone Idea To Foreign Telecom Operators Is An Export Of Service: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited versus UOI and Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the international Inbound Roaming Services (IIR) and the International Long Distance (ILD) Services provided by Vodafone Idea to Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) is an export of services, and thus, Vodafone Idea is eligible for the refund of the IGST paid by it.

The Bench, consisting of Justices K. R. Shriram and Milind N. Jadhav, observed that Vodafone Idea had entered into agreements with the FTOs and that there was no mention of any agreement with the subscribers of the FTOs. Hence, the Court ruled that the subscribers of the FTO cannot be considered as the recipient of the services and that the said services rendered by Vodafone Idea were supplied to the FTOs.

Gujarat High Court

Reassessment Should Only Be Done By Officer Or His Successor And Not By Any Officer Of The Same Rank : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Rajendra M. Saraen, while invalidating the reassessment initiated by the DRI, held that the officer who did the assessment could only undertake reassessment.

GST Refund To Be Granted To The Entity Who Borne The Tax Burden: Gujarat High Court Allows GST Refund To Service Recipient

Case Title: Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has held that, as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, a claim of refund may be made directly by the recipient if he has borne the burden of tax.

Bonafide Mistake In Selection Of Wrong ODC Vehicle Type While Generating E-Way Bill: Gujarat High Court Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Dhabriya Polywood Limited Vs Union of India

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order as there was a bonafide mistake in the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-way bill.

The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala (as then was) and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the goods were in transit with all the necessary documents, including the E-way bill generated from the GST portal. The goods were moved by a truck whose registration number was also correct. The only mistake in this case was the selection of the wrong ODC vehicle type while generating the e-Way Bill.

Section 44 Of GVAT Act Akin To Garnishee Order; Requires Debtor-Creditor Relationship: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer

"It can be said that in interpreting a taxing statute, the equitable considerations are entirely out of place. The reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax," Justice JB Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court has opined.

Provisional Attachment Not To Hamper Normal Business Activities: Gujarat High court Quashes Attachment Order

Case Title: Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the provisional attachment should not hamper normal business activities of the taxable person.

Gujarat High Court Condemns Coercive Steps Taken By Dept. For Recovery Of Dues From Wipro While Appeal Was Pending

Case Title: M/s Wipro Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the coercive steps of the department for recovery of dues from Wipro when the appeal was pending before the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.

Gujarat High Court Directs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST To Finalise Assessment Proceedings Within 2 Months On Account Of Severe Delay

Case Title: Modern Syntex (I) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of CGST

The Gujarat High Court has recently issued a writ directing the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise to initiate and complete the final assessment proceedings concerning the Applicant company and further release the Bank Guarantees in favour of the Applicant within two months. The Applicant company had also showed monetary losses worth INR 96,87,616 due to the bank guarantee charges and claimed compensation for the same in its writ application.

If The Authorities Acknowledge The Error And Accepts Repayment Of Erroneous Refund, It Is Logical To Restore The ITC In The Electronic Tax Ledger : Gujarat High Court

Case Title: I-Tech Plast India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court has directed the revenue to re-credit/restore the Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of INR 1,39,49,810 in the electronic tax ledger of the writ petitioner . The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore was hearing a writ petition which sought from the Respondent-authorities to re-credit the ITC of INR 139,49,810 in the electronic credit ledger along with interest.

Fraudulent Claim of ITC, Revenue Interest is Protected by Attachment: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail

Case Title: Niraj Jaidev Arya Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Gita Gopi has granted bail to the accused of fraudulently availing the input tax credit (ITC) as the department has attached the immovable properties, which were much beyond the alleged GST evasion.

Dealer's GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled For Inadvertent Mistake Of CA: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s Dilipkumar Chandulal Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the dealer should not be forced to pay a hefty price for the cancellation of the GST registration for the chartered accountant's mistake.

Attachment of Immovable Properties Of Director Despite settlement of Tax Dues Under Tax Resolution Scheme: Gujarat High Court Condemns Dept.

Case Title: Shri Shakti Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commercial Tax Officer

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has condemned the act of the department for attaching the personal immovable properties of the director even though the tax dues were settled under the Tax Resolution Scheme.

Gujarat High Court Releases Confisticated Cash, Goods As GST Dept. Delayed Issuance Of SCN Beyond Statutory Time Period

Case Title: Amit Harishkumar Doctor Versus Union of India

The Gujarat High Court has released the confisticated ​​cash and goods as the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department delayed issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) beyond statutory time period.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak has observed, "it is quite unfathomable as to why the time limit is not adhered to and issuance of the show cause notice has been delayed beyond the statutory time period and hence, intervention will be necessary at the end of this Court by keeping open the rights of the respondents to initiate adjudication process afresh in accordance with law."

Input/Output Ratios To Be Considered For Determining Quantum Of Refund Of Unutilized GST ITC: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Messers Filatex India Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the input or output ratios to be considered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has directed Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the claim of the writ applicants in accordance with Sub Rule (4B) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, but keeping in mind the formula of input or output ratio of the inputs or raw materials used in the manufacturing of the exported goods.

Dept. Can't Raise Their Hands In Despair For Technical Glitches In GST Portal: Gujarat HC Directs Dept. To Allow Manual Furnishing Of GSTR-6

Case Title: M/s Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has come down heavily on the Goods and Service Tax Department for technical glitches in the portal.

The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore observed that the writ petitioner/ taxpayer has been running from pillar to post requesting the respondents/ department to provide a solution and take care of the technical error and glitch that occurred as regards furnishing the GSTR-6 return for recording and distributing the Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit.

ITC Received From Input Service Distributor Lying Unutilized In Electronic Credit Ledger Liable To Be Refunded: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s. IPCA Laboratories Versus Commissioner

The Gujarat High Court has held that Input Tax Credit received from input service distributor lying unutilized in electronic credit ledger is liable to be refunded.

Department Cannot Block GST ITC Without Assigning Any Reason: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s New Nalbandh Traders Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has held that the department cannot block the Input Tax Credit (ITC) without assigning any reason to the assessee.

Goods In Transit Can't Be Confiscated Under CSGT Act On Grounds Of Under-Valuation Or Wrong Route: Gujarat High Court

Case title - M/S. KARNATAKA TRADERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 1

The Gujarat High Court has held that mere undervaluation of the goods or change of route of the consignment can't be sufficient grounds to detain the goods and vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Holding thus, the Bench of Justice Nisha M. Thakore quashed the entire confiscation proceedings including the notice issued u/s 130 of CGST Act against the Petitioner, Karnataka Traders, who is a seller of the goods (Arecanut) and a registered dealer under the GST.

Electronic Credit Ledger Can Be Blocked Under GST Rules 2017 Only If Credit Balance Is Available: Gujarat HC Orders Authorities To Refund ₹20L

Case Title: SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 46

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the power prescribed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules 2017 to block an electronic credit ledger can be exercised only when there is availability of credit in such ledger, alleged to be ineligible.

Gujarat High Court Directs Refund Of IGST In Electronic Credit Ledger For SEZ Unit U/S 54 Of CGST Act, 2017

Case Title: M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd vs Commissioner

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the Writ Applicant can be entitled to claim the refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there was no specific supplier who could claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as Input Tax Credit as distributed by the input service distributor. Further directing the Respondent-Authority to process claim of refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M Thakore allowed the writ application.

Gujarat High Court Quashes Non-Speaking And Vague GST Cancellation Order

Case Title: Sing Traders Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as he then was and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has quashed the GST cancellation order as it was non-speaking and vague.

Order Passed On The Same Day When Notice Was Issued Led To The Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: M/s MBR Flexibles Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has quashed the order under GST on the grounds that the notice as well as the order were passed on the same date, denying the opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Gujarat High Court Directs Dept. To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight Along With The Interest

Case Title: ADI Enterprises Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice A.J. Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has directed the department to refund IGST on ocean freight along with the interest.

Gujarat High Court Directs CBIC To Refund IGST On Ocean Freight

Case Title: M/s Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to refund the Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on ocean freight within six weeks along with the statutory rate of interest.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India in which GST on ocean freight was struck down.

Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Person Alleged Of Creating Fictitious Entity To Pass Ineligible ITC

Case Title: Mohmed Hasan Aslam Kaliwala Versus State Of Gujarat

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 338

The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a person alleged to have created a fictitious entity to pass an ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The single bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora has directed the release of the applicant on bail, subjected to a deposition of Rs. 2 crore before the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Division 8, Enforcement, Surat within a period of 2 months from the applicant's release.

GST Tribunal Not Constituted After Lapse Of 5 Years Of Introduction Of GST: Gujarat High Court Issues Notice

Case Title: M/S Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Gujarat High Court has issued a notice to the central and state government seeking to know the steps taken for constituting the GST Tribunal.

The bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt was presiding over the petition, which involved the issue of the non-formation of the GST Tribunal, which has not been formulated though nearly five years have passed.

Mere E-Way Bill Expiry Does Not Establishes Intention To Evade Taxes: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Shree Govind Alloys Versus State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court has held that mere e-way bill expiry does not establish an intention to evade taxes.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the detention was on the ground that the goods were subject to the expiration of the e-way bill number, which had expired during the transit, and this cannot be the ground for detaining and seizing M.S. Billet along with the truck.

Gujarat High Court Releases Bank Account From Attachment Of Subsidiary Of Taiwan Company Subject To The Personal Undertaking Of The Directors

Case Title: FCS Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax

The Gujarat High Court has directed the department to release the bank account from the attachment of the subsidiary of the Taiwan Company subject to the personal undertakings of the directors.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt, in order to secure the revenue's interest, has directed the department to continue the attachment of FD with DBS amounting to Rs. 2.65 crores.

No Fraudulent Intention Established: Gujarat High Court Quashes Penalty

Case Title: Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

The Gujarat High Court has held that the department could not establish any element of tax evasion with fraudulent intent or negligence.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the delay was of almost 4 1⁄2 hours before the e-Way bill could expire. It appeared to be bonafide and without establishing any fraudulent intention.

Zero Supply Led Assessee To Believe There Was No Requirement To File GST Returns: Gujarat High Court Quashes Order Cancelling GST Registration

Case Title: Atlafbhai Rajabali Dosani Vs Superintendent

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the order of cancellation of registration and directed the department to restore the registration of the petitioner.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt has observed that the zero supply led the petitioner to believe that he was not required to file the returns. The assessee's consultant had not advised him correctly, which led to the non-filing of the return, which has now been filed.

Notification Issued Under Section 25 Of Customs Act, Effective From The Date It Is Digitally Signed: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Adani Wilmar Limited versus Union of India

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, enhancing the rate of customs duty, would be applicable only on the bills of entry presented after the said notification was e-published in the electronic Gazette and digitally signed.

Karnataka High Court

Open Purchase Orders Are Standing Offers, Movement of goods are mere stock transfers, No Sales Tax Payable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. BASF India Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 461

The Karnataka High Court has held that open purchase orders are only standing offers that do not constitute a confirmed "agreement to sell" and that movements of goods are mere stock transfers.

Export Of Software Embedded Into Hardware; Sale Proceeds From Export Of Hardware Eligible For Deduction : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Subex Limited versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that where a software embedded into a hardware is exported by the assessee, the proceeds from export of the hardware component is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the hardware was separately invoiced and was not manufactured by the assessee, if the software cannot be used independently.

Just Because The Ratio For Payment Of Service Tax Not Adhered To, Assessee Not Liable To Pay Double Tax As Penalty: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Vice Chairman Settlement Commission & Anr. versus M/s Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that merely because the ratio in which service tax was required to be paid by the service recipient and the service provider was not strictly adhered to, the assessee cannot be made liable to pay double tax by denying him the CENVAT Credit.

The Bench, consisting of Justices S. Sujatha and Shivashankar Amarannavar, held that the reverse charge mechanism should not lead to double taxation.

No Conflict Between Power To Levy GST And Power Of Municipal Corporation To Levy Advertisement Fee Or Advertisement Tax: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hubballi Dharwad Advertisers Association (R) Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj held that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under the GST Act and the power of a municipal corporation to levy an advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

18% GST Payable On 'Pattadar Pass Book Cum Title Deed' ; Karnataka High Court Upholds AAR Ruling

Case Title: M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice S. Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, while upholding the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), held that 18% GST is payable on 'pattadar pass book cum title deed'.

Municipal Corporations Can Levy Advertisement Fee/ Tax Under KMC Act, No Conflict With Levy Of GST: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HUBBALLI DHARWAD ADVERTISERS ASSOCIATION and others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 144

The Karnataka High Court has declared that there is no conflict between the power to levy GST under GST Act and power of Municipal Corporation to levy advertisement fee or advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

Karnataka High Court Upholds GST & Central Excise Duty On Tobacco; Says 'Articles 246 & 246A Can Be Simultaneously Exercised'

Case Title: M/s.V.S.Products v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the notification dated July 6, 2019 issued by the Union of India by which Central Excise Duty has been levied on tobacco and tobacco products.

A single Judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav said, "It needs to be kept in mind that taxation is not merely a source of raising revenue but is also recognised by the fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objective."

Building Owner Can Claim GST Exemption If Residential Premises Leased Out Are Used As Hostel: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals.

District Magistrate Empowered To Attach Property, Not Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP).

Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy.

No Suppression Of Facts, Show Cause Notice Based On Balance Sheet: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Tax Vs ABB Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the assessee is not liable for the suppression of facts as the show cause notice was issued on the basis of the disclosures made in the balance sheet.

Limitation Period Is Not Applicable On Refund Of Service Tax Wrongly Paid: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Bellatrix Consultancy Services Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar and Justice Anant Ramanath Hedge has held that the limitation period is not applicable to a refund of service tax wrongly paid.

Karnataka High Court Quashes CBIC Circular Imposing GST On Annuity Payments Awarded By Highway Authorities To concessionaires

Case Title: M/s. D.P.J. Bidar-Chincholi (Annuity) Road Project Pvt Ltd.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST is not exempt on the annuity (deferred payments) paid for the construction of roads and allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.

The single bench of Justice M.I. Arun observed that a circular which clarifies the notification cannot have the effect of overruling the notification.

Interest on Tax Refund Payable On Expiry Of 3 Months From The Date Of Refund Application: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Al Tisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

The Karnataka High Court has held that the interest on a delayed tax refund is payable on the expiration of 3 months from the date of filing the refund application.

The single bench of Justice R. Krishna Kumar has observed that merely because there were certain deficiencies or lacunae in the refund claim by the petitioner, the circumstance cannot be relied upon or made the basis by the respondent or department to contend that it was entitled to pass the refund sanction order beyond the prescribed statutory period of three months.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Provisional Attachment Of Fixed Deposits Worth Rs. 3700 Crores Against Xiaomi

Case Title: Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the provisional attachment of fixed deposits worth Rs. 3700 crores against Xiaomi. The single bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has quashed the provisional attachment of the fixed deposit subjected to various conditions.

Allahabad High Court

Demand Of Tax and penalty can't be imposed on the basis of conjecture : Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State Of U.P. Versus M/S Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 480

The Allahabad High Court has held that the demand for tax and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of conjecture and surmise, especially in cases where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and E-way bill.

GST Dept. Can Only Seize Goods In Transit And Not From Godown : Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 418

The Allahabad High Court has held that the goods lying in the gowndown cannot be seized by invoking section 129 of the CGST Act. The power of seizure can be exercised only in the case of goods in transit and not for goods lying in godown.

The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that it is unbelievable that two (not one) authorities of the Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department chose to act with negligence. The provision of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act could not be invoked to subject a godown premises to a search and seizure operation. The department was unmindful of the Act as no action was taken under Section 67. Section 67 of the CGST relates to the existence of "reasons to believe" that premise is subject to search and seizure of goods or documents found therein.

