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 Dismisses Department's SLP Against HC Decision Holding That Entrance Fees Received By Club From Its Member Is Capital Receipts

Case Title: PCIT Versus Royal Western India Turf Club

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Hima Kohli has dismissed the special leave petition of the department challenging the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court has held that any sum paid by a member of a club to acquire the rights of a club is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.

Delhi High Court

Assessment order passed against the dead person without bringing on record legal heirs is Void: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Vikram Bhatnagar Versus ACIT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1093

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed against the dead person without bringing on record all his legal representatives is void.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the death of the assessee was duly communicated by his legal heirs. The ITR also duly disclosed that it was filed by the legal representative. However, due to a lack of knowledge of the facts on the record, the scrutiny proceedings were wrongfully conducted in the name of the deceased assessee without bringing all of his legal heirs to the record as required by law.

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.

Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order Passed Without Issuing Draft Assessment Order

Case Title: RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC

The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice or a draft assessment order which has been mandated under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla has directed the department to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks.

The Office Of NaFAC In Delhi Confer Jurisdiction When JAO Is Outside Delhi? Delhi High Court Refers The Issue To Larger Bench

Case Title: GPL-RKTCPL JV Versus NaFAC

The Delhi High Court has referred to the larger bench the question of whether the presence of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) in Delhi is sufficient to hear a writ petition when the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is located outside of Delhi.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench.

Bombay High Court

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.

Kerala High Court

Income Tax Act does not impose any limitation for filing an application for condonation of delay: Kerala High Court

Case Title: K C Antony Versus Principal Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 598

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act does not impose any limitation for the purposes of filing an application for condonation of delay.

The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that it was completely wrong on the part of the department to treat the date of filing of the application for condonation of delay as the relevant date for the purpose of considering whether it was filed within 6 years or not.

Jharkhand High Court

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.

Gujarat High Court

Reassessment Powers Could Not Be used For Reverification Or For A Rowing Inquiry: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Piyush Ambalal Gandhi Versus DCIT

The Gujarat High Court has held that the reassessment powers could not be exercised either for the purpose of reverification or to have a merry sailing for a rowing inquiry.

The division bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has observed that the assessing officer wanted to undertake a fishing inquiry in relation to an issue about which he had already solicited information and examined it.

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.

ITAT

ITAT Fastens Capital Gain Liability On Owner selling property through GPA Holder

Case Title: Dr. Sabesan Parameswaran Versus ACIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has fastened capital gain liability on owners executing General Power of Attorney (GPA) and selling property through GPA holders.

The two-member bench headed by Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and G. Manjunatha (Accountant Member) has observed that the GPA has nowhere given possession to the GPA holder, and he has only executed the sale deed. As per the clear terms of the Power of Attorney (PoA), the principal has to receive monetary consideration from the agent after the execution of the sale deed.

VAT Not Fee/Charge; Cannot Be Disallowed As Deduction Under Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: ITAT

Case Title: M/s. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. versus ACIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, a State Government undertaking, is not a fee or charge, or an appropriation made by the State Government, and thus, it cannot be disallowed as deduction under the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant Member) held that since the power of the State Government to levy tax on sale and purchase of liquor and the power to levy fees are two different powers, which are derived from two different entries in the State list, the fees levied by the State under Entry 66, cannot encompass tax levied by virtue of Entry 54.

Income Tax Assessment made by a non-jurisdictional officer is void: Kolkata ITAT

Case Title: Amiya Gopal Dutta Versus DCIT

The Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the income tax assessment made by a non-jurisdictional officer is null and void.

The two-member bench of Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) has observed that in the case of a non-corporate assessee in non-metro cities, the ITR filed up to Rs. 15 lacs has to be assessed by ITO. Therefore, the assessment was made in violation of Instruction No. 1 of 2011 by the CBDT.

Filing Of Form 10–IC Is Mandatory Condition To Claim The Benefit Of Reduced Corporate Tax Rate For The Domestic Companies: ITAT

Case Title: Bholanath Precision Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that in order to claim the benefit of a reduced corporate tax rate, domestic companies have to mandatorily file Form 10–IC.

The two-member bench of Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) has observed that the assessee did not file Form 10–IC before the due date of filing the return of income, which is a mandatory condition for claiming the option available under Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act.

CESTAT

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.

AAR

Cost Of The Diesel For Providing DG Set Rental Service Attracts 18% GST: Uttarakhand AAR

Applicant's Name: Tara Genset Engineers Regd

The Uttarakhand Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that 18% GST is applicable on the cost of the diesel incurred for running diesel generators (DG) in the course of providing DG rental service.

The two-member bench of Anurag Mishra and Rameshwar Meena has observed that consideration for reimbursement of expenses, such as the cost of the diesel for running the DG set, is nothing but an additional consideration for the renting of the DG set.

AAAR

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.