GST Dept. Made Attachment Without Recording Opinion And Referring To Any Tangible Material: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost

Case Title: Varun Gupta Versus Union Of India

The Allahabad High Court has held that the department has neither recorded the opinion nor referred to any tangible material which necessitated him to pass the provisional attachment order to protect the interest of the government revenue.

The division bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji has directed the department to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner/assessee.

Revocation of GST Registration Can't Be Rejected Solely For Delay In Moving Revocation Application: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Umesh Kumar Versus State Of U.P. [Writ Tax No. - 648 of 2021]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 513

The Allahabad High Court has held that the rejection of registration solely on the ground of delay in moving the revocation application is not sustainable in law when the entire tax is deposited.

The single bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has observed that once the department has accepted the return and there are no outstanding dues, the department should not obstruct the business of an assessee.

Kerala High Court

No Legislative Competence To Amend KVAT Act After Introduction Of GST Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State Tax Officer & Anr Vs. Baiju A.A

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 462

The Kerala High Court has held that legislative competence to amend the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act after the introduction of the GST Act is impermissible.

The division bench of S.V.Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji has observed that the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2018 to the provisions of the erstwhile KVAT Act to enable the department to initiate assessment proceedings in respect of assessments pending as of March 31, 2018 was illegal because the KVAT Act has already been repealed.

Assessee Has Statutory Right To File An Appeal Even After Voluntary Payment Of GST/Penalty: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Hindustan Steel and Cement Versus Assistant State Tax Officer

The Kerala High Court has held that assessees have a statutory right to file an appeal even after the voluntary payment of GST or penalty.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath has observed that the culmination of proceedings in respect of a person who seeks to make payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) does not result in the generation of a summary of an order under Form DRC-07 and cannot result in the right of the person to file an appeal under Section 107 being deprived.

Officer Is Duty Bound To Consider Explanation Offered For Expiry Of The E-Way Bill: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sanskruthi Motors Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 458

The Kerala High Court has held that the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P has observed that the officer rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner by stating that no evidence of repair being carried out has been produced. The officer imposed a penalty/tax on the grounds that the petitioner had ample time to revalidate the E-way bill.

Kerala High Court Directs GST Dept. To Facilitate Revision Of Form GST TRAN-1 By Making Necessary Arrangements On The Portal

Case Title: M/S G&C infra Innovations v. Union of india

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has directed the GST department to facilitate the revising of Form GST TRAN-1 and filing of Form GST TRAN-2 by making necessary arrangements on the web portal.

KVAT Registration Once Cancelled Has To Be Published In Two Leading Daily Newspapers: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The State of Kerala Versus Raseena K.K.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 215

The Kerala High Court ruled that once a Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) registration is cancelled, it must be published in at least two major daily newspapers, and the dealer must be notified in accordance with Form No.5 B.Then only will the cancellation of registration be effective.

Credit Notes Not Affecting Input Tax Can't Be Treated As Taxable Turnover: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Saji Thomas Vs Assistant Commissioner

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice S.V. Bhatti, Bechu Kurian Thomas, and Justice Basant Balaji has held that credit notes not affecting input tax already deposited cannot be treated as taxable turnover by the extended meaning of Section 2 subsection (iii) Explanation VII of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

Cannot Waive The Statutory Mandate of Pre-Deposit Merely On The Plea Of Financial Hardships: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the high court cannot waive the statutory mandate of pre-deposit merely on the plea of financial hardships.

Bonafide Error In Format Of Date On E-Way Bill, Warrants Only Minor Penalty: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has held that a minor penalty can be imposed for a bona fide mistake in the date on an e-way bill.

Can GST Be Imposed On Royalty Paid To Govt? Kerala High Court To Consider

Case Title: Royal Sand & Gravels Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Kerala High Court has admitted a plea that has raised significant questions of whether royalty paid to the government qualifies as tax and if GST can be imposed on such royalty.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) Of Municipality Rules On Property Tax Fixation

Case Title: K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Kerala High Court has set aside Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year, if the property tax arrived at on computation as per the Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year.

Justice N. Nagaresh pointed out that Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 does not permit the fixation of property tax over and above the upper limit fixed by the Government.

Taxpayer Can't Approach High Court To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposits While Availing Appellate Remedy: Kerala HC

Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

VAT Defaulter Not Liable To Pay Collection Charges If Opts Amnesty Scheme: Kerala High Court

Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540

The Kerala High Court has held that collection charges are not payable if a VAT defaulter opts for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017.

The single bench of Gopinath P. has noted that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.

Wrong VAT Rate Can Be Rectified: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Crescent Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 631

The Kerala High Court has held that the mistake of applying the wrong value-added tax (VAT) rate can be rectified.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that, as per Section 66 of the KVAT Act, once it is brought to the notice of the officer that there is a mistake in applying the correct rate of tax, it is within the power conferred on the officer to rectify the mistake.

Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand High Court Stays Circular Restricting Filing Of GST Refund For Tax Periods Spread Across Two Financial Years In Chronological Order

Case Title: M/S U P TELELINKS LIMITED v. M/S U P TELELINKS LIMITED & ORS., WPMS 2912/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 4

The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the operation of a Circular issued by the Revenue Authorities, to the extent it inhibits refund claims for a period of two separate (not successive) financial years and requires filing of Refund in a chronological manner.

Rajasthan High Court

Person Making 'Voluntary Disclosure' After Subjected To Audit Is Ineligible To Avail Benefit Of SVLDRS, 2019: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Malik Builders Versus UOI

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 228

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person making "Voluntary Disclosure" after being subjected to any enquiry, investigation, or audit is clearly ineligible to avail the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019).

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas has observed that the petitioner fell within the mischief under Section 125(1)(f) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and was thus not entitled to avail the benefit of the SVLDRS, 2019 by submitting a declaration. The petitioner suppressed the most material fact of its having been subjected to audit proceedings vide intimation dated 28.11.2019 while submitting its declaration on 31.12.2019. It was to mislead the authorities by withholding relevant information, upon disclosure of which its declaration was not liable to be proceeded further. The petitioner, by suppression, procured benefit by way of the issuance of a discharge certificate.

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty

Case Title: Sudershan Lal Gupta & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on reverse charge basis on royalty of mining extraction.

Noting that the Coordinate Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, in several cases, have dismissed the writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on royalty, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta ruled that it was bound by the final orders passed by the Coordinate Benches.

Rajasthan Stamp Act | Duty Can't Be Levied On Transaction Not Having 'Territorial Nexus' With State: High Court

Case Title: Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside a single bench decision which permitted levy of duty under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on an amalgamation instrument executed outside the State pursuant to sanction of Himachal Pradesh High Court, not only in relation to properties situated in Rajasthan, but also on the transfer of shares.

Description Of New Aluminium Section As Aluminium Scrap, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Detention Order

Case Title: M/s. Shrimali Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has held that, by no stretch of imagination, can brand new aluminium sections be placed on equivalence with aluminium scrap. The goods were fraudulently described as aluminium scrap.

The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur has observed that the department was justified in detaining the petitioner's vehicle and the goods after noticing the blatant mis-description during interception.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Person Accused Of GST Evasion

Case Title: Kamal Chand Bothra Versus Union Of India

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has granted bail to the person accused of GST evasion of Rs. 8.64 crore. The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

GST Circular Contra To GST Act, Can't Deny The Claim For ITC refund; Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited Vs Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the GST circular dated 31.03.2020, repugnant to the parent legislation, cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for an accumulated ITC refund.

The division bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has observed that the supplying dealer would be entitled to claim a refund of accumulated unutilised tax credit under Section 54 (3) (ii) of the CGST Act irrespective of the fact that the input and output supplies are the same by ignoring the circular dated 31.03.2020.

Levy Of GST On Mining Royalty: Rajasthan High Court Grants Interim Protection To Petitioners

Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog v. Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court has granted stay on recovery of GST on royalty paid by the Petitioners on mining activity.

The order comes in a bunch of writ petitions filed primarily involving the issue of permissibility of raising demand of GST on royalty. The petitioners in these petitions challenged the notifications whereby, royalty paid by them on mining activity is being subjected to GST and/or notices issued for alleged incriminating discrepancies in returns after scrutiny and analogous proceedings.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Grant Priority of Government Dues Over Debts Due To Secured Creditors

Case Title: Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Punusumi India Limited

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur has refused to grant the priority of the government dues over the debts due to secured creditors.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Director Of A Company Allegedly Involved In GST Evasion Worth Rs.869 Crores

Case Title: Sohan Singh Rao Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has refused to grant bail to the director of a company who was allegedly involved in goods and service tax (GST) evasion worth Rs. 869 crores. The court noted that the Supreme Court in its various decisions held that an economic offender should not be dealt with as a general offender because economic offenders run a parallel economy and they are a serious threat to the national economy.

Non-Availability Of Form GST ITC-02A On GSTN Portal: Rajasthan High Court Allows ITC In GSTR-3B

Case Title: Pacific Industries Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has allowed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST in GSTR-3B Return as FORM GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion.

Provisional Attachment under CGST Act Ceases After Expiry Of One Year: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s B.r. Construction Company Versus Additional Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the provisional attachment under CGST Act ceases to have effect after expiry of one year.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Section 54 CGST Act Pertaining To Tax Refund

Case Title: M/s Triveni Electrodes v. Union Of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has upheld the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The same pertains to Refund of tax.

Akin To Power To Issue & Serve Summons Under Order V CPC: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of S.70 Rajasthan GST Act 2017

Case Title: M/s S.k. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner, B II Enforcement Wing II, Department Of Commercial Taxes

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the vires of Section 70 of Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 which provides for Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.

Rajasthan VAT Act Enacted To Provide Remedy For Loss Of Revenue & Not To Punish Offender For Committing Economic Offence: High Court

Case Title: Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle-A, Bharatpur Rajasthan v. M/s C.P. Agro Industries Roopwas, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has observed that provisions of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 have been enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and not to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of such provision.

The court added that breach would attract levy of penalty whenever the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete form.

Clarification Issued By CBDT Cannot Introduce A Cut Off Date For Its Applicability: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Rakesh Garg Versus Principal Comissioner Of Income Tax, Ajmer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

A Bench of Rajasthan High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, held that since the primary intention of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 was the resolution of disputed taxes, the courts must adopt an interpretation that furthers this intention and not restrict its scope. Also, the court ruled that a clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), being declaratory in nature, cannot introduce a cut off date for its applicability.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST

Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement

Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.

GSTIN Linking Cannot Be Denied Merely For Providing Information In Wrong Form: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: A.H. Marble Crafts, Through Proprietor Mohammad Afzal Vs Commissioner Tax

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) link cannot be denied merely for providing information in the wrong form.

The division bench, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, has observed that absolute hyper-technical ground cannot be considered valid so as to deny the petitioner the opportunity to link the GSTIN of his father's firm with the new GSTIN number of the firm.

Rajasthan High Court Restrains GST Dept. From Recovery Of GST On Royalty Paid On Account Of Excavation Of Sand For Brick

Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of the excavation of sand for brick.

Allahabad High Court

Land Transferred After Cut-Off Date, Applicant Not Entitled To Trade Tax Exemption Under U.P. Trade Tax Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the conditions enumerated in the Exemption Notification No. KA-NI-2-3867, dated 22.12.2001, for availing exemption from Trade Tax under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, are mandatory in nature and have to be strictly complied with.

The Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that since the land was not transferred to the applicant before the cut-off date as prescribed under the said Exemption Notification, the applicant could not be considered as a "new unit" and hence, it was not eligible for trade tax exemption under Section 4-A.

10% VAT Payable On Insulated Glass: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Versus S/S G.S.C. Toughened Glass

The Allahabad High Court has held that 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) is payable on insulated glass.

The single judge bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that insulated glass is nothing but double glazed dual sheet (DGDS).

Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50000 For Arbitrary Cancellation of GST Registration

Case Title: Drs Wood Products Lucknow Versus State Of U.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 383

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for the arbitrary cancellation of GST registration.

The single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the arbitrary exercise of power to cancel the registration in the manner in which it has been done has adversely affected the petitioner. It has also had a negative impact on the revenues that could have flowed into the coffers of GST had the petitioner been allowed to conduct commercial activities. The actions were clearly not in consonance with the ease of doing business, which is being promoted at all levels.

Show Cause Notice Cancelling GST Registration Must Disclose Reason: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others WRIT TAX No. - 1064 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329

The Allahabad High Court has held that the show cause notice cancelling registration must indicate the reason and the mere mentioning of violation under the CGST Act is not sufficient.

The single bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has observed that cancellation of registration has the most serious civil consequences. While Section 29(1) of the CGST Act provides for specific grounds for cancellation with effect from the date of the occurrence of certain events, Section 29(2) provides for harsher consequences, including cancellation of registration with a retrospective date. However, a registration may not be cancelled on the mere whims and fancies of the proper officer. It may be cancelled if the registered person contravenes any provision of the Act or Rule or if the person does not furnish returns for three tax periods consecutively or does not furnish returns for six months continuously. The registration can be cancelled if he does not commence business within six months of the grant of registration or he is found to have obtained registration by means of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Allahabad High Court Stays GST Demand On Payment Of Royalty To Conduct Mining Activity

Case Title: M/s Jitendra Singh Versus Union of India

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has stayed the GST demand on payment of royalty to conduct mining activity.

Applicability of GST On Royalty On Mining: Allahabad High Court Directs Assessee To Reply To SCN

Case Title: M/s Ashish Pandey Versus UOI

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Brij Raj Singh, while dealing with the issue of the applicability of GST on royalties on mining, has directed the assessee to reply to the show cause notice issued by the department.

Registration Under GST ACT Cannot Be Cancelled By Merely Describing The Firm As 'Bogus': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Apparent Marketing Private Limited versus State of U.P. and Others

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that registration under GST Act cannot be cancelled by merely describing the firm as 'bogus'.

The Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh held that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences since it takes away the fundamental right of a citizen to engage in business, adding that the revenue authorities have a heavy burden to establish the existence of facts that may allow for cancellation of registration under the GST Act.

Survey Not Disputed By The Partner Of The Firm Who Was Present - Can't Question Later: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Works Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 155

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has ruled that once the partner of the firm was available at the time of the survey, who must have signed the survey report, he could very easily request to correct the entries or refuse to sign the survey report, if it was not recorded as per his statement.

Rejection Of GST Refund Application On The Ground Of Delay Not Valid, Extension Of Limitation Applicable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gamma Gaana Limited Versus Union Of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 118

The Allahabad High Court bench consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji observed that the refund application under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.

Form GST DRC-01A Is A Pre-Show Cause Notice Intimation Which Focuses On Reducing Litigation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Nanhey Mal Munna Lal Versus State Of U.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 129

The Allahabad High Court, consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji, has ruled that Form GST DRC-01A is a pre-show cause notice intimation which focuses on reducing litigation.

Madras High Court

Failure To Furnish Certified Octroi Exemption Form; Importer Not Ineligible For Refund Of Octroi Under Section 194(2) Of MMC Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Hyprecision Hydraulik versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that failure to furnish a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector, would not render the importer ineligible for refund of Octroi Duty under Section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act).

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Arif S. Doctor held that production of a duly certified octroi exemption form is not a substantive requirement but merely a procedural requirement to enable an eligible party to claim refund of Octroi under Section 194(2), on imports made in pursuance of a specified contract executed with the Government.

Cancellation Of GST Registration On Health Issues; Madras High Court Revokes

Case Title: Tvl.Marimuthu Venkateshwaran Versus The Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 494

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has lifted the cancellation of the GST registration as the tax returns were not filed by the taxpayer due to health-related issues.

The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shafiq, while considering the directions issued in the cases of Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and others, has directed the department to revoke the cancellation of the GST registration.

Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Cancelling GST Registration

The Madras High Court has quashed the order canceling GST registration without referring to the reason for the non-filing GSTR-3B return.

The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority with a directive to examine the matter on the merits based on available records and based on the opportunity already given to the writ petitioner/assessee under sub-section (8) of Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Assessment Made To Best Of Judgment Of Authority Would Not Be Sufficient For Imposition Of Penalty: Madras High Court

Case Title: N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)

The Madras High Court has held that the assessment made to the best of the authority's judgement would not be sufficient for the imposition of penalty, as the degree of proof required for the imposition of penalty is much higher than that required for the purpose of framing a best judgement assessment.

Show Cause Notice Issued To The Driver Of Consignment Is Not Adequate: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer

The Madras High Court has held that the show-cause notice issued to the driver of the consignment is not adequate.

The single bench of Justice S. Srimathy has quashed the demand for tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and directed the department to issue a fresh notice.

Assessee Entitled To Avail Cenvat Credit Of Service Tax Already Paid During Transitional Period: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Versus M/s.Ganges International Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

The Madras High Court, consisting of Justice R. Ramdevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, has held that the assessee is entitled to avail cenvat credit of the service tax already paid but the assessee was unable to claim due to a transitional provision that has come into effect from 01.07.2017.

Interest Leviable On Belated Remittance of GST Even If Credit In Cash/Credit Ledgers Is Available: Madras High Court

Case Title: India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

The Madras High Court has ruled that interest on late GST remittances is levied even if credit in electronic cash or credit ledgers is available.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability.

Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance: Madras High Court

Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court has held that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions.

The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but restricted to the conveyance alone.

Madras High Court Allows Concessional Customs Duty Benefit On Goods Used In Rotor Of Windmills For Notional Billing To Customer

Case Title: Nordex India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court has allowed the concessional customs duty benefit on goods used in the rotor of windmills for notional billing to customers.

The single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has observed that the imported rotor blades need no customization and mechanisation. Hence, raising an invoice in the name of the client after importing and transporting it to the customer's site is only a notional exercise. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not the importer and that he is the person who has used it for a specific purpose for which it was imported.

GST Department Did Not Recognize Concept Of 'Working Day' And 'Holiday' In Matters Of Interception, Seizure, Detention: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.D.K.Enterprises Versus The Assistant /Deputy Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Madras High Court has held that in the matters of interception, seizure, and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of "working day" and "holiday" since substantial civil rights of the parties were at stake.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that neither the assessee nor the department could have the luxury of reference to a holiday to delay or protract the proceedings. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion of the rights of citizens have been accorded statutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it was imperative that the intrusive acts be carried out in strict compliance with the statutory provisions.

GST Registration Cancellation: Madras High Court Directs Changes In Architecture Of GST Portal

Case Title: M.Mallika Mahal Versus The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to take suitable steps by instructing GST Network, New Delhi to make suitable charges in the architecture of the GST Web Portal to allow the petitioners to file their returns and pay the tax/penalty/fine.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that payment of tax, interest, fine/fee, etc. shall not be allowed to be made or adjusted from and out of any input tax credit which may be lying unutilized or unclaimed in the hands of these petitioners.

Service Of Preparation Of Scalp, Fitment And Maintenance Of Wig- Indivisible Contact: Madras High Court

Case Title: White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

The Madras High Court has held that the primary activity is the manufacture of the wig, for which the central excise duty is remitted. The fitment of the wig, including the preparation of the scalp and optional maintenance of the wig itself, is incidental to the manufacturing and supply of the wig.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

Cut/Sized Shade Trees Constitutes "Agricultural Produce", No Sales Tax Applicable: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. United Nilgiri Tea Estates Company Ltd. Versus The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has held that the cut and sized shade trees would constitute "agricultural produce" and, therefore, fall outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act, 1959).

Timelines For Uploading TRAN-1 For Seeking Credit And Revision Of Credit Cannot Be One: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.

​​Exporter Can't Be Deprived Of MEIS Benefits Due To Technical Error In Electronic System: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd. Versus The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade

The Madras High Court has held that due to technical error or lacunae in the electronic system, the petitioner/exporter cannot be deprived of its benefit/incentive under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).

The single bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has directed the department to consider the petitioner's representation seeking to get the benefit under the MEIS for the subject shipping bill and pass orders within a period of six weeks.

No Demand Of GST, Interest And Penalty Can Be Made In Form DRC-01A Without Issuance of Section 74(1) Notice: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Anantham Retail Private Limited Versus State Tax Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 283

While quashing the assessment order, the Madras High Court held that a demand for GST, interest, and penalty on Form DRC-01A cannot be made without the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The single bench of Justice M.Nirmal Kumar has observed that the department/respondent has not followed the procedure. After the issuance of notice on Form DRC-01A, the department issued Form GST DRC-01A. If the petitioner has any objections and has not paid the tax as determined, a show cause notice must be issued under Section 74(1) of the TNGST Act. After receiving objections and giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the assessment order ought to have been finalised.

Detention Order not Passed based on Statutory Timelines: Madras High Court Directs Release of Vehicle

Case Title: A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell

The Madras High Court has ordered the release of the vehicle as the department has failed to pass the detention order within the period as provided for under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and no show cause notice has been issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from the date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to pass an order of detention prior thereto.

GST Dept. To Consider Reply to SCN Sent By Assessee Through post and Not Portal: Madras High Court

Case Title: Asia (Chennai) Engineering Company Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

The Madras High Court has held that the GST Department should consider a reply to a show cause notice even if it is sent by the assessee through the post and not the portal.

While rejecting the objection of the department that the postal/physical reply to them shall not be considered, the single bench of Justice M. Nirmal Kumar has directed the department to give an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, hear the objections, peruse the documents submitted and the explanations.

Failure To Issue ASMT 10 In Respect Of Aspects Forming Subject Matter Of Proceedings Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Vadivel Pyrotech Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

The Madras High Court has held that ASMT 10 is mandatory before proceeding to issue GST DRC-01. Failure to issue ASMT 10 in respect of the discrepancies forming the subject matter in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 would vitiate the entire proceedings.

The single bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that any proceeding in GST DRC-01A/1 culminating in an Order in GST DRC-07, if pursuant to scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act, ought to be preceded by the issuance of Form ASMT 10.

Officers Of DGGI Are "Central Excise Officers"; Can Issue Show Cause Notices And Adjudicate Service Tax Demand: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Redington (India) Limited versus Principal Additional Director General

The Madras High Court has ruled that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) are "Central Excise Officers" for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 since they are vested with the powers of Central Excise Officers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC).

The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan, while considering a bunch of writ petitions, held that that the definition of "Central Excise Officer" in Section 2(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is expansive and that any person, including an officer of the State Government, who is invested by the CBEC with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, is a "Central Excise Officer".

Madras High Court Allows Re-Exportation Of Betelnut Products Subject To Execution Of A Bond To Cover Value Of Goods

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs - Imports, Custom House Versus M/s. Mahadev Enterprises

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 286

The Madras High Court bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice S.Srimathy has allowed the re-exportation of betelnut products subject to the execution of a bond to cover the value of the goods.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Harassment By GST Department

Case Title: Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition alleging harassment by the GST department.

The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the term "harassment" is so subjective that it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criterion. The petitioner, having given a complaint, is bound to cooperate with the police for an inquiry.

Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application.

The petitioner had made an application seeking registration in accordance with Section 22 read with Section 25 of the CGST Act and Rule 8 of the CGST Rules. The registration sought was in respect of a rice mandi. The receipt of the application was duly acknowledged and physical verification (pv) was also duly undertaken.

Dept. To Follow Procedure Set Out In Circular On The Issues Of Mismatch: Madras High Court Quashes VAT Assessment

Case Title: M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumnath has quashed the VAT assessment and directed the department to follow the procedure set out in the circular regarding the issue of mismatch.

Failure Of Proper Officer Detaining Vehicle To Issue Notice: Madras High Court Directs Release Of Vehicle And Goods

Case Title: Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has held that Section 129 of the CGST Act provides for the detention and seizure of the vehicle upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.

No Excuse For Not Paying GST In Time From Its Electronic Cash Register: Madras High Court Upholds Interest Demand

Case Title: M/s.Srinivasa Stampings Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 202

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan held that the taxpayer is liable to pay interest if there is a belated payment of tax declared in the returns filed.

Form GST DRC-16 Merely Attaches Immovable Properties & Not Bank Account: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Attachment Notice

Case Title: Tvl.G.Sankar Timber Depot Versus The State Tax Officer (Adjudication)

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has held that form GST DRC-16 merely attaches immovable properties. There was no attachment to any bank accounts. The assessee appeared to be interested in dragging on the proceeding, though it appeared to be in arrears of huge amounts of tax.

Transition Of ITC cannot Be Denied Merely For Technical Difficulties: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 208

The Madras High Court held that in case the department is unable to permit the filing of TRAN-1 belatedly, they have to credit the corresponding amount in the electronic cash register provided that the credit remained unutilized on the cut-off date.

Madras High Court Upholds Validity Of Section 6 Of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006

Case Title: M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another with connected cases.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 227

The Madras High Court recently upheld the validity of amendments made to Section 6 of The Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The court observed that in matters relating to tax, the interest of the State must be considered as against the interest of certain individuals.

Madras High Court Expunges 'Scathing' Remarks Against Actor Vijay In Entry Tax Case

Case Title: C. Joseph Vijay v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 28

In an appeal filed by Actor Vijay to remove the scathing remarks made by the single judge bench while dismissing his petition for tax exemption on a Rolls Royce Ghost Motor Car, Madras High Court has expunged the observations made by single judge bench in paras 3,4,7,8, 11 and 12 of the original order.

Today, a Division Bench of Justices Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Mohammed Shaffiq allowed the writ appeal filed by Actor Vijay and disposed off the connected miscellaneous petition with no costs.

Serious Allegations Of Availing Fraudulent GST ITC In Electronic Credit Ledger: Madras High Court Refuses Refund Of Amount

Case Title: M/s.MNS Enterprises Versus The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 122

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan refused to grant a refund of the amount lying in the assessee's electronic cash ledger on the grounds that there were serious allegations against the assessee for having an availed fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger on the strength of a bogus and fictitious input tax invoice for discharging GST liability with no supply.

GST Dept. Should Issue DRC-1 Notice, Grant Fair Opportunity Of Hearing Before Passing Assessment Order: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. V.R.S. Traders Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

The Madras High Court has held that the DRC-01 notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act must be issued before passing the assessment order.

GST Dept. To Serve Physical Copy Of Show Cause Notice Until Technical Problems In GST Portal Are Resolved: Madras High Court

Case Title: Pushpam Reality Versus State Tax Officer

The Madras High Court comprising Justice C. Saravanan has held that the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department can continue service of the physical copy of the notice through registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgment to the assessee at their last known place of business or residence and upload the notice on the web portal. Once all technical problems are resolved, the practise of sending physical copies may be dispensed with.

Wrong Declaration In E-Way Bill: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Under GST As There Was No Intention Of Tax Evasion

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan has quashed the penalty under GST for a wrong declaration in an e-way bill as there was no intention of tax evasion.

Madras High Court Directs GST Dept. To Release Detained Vehicle On Payment Of 25% Of Penalty

Case Title: M/s.RKS Agencies Versus State Tax Officer-I

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar has directed the GST department to release the detained vehicle on the payment of 25% of the penalty.

Post Facto Changes In GST Registration: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed For Mismatch Of Address In Invoice And RC

Case Title: Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166

The penalty imposed for mismatch of address in invoice and RC was quashed by the Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan on the grounds that there was a post facto alteration in GST registration.

Mere Signing Of Statement Admitting Tax Liability, Making Payments Under Stress Of Investigation Doesn't Amount To Self-Ascertainment: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 167

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.

GST ITC Refund Can't Be Denied Even If Taxpayer Has Claimed Duty Drawback: Madras High Court

Case Title: Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Sarvanan has held that the refund of input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied even if the taxpayer has claimed duty drawback.

Pre-Deposit Payment Made By Parent Company Having Separate Service Tax Registration Amounts To Proper Compliance: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice N.Sathish Kumar has held that the pre-deposit payment made by the parent company having a separate service tax registration amounts to proper compliance.

Assessee To Claim Refund of Tax Collected By State Without Authority Within 3 Years From The Date of Payment: Madras High Court

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu Versus Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 179

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice Mohhammed Shaffiq has held that any tax collected without authority would certainly amount to unjust enrichment and the assessees must claim a refund of the tax collected or retained by the state within three years from the date of their payments to the department.

Asian Paints To Furnish A Bank Guarantee For GST Department To Release The Detained Goods: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tvl.Asian Paints Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The Madras High Court bench of Justice M. Dandapani has directed the GST department to release the detained goods on furnishing of the bank guarantee by Asian Paints.

Calcutta High Court

Tata Steel Limited, Is Entitled To A Refund Of Excess CST Collected By IOCL And Remitted To State - Calcutta High court

Case Title: Commissioner of Commercial Tax Versus Tata Steel Limited

The Calcutta High Court has held that Tata Steel is entitled to the concessional rate of tax as they have fulfilled the conditions in Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that Tata Steel, as a purchasing dealer, has the capacity to maintain the claim for refund of the excess tax collected directly from them, and the writ petition is maintainable.

GST Proceedings Initiated By Anti Evasion And Range Office For The Same Period Is Not Permissible: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: M/s. R. P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Superintendent, CGST & CX

The Calcutta High Court has held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act have already commenced, it is appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to their logical end. The proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period will not be continued.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that three wings of the same department are proceeding against the appellants for the same period.

Calcutta High Court Directs State Government To Make Scheme Providing Industrial Incentives GST- Compliant

Case Title: Emami Agrotech Ltd. versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that industrial units cannot be kept in a limbo and denied the incentives, which were specifically promised to them, on the ground of change of the tax regime from VAT to GST.

The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the issue of legitimate expectation was involved in the case, and hence, the Court directed the Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises, Government of West Bengal and the Finance Department, to make the Scheme providing incentives to industries GST-compliant.

Calcutta High Court Quashes Order Imposing Penalty For Expiry Of E-Way Bill As There Was No Intention To Evade Tax

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sureka Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Durgapur Range, Government of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 62

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the order imposing penalty for expiry of e-way bill as there was no intention to evade tax.

The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority as well as the order of the adjudicating authority and consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty and tax paid on protest subject to compliance of all legal formalities.

Allegations Contained in SCN Were Vague: Calcutta High Court Suspends Order Cancelling GST Registration

Case Title: Galaxy Mechanical Engineering Equipments Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 80

The Calcutta High Court bench consisting of Justice ​​Md. Nizamuddin has suspended the order cancelling GST registration on the grounds that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were vague.

No Opportunity Of Hearing Was Given By The GST Department: Calcutta High Court Quashes Detention Order

Case Title: Precious Trade Link Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 84

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin, has quashed the detention order passed by the Goods and Service Tax Department (GST) on the grounds that the opportunity of hearing was not accorded to the assessee.

Genuine Transactions With Suppliers Whose GST Registration Cancelled: Calcutta High Court Allows GST ITC To Assessee

Case Title: Sanchita Kundu & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied on genuine transactions with suppliers whose GST registration was cancelled after the transaction.

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside The Order Of Asst. commissioner, GST, For Not Complying Natural Justice

Case Title: Suraj Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has held that an order passed without granting a personal hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Interest Component Of EMI Of Loan Availed On Credit Card Is Not Exempt From IGST: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Patodia versus Citi Bank Na and Ors.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the interest component of the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of a loan advanced by a bank on a credit card is not exempt from IGST.

The Single Bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the services rendered by the bank by way of extending loans amounted to credit card services and hence, the interest component of the EMI of the said loan was interest involved in credit card services, which is excluded from the exemption conferred under Notification No. 9/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate), dated June 28, 2017.

Cancellation Of GST Registration Ultimately Impacts Recovery Of Taxes: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Bisweswar Midhya, Proprietor of Midhya Construction Versus The Superintendent, CGST

The Calcutta High Court has held that if the registration of a dealer is cancelled, the dealer cannot carry on its business in the sense that no invoice can be raised by the dealer. This would ultimately impact the recovery of taxes.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Prasenjit Biswas has held that the suspension of the appellant's registration should be revoked forthwith with a direction to the appropriate authority to issue a show cause notice within a time frame and take up the adjudication proceeding.

Calcutta High Court Allows Pharma Company To Avail CENVAT Credit On Sales Promotion Services

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd.

The Calcutta High Court has allowed the pharma company to avail CENVAT credit on sales promotion services.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that the commission paid by the pharma company to the commission stockist is included in the assessable value of the goods on which excise duty has been paid by the respondent on the final products.

The court has noted that sales promotion would include services by way of the sale of goods on a commission basis.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

18% GST Payable On Manufacturing Of Alcohol For Human Consumption By Way Of Job Work: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s.Esveeaar Distilleries Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that 18% GST is payable on the manufacturing of alcohol for human consumption by way of job work.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that alcoholic liquor is not considered a food. Services by way of job work in relation to the manufacture of alcoholic liquor for human consumption are not eligible for 5% GST.

Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Rejection Of GST Refund Application By Axis Bank

Case Title: Axis Bank Ltd. Versus The Union Of India

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a GST refund application by Axis Bank and remanded the matter back to the original authority.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has referred to a circular dated 25.09.2021 issued clarifying that the insertion of rule (1A) to Rule 89 provides a time limit of 2 years. The two-year time limit would apply from the date of the introduction of the said rule and not from the date of payment of GST.

GST Refund Application: Andhra Pradesh High Court Excludes Period From 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 For Limitation

Case Title: M/S. Gandhar oil refinery (India) Limited v. Assistant commissioner of sales tax

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has relied on the notification dated 05.07.2022 and held that the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, for the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund applications shall stand excluded.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the application for refund was not made beyond the period of limitation and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

Issue Of Notice Of Hearing Is A Statutory Requirement Under Section 75(4) Of CGST Act Before Imposition Of Tax Or Penalty: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case title: SM/s. Sree Constructions, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 49

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently allowed the writ petition by an assesse as there was no notice given to him before contemplating to pass an adverse Tax Assessment Order which is violative of Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.

GST Appeal Filed Physically On Failure Of Digital Filing - Department Wrongly Rejected Appeal: Andhra High Court

Case Title: Ali Cotton Mill v. Appellate Joint Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 35

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice J. Uma Devi has quashed the order rejecting the GST appeal which was not filed electronically.

Penalty Can't Be Imposed Without Giving The Opportunity Of Hearing To The Taxpayer: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: S.P.Y. Agro Industries Limited Vs Union of India

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the GST penalty cannot be imposed without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice V. Sujatha has observed that any rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, which adversely affects any person, is possible only after following the principles of natural justice.

GST Demand On Events Posted On Facebook: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Company To Approach Appellate Authority

Case Title: Vasavi Wedding And Event Planners Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 95

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while considering a petition challenging GST demand based on events posted on social media, held that information available on the social media platform of the petitioner shows that the event was conducted.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao dismissed the petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

Tripura High Court

Most People Possessing Exotic Species Are Animal Lovers, Cannot Direct Govt To Criminalize Non-Declaration: Tripura High Court

Case Title: Adwitiya Chakrabarti Versus Union of India

Dismissing a PIL seeking to declare the possession of undeclared exotic animals and birds as illegal under the Customs Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act and prosecution of their owners, the Tripura High Court has said it cannot direct or expect the government to take such drastic measure in haste without assessment of the impact and in absence of a detailed study.

The division bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay noted that a large number of citizens across India own pets which may be exotic species and might have been purchased or procured from those involved in captive breeding.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Cash Sales Accepted By VAT Dept. Not Sufficient To Hold It To Be Genuine: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s J.M.J. Essential Oil Company

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 18

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the cash sales accepted by the VAT department are not sufficient to hold that the cash sales were genuine.

The division bench of Justice Sabina and Justice Satyen Vaidya has held that the Assessing Officer was liable to independently look into the cash sales to come to a conclusion as to whether the said sales were genuine or not. The Assessing Officer, as well as the Appellate Authority, rightly gave the finding of fact that the cash sales put forth by the respondent were not genuine and that the respondent had introduced its unaccounted income in the garb of cash sales.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

VAT Act Do Not Provide For The Registration Of FIR: Punjab And Haryana High Court Quashes FIR For Alleged Tax Evasion

Case Title: Deepak Kumar Versus State of Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR, and since the VAT Act is a code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked. Therefore, an FIR could not have been registered against a person who has allegedly evaded tax.

The single bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has observed that there is no provision for the registration of an FIR in matters such as those of alleged tax evasion. The provisions of the act only provide for a mandatory penalty.

Parking Services Of Cycle, Scooters Doesn't Attract Service Tax: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the service tax is not payable on the parking services for cycles and scooters.

Subcontracting For A Service Is Not An "Intermediary" Service: Punjab and Haryana High Court orders Refund

Case Title: Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a demand by the GST Department against Genpact India and held that subcontracting for a service is not an "intermediary" service.

Owner Of Vehicle Not Vicariously Liable For Any Misdeclaration By Owner Of Goods: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 34

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the owner of the vehicle who is seeking only release of the vehicle is not liable to pay fine for the confiscated goods.

VAT ITC Can Be Availed On Evaporation Loss Of Petrol, HSD: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Versus M/s Gupta Brother, Bhiwani and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 36

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench consisting of Justice Ajay Tewari, Justice Avnish Jhingan and Justice Pankaj Jain has ruled that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Value Added Tax can be availed on the evaporation loss of petrol and High Speed Diesel (HSD).

"Intention To Evade Tax" Must Be Directly Connected to Activity Of Trader: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Title: M/s Raghav Metals Versus State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 37

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain has held that the intention to evade tax must be directly connected to the activity of the trader.

Claim Of Refund And Interest Shall Be Dealt Under The Existing Law On Central Excise And Not As Per CGST Act. Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects The Plea Of Revenue

Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise, Panchkula Versus M/S Riba Textiles Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 46

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the revenue department cannot take the plea of transfer of jurisdiction due to the GST regime against assessee's claim for refund of central excise duty and interest.

No Reason To Believe That Input Tax Credit Is Fraudulently Availed: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Rajnandini Metal Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justices Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Pankaj Jain has held that there should be reason to believe that the input tax credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger was obtained fraudulently or that the assesses are ineligible. The relevant officer must record the reasons, and a speaking order must be issued.

Jharkhand High Court

Dispute Arising Out Of Erstwhile Central Excise Act Has To Be Dealt With Under Its Provisions And Not Under GST: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Usha Martin Limited Versus Additional Commissioner

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the initiation of proceedings by the department under section 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged contravention of the Central Excise Act (C.E.A.) and Finance Act against the petitioner in terms of Section 140 of the CGST Act for the transition of CENVAT Credit as being inadmissible under GST was beyond his jurisdiction.

Deposit in Electronic Cash Ledger prior to due date of filing of GSTR-3B return does not discharge tax liability: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s RSB Transmissions (India) Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 92

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that any deposit in the electronic cash ledger prior to the due date for filing the GSTR 3B return does not amount to a discharge of the registered person's tax liability.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that an electronic cash ledger is just an e-wallet where cash can be deposited at any time by creating the requisite challans. Since the amount is deposited in the electronic cash ledger, a registered assessor can claim its refund at any time.

Show Cause Notice Containing "NA" In Column Of Date, Time, Venue Of Personal Hearing: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Adjudication Order

Case Title: M/s. Om Prakash Store Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the adjudication order and held that the notice issued under notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, in the column of date, time and venue of personal hearing, was indicated by the respondents as "NA", which means not applicable.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. The order deserves to be quashed on the grounds of non-compliance with the statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice.

Summary Of SCN In Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Substitute Requirement Of Proper SCN: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Roushan Kumar Chouhan Versus Commissioner of State Tax

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the levy of a penalty of 100% of tax dues reflected in the Summary of the Order contained in Form GST DRC-07 is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. As per Section 73(9), the Proper Officer while passing an adjudication order can levy a penalty up to 10% of the tax dues only.

Goods Or Conveyance Can't be Detained Without Service of detention Order: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. AMI Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

The Jharkhand High Court has held that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order and the appellate order both suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked proper opportunity for the person transporting to defend himself.

If Assessee Disputes Interest Liability Then Dept. Has To Follow Procedure Laid Down u/s 73 or 74 of the CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Bluestar Malleable Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court has held that if any assessee disputes the liability of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, then the department has to follow the specific procedure as stipulated under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the department failed to follow the procedure as enshrined in Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act.

Recovery Proceeding Deemed To Be Stayed If Appellant Pays 10% Of Disputed Tax Amount During Pendency Of Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Construction Versus UOI

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount during the pendency of appeals, recovery of any remaining balance is deemed to have been stayed in view of Section 107 Sub-section (6) and (7) of the CGST Act, 2017.

No Manufacturing Activity Within State , ITC Cannot Be Denied Under JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Exide Industries Limited Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Input Tax Credit can be denied on Inter-State sale or transfer of stock under Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 only when some manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee in the State.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, has held that in a taxing statute there is no room for intendment and therefore Section 18(8)(ix) cannot be stretched to cover persons who are not manufacturers so as to deny them Input Tax Credit under the Act.

Interest Liability Under GST Can't Be Raised Without Initiating Adjudication Process If Assessee Raises Dispute: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has ruled that if an assessee disputes the liability of interest, either disputes its calculation or the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate a proceeding either under Section 74 or 74 of the CGST Act for adjudication of the liability of interest.

Show Cause Notice Without Containing Allegations Of Violations, Amounts To Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Nkas Services Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

The Jharkhand High Court bench consisting of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the show cause notice issued under Goods and Service Tax (GST) for not containing the allegations of violation, amounting to a violation of principles of natural justice.

Interest On Belated Filing Of GSTR-3B Return Not Recoverable Without Adjudication: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: R.K. Transport Private Limited Versus The Union Of India Through The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Ranchi And Another.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that recovery of interest under CGST Act, 2017 for delay in filing the GSTR-3B return cannot be initiated without following any adjudication proceedings under the Act in the event the interest liability is disputed by the assessee.

GST Department's Failure To Follow Procedure Amounts Violation Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Summary Order In Form GST DRC-07

Case Title: M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the summary order contained in Form GST DRC-07 as the department failed to follow the procedure prescribed in law before issuing a summary of the order on Form GST DRC-07, amounting to a violation of the principle of natural justice.

Summary of Show Cause Notice In Form DRC-01 Is Not A Substitute Of Section 74(1) Show Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court held that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute for show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that though the petitioner submitted their concise reply, the respondent cannot take benefit of the action as a summary of show cause notice cannot be considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1). It is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute, and a bonafide mistake or consent by the assessee cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the proper officer. The jurisdiction must flow from the statute itself. The rules of estoppel are the rules of equity, which have no role in matters of taxation.

Inspection Report Does Not Fulfil The Ingredients Of Proper Show-Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Shyam Hardware Store Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the inspection report does not fulfil the ingredients of a proper show-cause notice; it amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order is null and void in the eye of the law if it is passed without the issuance of proper show-cause notice.

Meghalaya High Court

Rusk Is Different From Bread, VAT Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court

Case Title: M/s Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Meghalaya & ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 7

The Meghalaya High Court bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has ruled that rusk is not bread and the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption available to bread in the state of Meghalaya must be extended to rusk.

Applicability Of GST On Royalty Paid For Mining Limestone: Meghalaya High Court Stays GST Recovery

Case Title: M/s Hills Cement Company Limited vs. The Union of India & Ors

The Meghalaya High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has stayed the recovery of GST on royalty paid for mining limestone.

Uttarakhand High Court

Amount Paid Under Protest Prior To SCN , Consider As Pre -Deposit Under SVLDR Scheme: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 36

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the amount paid under protest, towards interest, prior to the issuance of show cause shall be considered as pre-deposit while disposing of the application for a waiver under the 'Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019' (SVLDR Scheme).

The single bench of Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra has observed that the statute does not make any distinction between the payment of taxes, interest thereon, or any penalty in the amount which has been deposited during enquiry, investigation, or audit shall be deducted while issuing the statement and shall be adjusted while calculating relief to the declarant.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

'Mistake In E-way Bill Was Human Error' | Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Penalty Under CGST Act

Case Title: Maharaja Cables (C/O Maxwell Logistic Pvt Ltd) Vs Commissioner (GST) State Tax Indore (M.P.)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the penalty imposed under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on a private company after the petitioner argued that the mistake while generating the e-way bill was an inadvertent human error.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Virendra Singh, while allowing the appeal, observed that the mistake in the e-way bill was bonafide. However, the court said the authorities will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for the imposition of a minor penalty while treating the mistake in question to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Cryptic Reasons For Denying Refund Claim Does Not Render The Order Non-Speaking: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Prism Johnson Limited Versus UOI

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the claim for refund has been declined by assigning reasons which may be cryptic on bare perusal but are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause for the rejection of the claim for refund.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti has observed that the reasons assigned for declining the refund claim cannot categorise the orders as being non-speaking. The order does not dissuade the assessee from knowing the mind of the adjudicating authority or dissuade him from filing an appeal.

Signature Of the Person Present Obtained in Panchanama, Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses Re-measuring of Stock

Case Title: Sanjay Trading Company Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to direct the re-measuring of the stock of coal lying in the premises as the search team has obtained the signatures of the persons present while carrying out the Panchanama.

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti perused the panchanama and observed that on the date of search itself, the amount of tax and a penalty were deposited by the petitioner as discrepancies were found in the stock, and thus there was no question of any kind of seizure.

Advance Ruling Can't Be Sought After The Receipt Of The Notice: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M/s Saisanket Enterprise Versus Authority of Advance Ruling

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the application under section 97 of the CGST Act for obtaining the advance ruling cannot be made before the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) during the pendency of the issue before the authority and after the receipt of the notice.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath has observed that the petitioner approached the authority to obtain the advance ruling only after a search was conducted in which the evasion of SGST was found, which has resulted in the issuance of a show-cause notice. By the notice, the petitioner has been called upon to pay the remaining amount of GST/SGST liability and submit the reply. Since the petitioner has not paid GST at 18%, the issue is treated as pending before the authorities.

Benefit Of MEIS Scheme Can't Be Availed If Not Opted In Shipping Bill At The Time Of Export: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Adroit Industries (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amarnath Kesharwani has held that the benefit of the Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS) cannot be availed if it is not opted for in the shipping bill at the time of export.

Clerical Mistake In Address On E-Way Bill: Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Minor Penalty

Case Title: Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Manindar Bhatti has held that a minor penalty can be imposed for a clerical mistake in the address on an e-way bill.

Delay Of 18 Months In Filing Appeal Without Reasonable Justifications: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Cancellation Of GST Registration

Case Title: M/s Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Versus UOI

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Maninder S. Bhatti has upheld the cancellation of GST registration as there was a delay of 18 months in filing the appeal without reasonable justification.

Telangana High Court

ITC Refund Admissible If Output Supply Tax Rate Is Less Than Inputs Tax Rate: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Micro Systems And Services Sole Proprietorship Vs Union Of India

The Telangana High Court has held that refund of accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on account of inverted structure would be allowed if accumulation of ITC is on account of the rate of tax on output supply being less than the rate of tax on inputs (same goods) at the same point of time as per some concessional notification issued by the government providing for a lower rate of tax for some specified supplies subject to fulfilment of other conditions.

Investigation Post Filing Application Would Not Debar Applicant From Seeking Advance Ruling: Telangana High Court

Case Title: M/s. Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling

The Telangana High Court has held that the investigation post-filing of the application would not debar the applicant from seeking an advance ruling.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyana and Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy has observed that the word "proceedings" has neither been defined in Chapter XVII nor in the definition clause, i.e., in Section 2 of the CGST Act. The inquiry or investigation would not come within the ambit of the word "proceedings".

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dept. Failed To Establish Element Of Tax Evasion: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Penalty

Case Title: M/s Daya Shanker Singh Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the penalty for the expiry of e-way bill as the department failed to establish that there existed any element of evasion of tax, fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner.

The division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta has observed that the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which the E-way Bill expired appears to be bona-fide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of the assessee, the notice/order imposing penalty could not have been passed.

Outright Rejection Of Stay Application Is Not Justified, Need To Exercise The Appellate And Revisional Jurisdiction Judicially:Telangana High Court

Case Title: Access Tough Doors P. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner ST

The Telangana High Court has held that the appellate and revisional authorities must judiciously exercise their discretionary power to grant a stay under the Telangana VAT Act.

Erroneous Recording of Place Of Supply As The Location Of Unregistered Recipient: Telangana High Court Remands The Matter

Case Title: M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited Versus State of Telangana

The Telangana High Court ruled that, while the department referred to Section12(9) of the IGST Act, the department erroneously recorded that, in the instance of an unregistered receiver, the place of supply should be the recipient's location. It prima facie appears to be in contravention of Section 12(9) of the IGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda said, "it is prima facie evident that if the passenger is not registered under GST and avails transportation service, by way of legal fiction, the place of supply would be the place where the passenger embarks or starts his journey."

Telangana High Court Holds Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 To Be Unconstitutional

Case Title: M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works and others Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, and others

The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P. Madhavi Devi has observed that the intention of Parliament in ushering in the GST regime through the Constitution Amendment Act, enactment of the CGST Act and simultaneous enactment of various State GST Acts by the State Legislatures was to avoid a multiplicity of taxes by subsuming those indirect taxes into a single tax called GST. However, the amendments brought in by the Second Amendment Act were wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution Amendment Act read with the CGST Act and the TGST Act.

Chandigarh High Court

SCN Issued By DRI Was Without Authority of Law: Chhattisgarh HC Stays Proceedings

Case Title: Vijay Baid Versus Union Of India

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has quashed the show cause notice which was issued by the DRI and stayed the proceedings.

Chhattisgarh High Court

Lease Charges Paid By The Railways Department Not Subjected To Levy Of VAT: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: M/s Ultratech Cement Limited Versus State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: Writ Petition (T) No. 128 Of 2015

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the lease charges paid by the Railways Department are not subject to the levy of value-added tax (VAT).

The single bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy has observed that the right to use goods or the use of goods is not the relevant factor to justify the levy of taxes.

Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses Bail

Case Title: Paritosh Kumar Singh Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 36

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Gautam Chourdiya has refused to grant bail to a person allegedly involved in availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Gauhati High Court

Clarificatory Circular Operates Retrospectively And Does Not Bring Anything New: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Sanjib Das versus Union of India and Ors.

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) which only clarifies the CBIC's original instructions and does not bring anything new is clarificatory in nature and operates retrospectively.

The Single Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah held that the exceptions enumerated in the clarificatory circular issued by CBIC, that enumerated exceptions with respect to holding pre-show cause notice consultation, would operate retrospectively from the date of issuance of CBIC's original instructions relating to pre-show cause notice consultation.

Betel Nuts Are Subject To Decay, Not Required For Investigation: Gauhati High Court Directs To Release

Case Title: Md. Rajibul Islam Versus State of Assam

The Gauhati High Court has directed the release of seized betel nuts as the betel nuts are subject to speedy natural decay and their retention was not required for the purpose of investigation.

The single bench of Justice Robin Phukan has observed that from the date of seizure till date, more than 128 days have already elapsed. There was no allegation of theft in respect of the seized betel nuts. The petitioner has also produced a certificate issued by Gaon Burah and the Chairman of Zutovi Village in respect of purchasing betel nuts from their village.

Orissa High Court

Appellate Authority To Bear In Mind The Predicaments Faced By Taxpayers On Introduction Of GST Procedures: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Durga Raman Patnaik Vs Additional Commissioner of GST

The Orissa High Court has held that the Appellate Authority should have borne in mind the predicament faced by taxpayers on the introduction of a new set of procedures by way of the promulgation of the CGST Act and rules and that time is required to be taken to get acquainted.

The division bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has observed that it preferred to exercise its writ jurisdiction to undo prejudice and injustice caused to the petitioner as the Appellate Tribunal has not yet been constituted as per Section 109 of the CGST Act. There was no alternative remedy available for the petitioner to question the veracity of the order passed in the first appeal.

Tax Exemptions Given With Benevolent Object, Approach For 'Exempting' & 'Including' Subject Matters Under Tax Purview Can't Be Same: Orissa HC

Case Title: State of Odisha represented by Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack v. M/s. Geetashree Industries & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 119

The Orissa High Court has held that the approach which is employed to exempt a commodity from the purview of taxation is not the same which is used to bring a good under the umbrella of taxation.

While applying this principle, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that 'Chuni' is different from 'Cattle feed' under entry 66 of para-I of the Schedule attached to theOdisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act') and thus, the former is not amenable to entry tax under the statute.

12% Sales Tax Applicable On Robinson Barley And Purity Barley: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. versus State of Odisha and Others

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 124

The Orissa High Court has held that a 12% sales tax is applicable on Robinson Barley and Purity Barley.

The division bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik has observed that if a customer went to a shop and asked for barley, such a customer would not be supplied with Robinson Barley or Purity Barley. Conversely, if the customer was to ask for Robinson Barley or Purity Barley, he would not be supplied with plain barley. The distinct commercial product "Robinson Barley" cannot be classified as "cereal".

Commissioner Can't Allow Deposit Of Interest Payment In Instalments: Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. @ M/S. PK Minings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax

The Orissa High Court bench of Justices Jawant Singh and Murahari Sri Raman has held that the Commissioner of CT & GST is not empowered to allow the deposit of interest payments in instalments.

ITC Transfer From One State To Another Is Not An Inward Supply: Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice M.S. Raman has ruled that an input service distributor (ISD) can claim ITC only in the case of an inward supply, and an ITC transfer from one state to another is not an inward supply.

Non-Submission Of Certified Copy of GST Order Appealed Against Within 7 Days Is A Mere Technical Defect: Orissa High Court

Case Title: M/s Atlas PVC Pipes Limited Versus State of Orissa

The Orissa High Court has held that the non-submission of a certified copy of the GST order appealed against within 7 days is a mere technical defect.

The division bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra and Justice Murahari Shri Raman has observed that on the altar of default in compliance of a procedural requirement, the merit of the matter on appeal cannot be sacrificed.

"Tobacco & Tobacco Products" In Schedule To Odisha Entry Tax Act Include 'Bidi': Orissa High Court

​​Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha

The Orissa High Court has held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..."

Uttarakhand High Court

Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable.

The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Education Cess Lawfully Refunded To The Assessee, Can't Recover Later Based On Change Of View Of The Supreme Court: J&K and Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST and Commissioner of Central Excise versus M/s Narbada Industries

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the revenue department cannot seek the return of the amounts lawfully refunded to the assessee in consonance with an earlier decision of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the Supreme Court has changed its opinion on the said matter in a decision rendered subsequently.

The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, held that a case cannot be reopened after the expiry of the limitation period merely on the ground that subsequently the view of the court on the said aspect has changed or that subsequently a different opinion has been expressed by the courts in another case.

fGST Registration, FSSA License Cannot Be Granted If The Premise Is Under Dispute: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Parveez Ahmad Baba Versus Union Territory of J&K and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the GST Registration cannot be granted if the ownership of the business owner's premise is under dispute.

The single bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that until the dispute is settled between the parties amicably or through intervention of the Court of competent jurisdiction, neither the designated authority under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 shall issue the licence nor registration shall be accorded under the GST Act to either of the parties in respect of the premises "Samci Restaurant."

CESTAT

Purchase Of ATM within India: CESTAT Deletes Penalty Under Customs Act Against CitiBank

Case Title: M/s. Citibank N.A. Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty under the Customs Act against CitiBank on the purchase of an ATM within India.

The two-member bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and Sanjeev Shrivastava (Accountant Member) has observed that a transaction concerning the purchase of an item within India, which is unrelated to its importation and to the importer as the transaction is confined between the Appellant Citibank and Philips India, does not support the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act against Citibank.

Allegations based on assumptions In The SCN : CESTAT Deletes Penalty

Case Title: M/s. Maa Foundry Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice was merely based on assumption and presumption.

The bench of P.K. Choudhary (a judicial member) has observed that the charge of clandestine clearance is a serious charge, and the onus to prove the same is on the department to adduce concrete and cogent evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the charge of clandestine clearance cannot be leveled against the assessee.

Scrap Neither Generated From Manufacturing Nor From Cenvatable Input/Capital Goods, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT

Case Title: Shreno Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-i

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that excise duty is not payable on scrap, which is neither generated from the manufacturing process nor generated from the cenvatable input or capital goods.

Onus To Prove The Goods Were Smuggled Lies On The Department: CESTAT

Case Title: Atul Dhawan Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the department bears the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (a judicial member) has observed that the show cause notice is vague as the valuation of the goods has been done by the Revenue without any relied-upon documents, i.e., copy of any retrieved documents from the mobile/CPU of the appellant/assessee.

Credit Accumulated Due To Clearance Of Excisable Goods, Bar Of Unjust Enrichment Is Not Attracted: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s.Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Versus Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the credit has been accumulated due to the clearance of excisable goods during the Excise Law Regime for export and that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (a Judicial Member) found that the appellant had not begun production or manufacturing activities, nor had any taxable goods been cleared, on or after 1.7.2017. The debit recorded by the appellant in the electronic ledger (DRC-3) amounts to a reversal of credit transferred to the GST regime. The appellant is entitled to a refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, which provides that the assessee can file a refund claim on or after the appointed day for a refund of any amount of credit, duty, etc. paid under the existing law (Central Excise/Service Tax), subject to clearing the bar of unjust enrichment.

Freight Charges Are Not Includible In Assessable Value Of Liquid Carbon Dioxide: CESTAT

Case Title: Bathinda Industrial Gas Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that freight charges are not deductible from the assessable value of liquid CO2, despite the fact that they were separately charged in the invoices and the gas was sold at the time of clearance from the appellant's factory.

The two-member bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the authorities below are held to have wrongly confirmed the duty demand against the appellant on the basis of the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value.

CESTAT Allows Customs Duty Refund Claim Paid Through DEPB Scrip

Case Title: Virgo Suitings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the customs duty refund claim paid through the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrip.

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the department has failed to establish through any kind of document or case law that debit of any amount under the DEPB scheme is not a mode of payment of duty, and therefore the benefit cannot be denied to the appellant.

Customs Broker Is Not Required To Obtain Any "Recommendation" From Officer That The Exporter Is "Bonafide": CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Surya Jyoti Global Logistics, Customs Broker Versus Commissioner of Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the customs broker is not required to obtain any "recommendation" or a certificate from any officer that the exporter is "bonafide."

Limitation Period Not Applicable To Refund Claims For Service Tax Paid Under Mistake Of Law: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Raheja Regency Cooperative Housing Society ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not applicable to refund claims for service tax paid under a mistake of law.

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant cannot be said to be liable to pay service tax in any way because what was paid by the appellant was not tax as defined by the Finance Act of 1994. As a result, the amount paid by the appellant does not have the character of a tax but is simply an amount paid due to a mistake of law.

Coal Transportation From Pitheads Of Mines To Railway Sidings Not "Mining Of Mineral": CESTAT

Case Title: Chhaya Mahalley Versus Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & CGST

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the coal transported from the pitheads of the mines to the railway sidings would be classified under the head "transport of goods by road" service, and the activity does not involve any taxable service in relation to "mining of minerals."

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Accountant Member) has observed that the Commissioner of Appeals was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had undertaken the activity of mining services with effect from June 1, 2007.

Confiscated Currency Need To Be Returned With Interest On Release: CESTAT

Case Title: Matta Paints And Hardware Store Versus The Commissioner

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the amount seized in cash by the authorities is to be refunded along with the interest.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is entitled to a refund of interest on the principal amount at the rate of 12% from the date of its seizure.

Service Tax Refund Admissible On Trenching Pipeline Installed Partly In SEZ And Partly Outside But For Use In Operation Of The SEZ: CESTAT

Case Title: Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax refunds on trenching pipelines installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in the operation of the SEZ are admissible.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the construction service received in relation to trenching and pipeline construction was exclusively for SEZ only. A part of the same will be outside the premises of the SEZ, but that does not mean that service was received for anything other than authorised operations in the SEZ.

No Service Tax Is Payable On Commission Received In Convertible Foreign Exchange: CESTAT

Case Title: J M Huber India Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax is demandable when the commission received is in convertible foreign exchange.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the commission agent service provided to a foreign-based entity for promoting or marketing their goods in India constitutes an export of services, given that the Indian agent's activity includes providing promotion or marketing, technical support, installation, commission, etc. for the sale of goods by foreign-based entities in India on a commission basis.

​​Charge Of Double Benefit Sustains Only If Assessee Claims Refund, Utilises It For Paying Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Bright Engineering Works Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench has ruled that the charge of double benefit is only valid when the assessee claims a refund and uses it to pay excise duty.

The bench of Ramesh Nair (a judicial member) has observed that it set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the refund application of the assessee. The refund cannot be denied on the basis of the Appellant receiving a double benefit as a result of the non-transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit On Parts For Efficient Functioning Of Machine For Sugar Production

Case Title: Vriddheshwar SSK Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the cenvat credit on parts for the efficient functioning of machines for manufacturing.

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is justified in availing the Cenvat credit on various items, namely, S.S. Welding Tube, Steel, Tubes, Alloy Steel Pipe, Prime HR Steel Coil, M.S. Wire, M.S. Slate, S.S. Welded Tube, HR Steel Pipe, and Link Outer, which are used in those machines that are manufacturing the final product.

Cenvat Credit On Group Mediclaim Policy Cannot Be Disallowed: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Diamond Beverages Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the cenvat credit on group mediclaim policy cannot be disallowed.

The two-member bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the insurance policy was taken by the Appellant for its factory employees. The appellant is registered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 as well as the Factories Act, 1948, which mandates insurance policies to be obtained by the appellant.

CESTAT Allows Interest On Custom Duty Refund From Deposit Date To Refund Date

Case Title: M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the 12% interest on custom duty refund from the deposit date to the refund date.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the amount of deposit made during investigation or audit becomes pre-deposit ipso facto upon contest of the dispute or filing of the appeal, and the assessee is entitled to interest as per law from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

Onus To Prove Charge Of Clandestine Clearance Of Goods Lies On The Department: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Shree Hari Sponge Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II

The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the onus to prove a charge of clandestine clearance of goods lies with the department.

The two-member bench, P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member), have held that the charge of clandestine clearance of goods is a serious charge and cannot be made on presumptions and assumptions.

Paper Cess Is Not Includible In The Calculation Of Education Cess And Secondary & Higher Education Cess: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Uniglobal Paper Private Limited versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Paper Cess is not includible in the calculation of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess.

The Bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) held that though Cess on Paper is an excise duty, however, it is levied under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and not under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Amount Deposited Voluntarily During Investigation Can't Be Treated As Amount Towards Pre-Deposit: CESTAT

Case Title: Sky Airways Versus Commissioner of Customs,(Appeals)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount deposited voluntarily during an investigation cannot be treated as an amount towards the pre-deposit as it was not an amount deposited at the time of the filing of the appeal.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant/assessee could not have asked for the refund of the amount deposited by the appellant voluntarily during investigation, which amount had been confirmed and appropriated by the order before the Tribunal in the earlier round of proceedings.

Customs Duty Exemption On Imported WAP: CESTAT

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Air) Chennai – VII Commissionerate Versus M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that imported WAP is entitled to an exemption from the whole of the customs duties under the ITA.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Kumar (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that imported WAP is a networking equipment working on LAN, connecting Wi-fi enabled devices such as laptops, smartphones, tablets, etc. to a wired network.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit To Indian Oil On Excise Duty Paid Towards Manufacturing Activity

Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Refinery Division Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the cenvat credit to Indian Oil on excise duty paid towards manufacturing activity.

The bench of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that once duty is paid by the assessee, treating the activity as manufacturing activity by the Department, Cenvat credit is available and there is no question of denial of Cenvat credit.

Losses Of Upto 1% Can Be Allowed Without Detailed Scrutiny : CESTAT

Case Title: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Building, Visakhapatnam

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand of excise duty against Hindustan Petroleum and held that losses of up to 1% can be allowed without detailed scrutiny.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that there was no allegation, let alone evidence, that the losses were not genuine or that the products were suspected to have been diverted or pilfered.

Basic Customs Duty Exemption On Import Of Colour Data Projectors: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s BenQ India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the import of colour data projectors is exempted from basic customs duty.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that for the period prior to 01.01.2017, all goods falling under CTSH 8528 41, 8528 51, or 8528 61 were unconditionally exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty under Serial No. 17 of the exemption notification. Post 01.01.2017, Serial No. 17 of the notification exempts all goods falling under CTSH 8528 42, 8528 52, or 8528 62 if they are of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing machine of heading 8471. The goods imported by the appellant satisfy the description of the goods in the exemption notification for both periods and are, therefore, eligible for exemption.

Service Tax Exemption Available On Rendering Transmission Of Electricity: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. KEC International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Chattisgarh Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), has held that the service tax exemption is available on the transmission of electricity.

Registration Of Premises Not A Necessary Prerequisite For Claiming A Refund Under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Selling Simplified India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST, East Delhi

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the registration of premises is a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has observed that service providers are entitled to a refund under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when the output service is exported.

Vodafone Entitled To Claim CENVAT Credit On Tower And Prefabricated Buildings: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Vodafone is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on tower/tower material and pre-fabricated buildings/shelters.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that Vodafone was entitled to take CENVAT credit since the items in dispute were "capital goods".

Exemption u/s 26 of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 Is Overriding In Nature: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand

Case Title: eClerx Services Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST &Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand and held that the exemption afforded by section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is overriding in nature and the breach of conditions is procedural.

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) has held that the required documentation was not available for the entire period of the dispute but, at the same time, it cannot be denied that at some point, the eligibility did exist. The procedural infirmities, for a shorter or longer time, do not in any way supplant the exemption accorded to the supply of services.

AO Treated Sundry Creditors As Bogus Based On His personal belief: ITAT Deletes Addition

Case Title: Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-29, Kolkata Versus Shri Pradip Mullick

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that AO treated the sundry creditors as bogus at the instance of the report of the inspector for a few sample cases was based on AO's personal belief and not by virtue of any concrete facts and evidence placed on record.

The two-member bench of Rajpal Yadav (Vice-President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) has observed that the conclusion of the AO was based on imagination and directed to delete the addition.

Revenue Can't Characterize Preference Shares As Debt Instrument Ignoring Legal Consequences: ITAT

Case Title: M/s. Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus ITO

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reiterated that premium on redemption of preference shares is exigible to tax under the head 'Income from Capital Gains', liable to tax to the extent actually received on the redemption of shares.

The Bench of N.V. Vasudevan (Vice President) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) held that the revenue authorities cannot disregard the legal effect of issue of cumulative preference shares, and that they cannot ignore the legal consequences of a document by characterizing a share as a debt instrument.

Extra Duty Deposit Should Be Refunded Without Filing Refund Claim: CESTAT

Case Title: China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.-Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) should be refunded without filing a refund claim.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that if and when the refund claim of EDD is filed by the appellant, it cannot be barred by limitation.

"Pandal and Shamiana" Services Can't Be Charged With Service Tax Before 01.06.2007: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Sconce Global Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the "Pandal and Shamiana" services could not have been charged with service tax before 01.06.2007.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant's contract involved provisions of services as well as supply/deemed supply of goods and they can only be classified under the head "works contract services".

No Deliberate Non-Compliance In Depositing Service Tax Under RCM: CESTAT Deletes Penalty

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has deleted the penalty on the grounds that there was no deliberate non-compliance in depositing service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).

Services Tax Demand Not Sustainable On The Basis Of TDS/26AS Statements: CESTAT

Case Title: Forward Resource Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax demand is not sustainable on the basis of TDS/26AS statements.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the value of taxable services cannot be determined only based on TDS statements produced by clients. The expenditures are booked based on when the form 26AS is filed, which cannot be considered as the value of taxable services for the purpose of demand of service tax.

Charges For Transportation Of Goods From Factory To Buyer's Premises, can't be Assessed: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Jindal Tubular (India) Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Ujjain

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the service tax demand and penalty and held that the freight charges incurred for transportation of goods from the place of removal to the buyer's premises cannot be included in the assessable value.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the "place of removal" continues to be the seller's premises, whether it be the factory gate or depot or any other place relatable to the seller. In terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the value of the goods is the transaction value of the goods for delivery at the time and place of removal.

CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit On Service Tax Paid On Input Services Received By The SEZ Unit

Case Title: M/s Global Logic India Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the CENVAT credit on service tax paid on input services received by the SEZ unit.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the assessee could forego exemption and claim the benefit of the CENVAT credit on the amount of service tax paid on input services as would have been available as a refund to an SEZ Unit.

SFPs Classifiable As Parts Of Telecom Equipment: CESTAT Allows Customs Duty Exemption To Reliance Jio Infocomm

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs-Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) Versus Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted the customs duty exemption to Reliance Jio Infocomm and held that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is classifiable as part of telecom equipment.

The two-member bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the SFP is part of the I/O card module of the Ethernet switch apparatus, which can function only when connected with an Ethernet switch providing an interface between two domains, i.e., electrical and optical. As such, they are considered parts and are correctly classifiable under CTH 8517 7090 of the Customs Tariff.

Activity Of Mediator Cannot Fall Under Business Consultant Services, No Service Tax Under RCM Applicable: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the activity of a mediator cannot fall under business consultant services.

The two-member bench of P. K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the appellants/assessee are not liable to pay any service tax on the reverse mechanism on the services rendered by the mediator.

Retracted Statement Cannot Simply Be Brushed Aside : CESTAT

Case Title: Jeen Bhavani International Versus Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva-III

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the contents of the retracted statement cannot simply be brushed aside to conclude that the assessee/appellant has indulged in the activity of undervaluation of goods.

The two-member bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.

No Customs Duty On Spare Parts Supplied For Warship: CESTAT

Case Title: Larsen Tourbro Limited Versus C.C.-AHMEDABAD

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the spare parts supplied for warships are exempt from customs duty.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the interceptor boat supplied by the appellant was a warship. The intercepted boats used by the Coast Guard Ministry of Defence Government of India are only for the security of the coastal border of the country and the boats are not used for any other purpose. The interceptor boats are equipped with arms and ammunition. Therefore, it is absolutely without any doubt that the interceptor boat is a warship.

Refractories Meant For Re-lining Of Furnaces Is Covered Under "Capital Goods": CESTAT Allows Customs Duty Exemption Under EPCG Scheme

Case Title: M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the customs duty exemption on refractories meant for re-lining of furnaces.

The two-member bench of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that refractories meant for re-lining of furnaces, i.e., for replacement, are covered by the "means" part of the definition of "capital goods". It is in any way restricted or controlled by the use of the expression "refractories for initial lining'' used in the inclusive part of the definition of "capital goods".

Job Worker Liable To Pay Excise Duty For Unloading Chemicals From Tankers, Repacking and Labelling In Small Drums: CESTAT

Case Title: Dow Chemical International Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E.-Kutch (gandhidham)

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job worker has carried out all the activities which, as per the department, amount to manufacturing. The job worker is alone to pay the excise duty.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that irrespective of the ownership of goods, whoever undertakes the manufacturing activity has to pay the duty.

Cenvat Credit Of Service Tax Can Be Availed On Debit Notes: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Visa Resources India Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has observed that the Cenvat credit of Service Tax can be availed on debit notes under the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The bench of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that an invoice issued by a provider of input service is a valid document for availment of Cenvat credit. The heading of the document, as seen from sample copies attached with the appeal paper book, though they are nomenclature as debit notes, contains all the disclosures as required in a tax invoice as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Interface Development Services By BlackRock India - Not An 'Intermediary Service': CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. BlackRock Services India Private Limited versus Commissioner of CGST

The Chandigarh Bench of CESTAT has ruled that the services provided by BlackRock India, relating to development of interface for an operating system for investment managers, is not an intermediary service.

The Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) held that the 'Business Support Services' rendered by BlackRock to its US based clients would qualify as an export of service in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, and thus, BlackRock was eligible for refund of un-utilised CENVAT credit availed on the input services used in providing the said business support services.

Mandatory Deposit U/S 35F Of Excise Act Cannot Be Made By Way Of Debit In Electronic Credit Ledger Maintained Under CGST Act: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner CGST

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a mandatory deposit under section 35F of the Excise Act cannot be made by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under the CGST Act.

The two-member bench headed by Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that as per the provisions of section 41 of the CGST Act, credit lying in the electronic credit ledger can be utilised only for self-assessed output tax.

No Penalty Can Be Imposed For Introducing The Importer To IEC Holder: CESTAT

Case Title: Girish Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a penalty cannot be imposed for introducing the importer to the Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) holder.

The bench of Anil Chaudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that no penalty can be imposed without proving the role of the person being charged.

Empty Packaging Material Of Cenvatable Input Is Not Liable For Payment As Excise Duty Or As CENVAT Credit: Reiterates Ahmedabad CESTAT

Case Title: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT has ruled that empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment either as excise duty or as CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The Single Bench of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair held that the assessee was not liable to pay any amount on the clearance of the said empty drums.

Extended Period Of Limitation Can Be Invoked Only When "Suppression Of Facts" Is Wilful To Evade Tax :CESTAT

Case Title: M/s T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that even when an assessee has suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation can be evoked only when "suppression" is shown to be wilful with intent to evade the payment of service tax.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the show cause notice merely mentions that the appellant suppressed the value of taxable service. The show cause notice does not mention that the suppression was with the intention of evading payment of service tax.

Limitation Period Is Not Applicable On Personal Ledger Account: CESTAT

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the limitation period is not applicable on personal ledger accounts (PLA).

The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has observed that in the case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as an advance towards the duty. The PLA amount takes the colour of excise duty only when it is utilised for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of the PLA is only an advance, not a duty. Therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.

Exporter Not liable For 'Change Of Landing Port' Instructions Given By Importer: CESTAT

Case Title: Janki Dass Rice Mills Versus C.C.-Mundra

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the exporter is not responsible for the instructions given by the importer regarding the change in the port after the issuance of a "Let Export Order" by the customs authority.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the appellant lost the ownership of the goods as soon as the "let export order" was issued by the Customs authorities. After the export order, it was the responsibility of the shipping lines to ship the goods to the foreign buyer, with the exporter having no control over the goods. Hence, the appellant cannot be held responsible if the importer situated in Iran had given instruction to change the port from Bandar Abbas port to Jabel Ali port. After the "let export order" was issued by the Customs authorities, it was the importer in Iran who became the owner of the goods.

Empty Packaging Material Of Cenvatable Input Is Not Liable For Payment Of Excise Duty Or Cenvat Credit: CESTAT

Case Title: Candila Healthcare Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment either as excise duty or as cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

C&F Agent Service Is Admissible Input Service Under Cenvat Credit Rules: CESTAT

Case Title: NITCO Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-DAMAN

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the C & F Agent Service is an admissible input service in the terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

CESTAT Set Aside Demand Of Service Tax On Ocean Freight Charges

Case Title: M/s. Geodis Overseas Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the ocean freight charges collected from customers are not subject to the levy of Service Tax under Business Support Services.

Services Provided With Respect To A Government Sports Stadium, Not A Commercial Service; Would Not Attract Service Tax: CESTAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi

The CESTAT Delhi has ruled that an activity undertaken in a stadium, which belongs to the Government and which is used for non-commercial activities, would not be covered under the definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' services, as defined in Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and hence, it would not attract service tax.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Mr. Raju (Technical Member), held that the activity of laying Synthetic Athletic Track Surface is of a civil nature and therefore, it would fall within the definition of commercial or industrial construction services; however, since the same was provided in respect of a sport facilities owned by the Government, the same would not be chargeable to service tax.

CESTAT Allows Credit Of CVD And SAD Paid For Imports Made Prior To The GST Regime

Case Title: M/s. ITCO Industries Ltd. versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of CESTAT has allowed credit of CVD and SAD paid after 30.06.2017 for the imports made prior to 30.06.2017, i.e., prior to the GST regime, under the advance authorisation scheme.

The Single Bench of Judicial Member Ms. Sulekha Beevi held that credit of CVD and SAD paid by the importer could not be denied on the ground that the duties were paid by the appellant only after an intimation letter was issued to it. The CESTAT observed that the said intimation letter had not been issued by invoking any provisions of the Customs law or Excise law.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit On The Capital Goods

Case Title: M/s K K Spun India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Indore

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), has allowed the cenvat credit on the capital goods, as their finished goods falling under CTH 68109990 are dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Amount Lying After Wrong Invocation Of The Bank Guarantee: CESTAT Directs Payment of Interest

Case Title: M/s Leather Sellers Versus Commissioner of Customs And Excise, Patparganj

The Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount was lying in the nature of the pre-deposit with the department from the date of encashment of the bank guarantee.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is entitled to 12% interest from the date of encashment of the bank guarantee under Section 129EE of the Customs Act.

Case Title: M/s Amba River Coke Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Process Of Crushing And Screening Of Iron Ore Are Classified As Iron Ore Fines: CESTAT Allows Benefit Of Exemption From Payment Of CVD

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the benefit of exemption from payment of countervailing duty (CVD) on the grounds that the process of crushing and screening of iron ore is classified as iron ore fines.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) has held that iron ore concentrate refers to an ore that has been subjected to special processes for removal of all or part of the foreign matter, i.e., gangue contained in the ore, with which it naturally occurs.

CESTAT Quashes Order Of Forfeiture Of Security Deposit, Sustained The Penalty On Customs Broker

Case Title: M/s Star CHA Management Services LLP Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Airport & General)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the order of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs but sustained the penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the Customs Broker.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018 is excessive.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit of 2% CVD Paid On Import Of Steam Coal

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Central Goods And Service Tax Versus M/s Shree Cement Ltd

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has allowed the Cenvat credit of 2% CVD paid on the import of steam coal.

Seafarer's Recruitment Service Provider Is Not An intermediary: CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit Refund

Case Title: M/s Anglo Eastern Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise and Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has held that a seafarer's recruitment service provider, who processes the entire selection, medical test, insurance, transportation, training, etc. to the overseas client and receives convertible foreign exchange, is not an intermediary.

No Service Tax On Reimbursement Of Expenses From Customers On Account Of Water, Electricity And Diesel Expenses Incurred: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. VITP Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad-IV

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax is not applicable on reimbursement of expenses from its customers on account of water, electricity, and diesel expenses incurred for the provision of services.

The two-member bench of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that cenvat credit can be availed on work contract services and other services for the construction of immovable property. The Cenvat credit can be availed for event management services for the promotion of business.

Intermediate Goods Captively Consumed For Manufacture Of Exempted Final Products Does Not Attract Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Spray King Agro Equipment Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), has ruled that intermediate goods captively consumed for the manufacture of exempted final products do not attract excise duty.

Supply Of Bed Rolls Kits Amounts To Supplying Services To IRCTC, Chargeable To Service Tax: CESTAT

Case Title: Hakamichand D & Sons Versus C.S.T.-Service Tax - Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the supply of bedroll kits to passengers of air-conditioned classes and other classes on behalf of IRCTC attracts service tax.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the supply of bedroll kits to passengers for and on behalf of IRCTC is in the nature of a "customer care service". Therefore, the services are appropriately classifiable under business auxiliary services.

IT Service Provided By Assessee To Associate Company In USA Amounts To Export Of Service: CESTAT

Case Title: Celtic Systems Private Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has ruled that IT services provided by the assessee to the associate company in the USA amount to an export of services.

Credit Availed By Indian Overseas Bank On The Service Tax Paid On Deposit Insurance Service Is Eligible For CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Indian Overseas Bank Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the credit availed by the Indian Overseas Bank on the Service Tax paid on the basis of the premium paid to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for insuring deposits is eligible for CENVAT Credit.

No Limitation Applicable For Refund Amount Lying With Dept. Having The Nature Of Revenue Deposit: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt.Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax Commissionerate

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has ruled that the limitation applicable for refund amount lies with the department having the nature of revenue deposit.

Service Tax Not Payable On Liquidated Damages Collected From Contractor: CESTAT

Case Title: M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Goods, Service Tax and Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) ruled that service tax is not payable on liquidated damages collected from the contractor.

CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Claimed On Expenses Incurred On CSR: Delhi CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. versus Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that expenses incurred by a person on activities related to its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) cannot be termed as input services and thus, CENVAT Credit cannot be claimed on it.

The Bench, consisting of members Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), ruled that the fact that the CSR is a legal responsibility does not make it an output service.

Availment Of Credit On The Strength Of Photocopies Of Invoices Is Just A Procedural Lapse: CESTAT Allows Cenvat credit

Case Title: DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Daman

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the availment of credit on the strength of photocopies of the invoices is just a procedural lapse and cannot be made the basis to disallow the cenvat credit.

Service Tax Cannot Be Levied On Reimbursement Of Expenses Incurred By The Service Provider: Reiterates CESTAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Seher versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi – II

The Delhi Bench of CESTAT has reiterated that service tax cannot be levied on reimbursement of expenses incurred by the service provider.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), held that since Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 has been held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (2018), the nature of services does not make any difference and that no service tax can be levied on reimbursements.

Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Education Cess And Krishi Kalyan Cess Lying Unutilized In CENVAT Account: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. International Seaport Dredging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the assessee is entitled to a refund of education cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess lying unutilized in the CENVAT account.

Unit Located In The SEZ Shall Be Treated As A Distinct Identity From Its Other Units: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Tega Industries Limited versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara

The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT has held that if a unit of an enterprise is located in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), the said SEZ Unit shall be treated as having a distinct identity from the other units of the said enterprise which are located outside the SEZ.

Therefore, the Single Bench of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair held that a claim for refund of the service tax paid by a SEZ Unit on the services received by it from its units located in a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) could not be denied, even if the SEZ Unit was not a separate legal entity.

Foreign Origin Gold Bar With Unexplained Source Is Liable For Absolute Confiscation As It amounts To Importation Of Prohibited Goods: CESTAT

Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs Versus M.S. Alaudeen

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.Dinesha (Judicial Member), while remanding the matter back, held that the gold bar with a foreign marking, the source of which is not explained, is liable for absolute confiscation since the same would amount to the importation of a prohibited good.

Liquidated Damages Does Not Attract Service Tax: CESTAT Hyderabad

Case Title: M/s. Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that receipt of liquidated damages by the service provider for breach of conditions under an agreement to provide services would not attract Service Tax.

Compensation Paid By Employee To Employer For Resigning From Service Without Giving Requisite Notice Is Not A Taxable Service: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. XL Health Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate

The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that any compensation paid by the employee to the employer for resigning from the service without giving the requisite notice, would not be termed as consideration for the contract of employment and would not fall within the preview of taxable service.

CESTAT Allows Refund Of CENVAT Credits On Service Tax Paid During GST Regime Under Reverse Charge Mechanism On Import Of Services

Case Title: M/s Brose India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Chennai Bench of ITAT has ruled that subscription money received in advance by the DTH operators is not taxable.

The Bench, consisting of members V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), held that the subscription money received by DTH operators is taxable only when the said amount is accrued to them, i.e., when the services are rendered by the DTH operators to the subscribers.

Compensation Received For Cancellation Of Coal Blocks Under Supreme Court Order, Not Liable To Pay Service Tax: Kolkata CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Ranchi Commissionerate

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that compensation received under a statute for cancellation of coal blocks/mines vide an order of the Supreme Court, cannot be considered as a taxable service of tolerating a situation and is thus not exigible to Service Tax.

The Bench, consisting of members P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao, (Technical Member), held that the question of tolerating something and receiving a compensation for such tolerance pre-supposes that the person had a choice to either tolerate or not tolerate, and that the person chose to tolerate. The CESTAT added that the appellant had not chosen to tolerate the cancellation since the cancellation was in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court and not as a result of a contract to tolerate cancellation.

Galvanised Solar Structure Manufactured And Cleared For Initial Setting Up Of Solar Power Plants Exempted From Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. KEC International Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax (Appeals)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that galvanised solar structures manufactured and cleared for the initial setting up of solar power plants are exempted from excise duty.

No Service Tax Payable On Service Charges Collected By Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation From Milk Unions: CESTAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited versus Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur

The Delhi Bench of Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that no service tax is payable on the service charges collected by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation from the milk unions or district cooperative societies for the services rendered to them.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and technical member P.V. Subba Rao, held that although the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation and the milk unions/district cooperative societies are registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and are thus distinct legal entities, the nature of the relationship between them continues to be that of a club and its members. The CESTAT ruled that no service tax was payable on the services rendered by the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation to the milk unions.

Composition Scheme On Works Contract Cannot Be Denied On The Ground That Service Tax Was Discharged Earlier: CESTAT Bangalore

Case Title: M/s MFAR Construction Private Limited versus C.C.E & C.S.T.- Bangalore Service Tax- I

The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax on Works Contract cannot be denied merely on the ground of discharge of Service Tax under a different head prior to 01.06.2007.

The Bench, consisting of members P Dinesha (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member), held that Works Contract Services are liable to Service Tax only from 01.06.2007. The CESTAT ruled that the appellant could not be put to jeopardy for the reason that it had been paying Service Tax before 01.06.2007 even though it was not legally required to pay.

Proceedings Can't Be Initiated When Excise Duty Was Paid Prior To Issuance Of Show Cause Notice: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Surya Alloy Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) has held that the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings as the assessee had paid the excise duty along with the interest prior to the issuance of the show cause notice.

Failure Of Customs Broker To Observe Due Diligence Leading To Facilitate Fake Importers: CESTAT Revokes Licence

Case Title: M/s. Sky Sea Services Versus Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) affirmed the revocation of the customs broker's licence because the customs broker failed to conduct due diligence, allowing fake importers to operate.

The two-member bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the institution of customs brokers was created to facilitate the import and export of trade and, at the same time, to take care of the interests of revenue. Thus, a great responsibility has been cast upon the customs brokers to exercise due diligence while conducting their business.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit To The Member Of Industries Association Who Received Services And Borne Expenditure

Case Title: Gujarat Guardian Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the member of an industry association who has received the services and borne the expenditure is entitled to the cenvat credit.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit On Insurance Services

Case Title: Milestone Preservatives Pvt. Limited

The Ahmedabad Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has allowed the Cenvat credit on insurance services.

No Service Tax Leviable On Toll Collection, Toll Collector Not A Commission Agent: CESTAT Mumbai

Case Title: Souvenir Developers India Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax– I

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that any amount retained by a toll collector while undertaking toll-collection activity does not attract service tax since the said activity does not constitute a service rendered by a commission agent and thus it does not fall within the purview of a 'business auxiliary service' under the erstwhile Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Service Tax Not Leviable On IPL Promotion Activities By Anil Kumble: CESTAT

Case Title: Anil Kumble Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bangalore-I Commissionerate

The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the promotional activities undertaken by the former Indian skipper Anil Kumble shall not be treated as "business auxiliary services", so no service tax can be imposed.

Interest Free Security Deposits Are Not Exigible To Service Tax: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that interest free refundable security deposits are not exigible to service tax since they are not collected in consideration for providing a service.

Unsubstantiated Show Cause Notice And Cancellation Of Licence: CESTAT Restore Customs Broker's Licence

Case Title: M/s Perfect Cargo & Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has restored the customs broker's licence as the show cause notice or the inquiry report lacked details about the non-existence of the exporter.

Exported Goods Cannot Be Confiscated Under Section 113 Of Customs Act: CESTAT Hyderabad

Case Title: Nosch Labs Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad

The Hyderabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Section 113 of the Customs Act only provides for confiscation of goods that are to be exported and not for goods which have already been exported.

Service Tax Not Payable On Liquidated Damages: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has held that service tax is not payable on liquidated damages recovered on the failure to fulfil the contract.

Denial Of Availment Of CENVAT Credit On Performa Invoices, Despite All Information, Is Absolutely Wrong: CESTAT

Case Title: Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus Commissioner Appeals

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) held that the denial of availment of Cenvat Credit on performa invoices was absolutely wrong.

Amount On Alleged Wrongly Availed Cenvat Credit Deposited At Instance Of Audit Team Liable To Be Refunded In Absence Of SCN: CESTAT

Case Title: M/S Bird Audio Electronics Versus Commissioner Of CGST, North Delhi CGST Commissionerate

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount on alleged wrongly availed Cenvat Credit deposited at the instance of the audit team is liable to be refunded in absence of Show Cause Notice (SCN).

The bench of single member Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) has noted that the payment made by the assessee at the time of audit, in absence of any SCN for the same, cannot be held to be the payment against the demand raised by the Department without even going into the merits of the nature of demand.

Embossing Customer Name On Goods Not Amount To 'Branding' If Goods Are Not Sold By Customers: CESTAT Deletes 1% Excise Duty

Case Title: M/s.Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) while deleting the 1% of Excise Duty, held that embossing customer name on goods does not amount to 'Branding' if goods are not sold by customers.

The two member bench consisting Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P.Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has noted that as long as the goods are not sold by the customers of the appellant/assessee in the brand name which they are manufactured, the same cannot be held bearing brand name making them dutiable.

Issuance Of 2 SCN Demanding Short Paid Duty, Denying Cenvat Credit For Same Period Doesn't Amounts To 2 Assessments: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Varun Beverages Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Alwar

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the issuance of two show cause notices demanding the duty, which was short paid, and denying Cenvat credit respectively for the same period.

The two-member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) did not find any illegality in Revenue issuing two show cause notices; one for recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat credit and another show cause notice for recovery of duty short paid. It does not amount to two assessments for the same period in this case.

Interest Of Buyer In Assessee's Business Not Established for Valuation of Excisable Goods: CESTAT Rejects Department's Appeal Seeking Valuation Of Goods Sold Prior To 2013

Case Title : M/s Khyati Ispat Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has rejected the department's appeal seeking valuation of goods sold prior to 2013 on the grounds that the interest of buyer in assessee's business was not established.

The two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that as Rule 10 (b) squarely covers the transaction, value has to be determined as per this Rule. For the goods cleared to the buyer, it should be assessed as if the assessee and the buyer are not related persons. In other words, the transaction value has to be accepted.

Gold Was Freely Importable By Normal Importer prior to DGFT Notification Dated 18 December, 2019: CESTAT

Case Title: Rajesh Exports Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

The Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that gold was freely importable by the normal importer prior to the restrictions imposed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) vide Notification dated 18 December 2019.

No Service Tax payable On Packed Food Sold As Take Away And Not Served In Restaurant: CESTAT

Case Title: Hotel Utsav Versus C.C.E. & S.T. SURAT-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has ruled that service tax is not payable on packed food sold as take away and not served in the restaurant.

CESTAT Upholds Penalty Against Hindustan Coca Cola For Excise Duty Evasion On Pretext Of Stock Transfer

Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur-I

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld that penalty against Hindustan Coca Cola for the evasion of Excise Duty on the pretext of stock transfer.

Whether Nikon Eligible For Custom Duty Exemption Under Information Technology Agreement: Question Referred To Larger Bench

Case Title: M/s Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Imports) New Customs House, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) has referred the issue of eligibility to avail the benefit of the exemption of Basic Custom Duty (BCD) under Information Technology Agreement (ITA) on Digital Still Image Video Cameras imported by Nikon to the larger bench.

"Input Service" No Longer Includes Services For Personal Use Or For The Employee Post April 1, 2011: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. MTL Instruments Private Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the definition of input service as it stood prior to April 1, 2011, in which the phrase "activities relating to business" was included, which had a very wide ambit and would include almost all services used for the activities of business, however, after the amendment the services for personal use or for employees has been excluded from the definition of "input services".

CESTAT Directs Central Excise Dept. To Reconsider Refund of Cenvat Credit To Tata Consumer Products

Case Title: Tata Consumer Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax & Central Excise

The Banglore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.Dinesha (Judicial Member) directed the Central Excise Department to reconsider the refund of cenvat credit to Tata Consumer Products.

CESTAT Allows CENVAT credit Even If Goods Were not Classified as "Capital Goods" By The Supplier

Case Title: M/s Gelnova Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has allowed the CENVAT credit even when the goods were not classified as "capital goods" by the supplier.

Prasar Bharati Not Liable Pay Service Tax For Advertisement Services: CESTAT Directs Refund To Customers

Case Title: Prasar Bharati Versus Service Tax Commissioner

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of P.V.Subba Rao (Technical Member) and Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) directed Prasar Bharati to refund the Service Tax collected from customers for advertisement services within a period of two months.

No Suppression Of Fact By Adani Enterprise, Extended Period Of Service Tax Demand Not Invokable, says CESTAT

Case Title: Adani Enterprise Limited Versus C.S.T-Service Tax-Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member), has ruled that the extended period of limitation was not invokable as there was no suppression or willful misstatement on the part of the Adani Enterprise.

No Service Tax Payable On Activity Of Installing And Maintaining Fixed Facility For Supplying Oxygen Gas: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Goyal MG Gases Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate (CESTAT) consisting of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has ruled that service tax is not applicable on the activity of installing and maintaining a fixed facility for supplying oxygen gas.

Extended Limitation Cannot Claimed by Department, In Absence Of Fraud, Mis-Statement, Contumacious Conduct Of Taxpayer: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. KEC International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked by the excise department as there was no element of fraud, mis-statement or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee.

Customs Broker Is Responsible For Acts Of The Employees: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Meghna Clearing and Forwarding P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export)

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that for the act of an employee, direct responsibility is fixed on the customs broker.

The bench of Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has confirmed the penalty and relied on para 13(12) of the CHA Licencing Regulation, 2004 which says, "the customs broker shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure proper conduct of his employees in the transaction of business and he shall be held responsible for all acts and omissions of his employees during their employment."

Service Tax Not Leviable On Business Exhibition Service Performed Outside India: CESTAT

Case Title: Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not leviable on business exhibition services performed outside India.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) observed that as per Rule 3 of Sub Rule (II) of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules 2006, a service can be taxable in the hand of the recipient of the service in India only when the part of the service is performed in India.

Change In Taxation Regime Should Not Affect Credit Availment Right Of Assessee: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Monochem Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Delhi West

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a change in the taxation regime should not affect the credit availment right of the assessee.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) observed that, under Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, the appellant's right, privilege, and right to credit cannot be affected solely because the refund was rejected due to the limitation being passed after December 27, 2017.

CESTAT Allows Vodafone Idea To Avail CENVAT Credit Against Debit Notes

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise versus Vodafone Idea Limited

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed Vodafone Idea Limited to avail CENVAT credit on the debit notes issued to it, pertaining to reimbursements of diesel and electricity costs, on which service tax liability under Finance Act, 1994 had been discharged.

The Bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C J Mathew (Technical Member) ruled that CENVAT credit can be availed against invoices or debit notes that contain substantially the same information as prescribed in Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

No Liability On Vivo To Pay Customs Duty On Import Of Microphones Forming Part Of Mobile Phones: CESTAT

Case Title: Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Vivo is not liable to pay customs duty on the import of microphones as they form a part of cellular mobile phones.

The two-member bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that only 10% of customs duty is being imposed upon such goods which are part of cellular mobile phones, except for microphones/wired headsets/receivers.

Clean Energy Cess To Be Imposed For Collection Of Cess On Polluting Fossil Fuels: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax

Citation: Excise Appeal No.51255 Of 2019

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Clean Energy Cess has been imposed for the collection of cess on polluting fossil fuels so as to create additional funds for taking measures to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.

The two-member bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that under the Clean Energy Cess Rules, the cess has to be deposited through cash/PLA and cannot be deposited through debit to a cenvat credit account.

CESTAT Allows Refund Of Amount Reversed In CENVAT Credit Account To Reliance Industries

Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Reliance Industries Ltd. was ineligible for a refund of amounts that had, inadvertently, been reversed in the CENVAT credit account under rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 between April 2010 and March 2011.

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C.J. Mathew (Accountant Member) has observed that Reliance Industries has not used any incremental input and input services for the manufacture of an exempted quantity of LPG and the entire quantum of inputs and input services was required for the manufacture of dutiable finished goods.

CENVAT Credit Eligible On Service Tax Paid By Registered Premises Even If Invoices Raised In The Name Of Unregistered Branch Office: CESTAT

Case Title: Desai and Diwanji Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the assessee is eligible for CENVAT Credit on service tax paid by registered premises even if invoices raised are in the name of an unregistered branch office.

The single bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has observed that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting systems, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitle the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid by the service provider if invoices are raised in the name of branch offices, even if the said branch offices are unregistered, since Service Tax liability has been discharged by the main office also for services provided by the branches.

Allegations Of Clandestine Removal Of Goods Merely Based On Entries In Diaries Not Sustainable: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Raghuveer Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation of clandestine removal is merely based on the entries in diaries, etc. is not sustainable.

The bench of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the department has not adduced any additional evidence, even on a sample basis, to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal.

Activity Of Printing Advertisement Content On PVC Material Amount to "Manufacturing", No Service Tax Payable: CESTAT

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd.

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax is not payable on the activity of printing advertisement content on PVC material.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of printing advertisement content on PVC material which results in printed PVC flex or PVC board would amount to manufacture.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat credit To Satyam Computer For Service Tax Paid On Medical Insurance Premium Of Employees And Their Family

Case Title: Satyam Computer Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), comprised of two members Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member), has granted Satyam Computer a cenvat credit for service tax paid on insurance premiums for employees and their families.

Charges Of Clandestine Removal Cannot Be Confirmed On The Basis Of Private Records Without Corroborative Evidence: CESTAT

Case Title: Metal Gems Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that charges of clandestine removal cannot be confirmed on the basis of private records, the authenticity of which was doubted by the manufacturer without any corroborative evidence.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the onus to establish clandestine activities, resulting in confirmation of demand is placed heavily on the Revenue and is required to be discharged by the production of sufficient evidence.

Service Tax Demand Can't Be Sustained On Ocean Freight Under RCM: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Universal Industries Versus Commissioner, CGST- Dehradun

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax demand is not sustainable as the appellant has purchased fertilisers, which are their inputs, at cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) value, which includes the ocean freight element.

The appellant has paid custom duty on CIF value, which includes ocean freight, according to the single bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member). Thus, there can be no demand for service tax on the purchase price of goods, even under the reverse charge mechanism.

CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit On Welding Electrodes And Dissolved Acetylene Gas As Inputs In Cement Manufacturing Process

Case Title: M/s Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Citation: Excise Appeal No. 87998 of 2019

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has allowed the CENVAT Credit on Welding Electrodes and Dissolved Acetylene Gas (D.A. Gas) as inputs in the Cement Manufacturing Process.

MSO Liable To Pay Service Tax For Providing Cable Operator Services To LCO: CESTAT

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise And Central Goods And Service Tax Versus M/s Hathway Sukhamrit Cable & Datacom Pvt. Ltd.

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Multi System Operators (MSOs) are liable to pay service tax for providing cable operator services to Local Cable Operators (LCOs).

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Accountant Member) has observed that owing to the business model of the cable operator industry, the MSO is providing cable operator services to LCOs and not to ultimate consumers, and hence the MSO would be liable to pay service tax only on the amount received from LCOs. The LCOs will be separately liable for discharging service tax on the gross amount received from the ultimate customers for the service provided by the LCO to them.

CESTAT Directs CBIC To Issue Guideline In Respect Of IBC Proceedings Initiated Against Assessee Before CESTAT

Case Title: M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus C.C.-JAMNAGAR (PREV)

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has been ordered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to consider issuing guidelines or procedures for handling cases before the CESTAT in which an IBC proceeding has been brought against the assessee's company.

CESTAT Allows Refund Of Unutilised Cenvat credit of Education Cess For Payment Of Output Tax

Case Title: M/s Mahavir Transmission Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax, Dehradun

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the refund of unutilised cenvat credit of education cess and secondary and higher education cess for payment of output tax.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has relied on the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST and held an assessee is entitled to a refund of unutilized cess under the existing law, lying in credit as on 30/06/2017.

CESTAT Deletes Penalty On Availment of Credit Of Input Services Used In Co-Generation Plant For Generation Of Electricity Sold Outside

Case Title: M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty imposed with regard to credit availed in respect of input services used in the co-generation plant for the generation of electricity sold outside.

The bench of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) has upheld a penalty imposed with regard to an input service tax credit on the services used in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol.

Benefit Of Abatement Notification Can't Be Denied Merely For Mismatch In Quantum Of Purchase: CESTAT

Case Title: Jay Gurudev Construction Co Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the benefit of abatement notification cannot be denied solely because of a difference in the amount of purchase shown in the profit and loss account and invoices.

Service Tax is Payable On Computer Education Service Under Vocational Training: CESTAT

Case Title: Advance Computer Education Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is payable on computer education services under vocational training.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the computer education service has been excluded from the Vocational Training service by Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005. The period involved was from 21.06.2006 to 30.11.2009. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for exemption under vocational training.

Job Of Bottling, Blending And Labelling Indian Made Foreign Liquor Does Not Amount To Taxable Service Under 'Business Auxiliary Service': CESTAT

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I Versus

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the job of bottling, blending and labelling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) does not amount to taxable service under "Business Auxiliary Service".

Denying The Customs Duty Exemption Despite The Valid Country Of Origin Certificate Is Not Sustainable: CESTAT

Case Title: M J Gold Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that denying the benefit of customs duty exemption despite the valid country of origin certificate is not sustainable.

Characteristics Of "Consumables" Does Not Attach "Welding Electrodes", MODVAT Credit Can't Be Recovered: CESTAT

Case Title: Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that characteristics of "consumables" do not attach to "welding electrodes", and, therefore, the recovery of the Modified Value Added Tax (MODVAT) credit was incorrect.

Currency can't be confiscated if it is not Proceeds Of Goods Cleared Clandestinely: CESTAT

Case Title: Patidar Products Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the seized currency during the course of an investigation cannot be confiscated without proving that the said seized currency is the sale proceeds of excisable goods cleared clandestinely.

Parking Services Of Cycle, Scooters Doesn't Attract Service Tax: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title: Sham Lal Versus State of Haryana and others

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the service tax is not payable on the parking services for cycles and scooters.

No Mala Fide Intent To Evade Service Tax: CESTAT Quashes Penalty

Case Title: Dinesh Chandra Dubey Versus & Service Tax, Excise and Customs

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has deleted the penalty and held that the service provider receiving a commission in lieu of providing "business auxiliary services" from Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society did not have a mala fide intention to evade service tax.

No Service Tax Payable On Facility Charges Attributable To Electricity Expenses: CESTAT

Case Title: Nai Dunia Media Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on the amount received as facility charges as it was wholly attributable to electricity expenses, which have been shared proportionately by the assessee and its sister concerns.

Intentional Short Payment Of Excise Duty: CESTAT Upholds Penalty

Case Title: Meghmani Organics Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-ii

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground of intentional short payment of excise duty.

Finished Goods Destroyed In Fire; Bajaj Herbals Eligible For Remission Of Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Bajaj Herbals Private Ltd Versus C.C.E. Ahmedabad-II

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Bajaj Herbals was eligible for remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed in the fire incident.

No Excise Duty Can Be Demanded On Semi-Finished Goods Lying At The Time Of Debonding Of 100% EOU: CESTAT

Case Title: IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Versus C.C.E

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty cannot be demanded on semi-finished goods or work in process lying at the time of debonding of 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU).

Cenvat Credit Can't Be Denied Merely For Non-Registration Of Input Service Distributor : CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Arkkays National Engineering & Foundry Co. Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cenvat credit cannot be denied on the grounds of non-registration of input service distributor registration in respect of bank charges and chartered accountant services.

Not a bonfide importer, Paid For Making Forged Licences To Clear Bills of Entry: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Nidhi Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Export), New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has found that the appellant has not paid duty to the government exchequer but instead paid a percentage of the amount equivalent to the duty to the firms for making forged licences to clear the bills of entry.

Service Tax Leviable On Policy Administration Charges From 1 May, 2011: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Max Life Insurance Company India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is leviable on policy administration charges with effect from 01.05.2011.

The two-member bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that in view of the clarification by the Board in TRU Circular dated 26.02.2010, 2010, policy administration charges are chargeable to tax under Section 65 (105) (zx). Thus, the department cannot be permitted to take a U-turn in light of the board's circular. Board circulars are binding on the officers of the department.

CESTAT Allows Interest On Delay In Refund Of Excess Reversal Of CENVAT Credit

Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd. versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Reliance Industries is entitled to interest on delay in refund of excess reversal of CENVAT credit.

The bench of Judicial Member Ramesh Nair dismissed the contention of the revenue department that since the assessee- Reliance Industries, was entitled to adjust the excess amount by taking credit suo moto under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which it had failed to do so, it was not entitled to interest.

Service Tax Under RCM For Works Contract Service Not Applicable on Corporate Assesses: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s TDK India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Kolkata North

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of P.K. Chaudhary (Judicial Member), has held that the notification levying service tax under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for works contract service shall be applicable only to individuals, partnership firms, and Hindu Undivided Families (HUF), and not to corporate assessees.

No Service Tax Payable On Sale Of Ready-Mix-Concrete: CESTAT

Case Title: Perfect Ready Mix Concrete Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the entire exercise is the sale of ready-mixed concrete (RMC) and there is no service element involved so as to create service tax liability against the assessee.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that the department has very much accepted the activity of the appellant as manufacturing and collected the excise duty on the entire value of RMC, which includes the pumping and laying of RMC at the site. As a result, the department cannot take two positions: one supporting the manufacturer's demand for excise duty while also demanding service tax under the Works Contract Act.

No Service Tax Payable On Security Deposit Taken From Customers Towards Trading Of Shares: CESTAT

Case Title: Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is not payable on security deposits taken from customers towards the trading of shares.

Payment On One-Time Premium/Aalami Can't Be Charged To Service Tax Under Renting Of Immovable Property: CESTAT

Case Title: Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & ST

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the payment of a one-time premium or salami cannot be charged to service tax under the heading "renting of immovable property service."

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair (judicial member) and Raju (technical member) has observed that service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) read with Section 65(90a) cannot be charged on the "premium" or "salami" paid by the lessee to the lessor for transfer of an interest in the property from the lessor to the lessee as the amount is not for the continued enjoyment of the property leased.

External Hard Disk Drives Eligible For Concessional Rate Of Additional Customs Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that import of external/portable hard disk drives are eligible for concessional rate of additional customs duty, as provided under Notification No. 6/2006-CE, dated 1^st March 2006, and Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17^th March 2012.

CBEC Not Empowered To Modify the Scope of Exemption Notification issued by the Central Government: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Lakshya Education Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) is not empowered to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.

AAAR

Setting up of Electric Loco Shed For Railway Constitutes Composite Supply Of Works Contract Service: AAAR

Appellant's Name: M/s HYT Engineering Company Private Limited

The Uttar Pradesh Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that the setting up of an Electric Loco Shed for the Railway constitutes a composite supply of work contract service.

The two-member bench of S. Kannan and Ministhy S. has observed that the project of setting up an electric loco shed at Saiyedpur Bhitri, Uttar Pradesh, fulfils the conditions of it being an immovable property.

Applicant Withheld Information Regarding Commencement Of Investigation: AAAR Declares AAR's Ruling Void

Appellant's Name: M/s. Shalby Limited

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) declared the AAR ruling void as the appellant had withheld information regarding the commencement of an investigation against them on the issue raised by them in the application for an advance ruling.

Liquidated Damages Recoverable From Bi-electric India For Delay In Commissioning, Doesn't Qualifies As Supply, No GST Payable: AAAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Achampet Solar Private Limited

The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that liquidated damages recoverable by the applicant from Bi-electric India on account of delay in commissioning do not qualify as a "supply" and no GST is payable.

ITC Can't Be Availed By Housing Society On Works Contract Services Of Repairs, Renovations, Rehabilitation: AAAR

Appellant's Name: M/s. Mahavir Nagar Shiv Shrushti Co-op. Housing

The Maharashtra Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that the housing society is ineligible to claim input tax credit (ITC) on contract services received from their appointed contractor due to the housing society's ineligibility to claim ITC on repairs, renovations, and rehabilitation works.

The two-member bench of Ashok Kumar Mehta and Rajeev Kumar Mital has observed that the society itself is not a work contract service provider, nor is it in the business of providing work contract services. The contract services received by society from appointed contractors are for the common benefit of the members.

GST Payable On Medical insurance premium for employees and pensioners: Telangana AAAR

Appellant: M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board

The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that no GST exemption is available on medical insurance premiums taken to provide health insurance to employees, pensioners, and their family members.

The two-member bench of Neetu Prasad and B.V. Siva Naga Kumari has observed that the insurance services for employees and employees' family members received by the appellant are not in direct and proximate relation to the water supply and sewerage-related functions entrusted under Article 243W of the Constitution of India, hence the supplies received by the appellant are not exempted from GST.

No GST Exemption On Sub-Contract Services To Educational Boards: Telangana AAAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Magnetic Infotech Pvt Ltd

The Telangana Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has ruled that there is no GST exemption on sub-contract services to educational boards.

The two-member bench of B.V. Sivanaga and Neetu Prasad has observed that the exemption would be available when the services are provided "to" an educational institution for services relating to admission to or the conduct of examination by the institution.

Parathas Different from Plain Chapatti, Attracts 18% GST: Gujarat AAAR

Appellants Name: M/s Vadilal Industries Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR), while upholding the ruling of AAR, has held that 18% GST is applicable on parathas.

The two-member bench of Vivek Ranjan and Milind Torawane has observed that the parathas are different from plain chapatti or roti and cannot be treated as or covered under the category of plain chapatti or roti. The appropriate classification of parathas would be under Chapter Heading 2106.