Bombay High Court

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.

Madras High Court

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.

Audit Objection Can't Be The Basis Of AO's 'Reasons To Believe 'That Too After Lapse Of 6 Years: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

The Madras High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings and held that an audit objection does not satisfy the requirement of the Assessing Officer having an independent "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that all materials with regard to the computation of tax under the provisions of MAT were available before the Assessing Authority during the original assessment proceedings.

Allahabad High Court

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.

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.

CESTAT

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.

ITAT

Addition Made By AO Despite Issue Pending Before AAR; Assessment Order Not Void: ITAT

Case Title: M/s. Think and Learn Private Limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Bengaluru

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that an assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer, deciding on an issue pending before the AAR, in contravention of the mandate laid down in Section 245R(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not make the entire assessment order void.

The Bench of N. V. Vasudevan (Vice President) and Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) held that merely because the additions made by the Assessing Officer were challengeable by the assessee before the appellate authorities, for being in contravention to the provisions of Section 245R(2)(i), it cannot be a ground to hold that the interest of the Revenue was prejudiced in order to exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

AAR

GST Not Leviable On Employees' Portion Of Canteen Charges: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Limited

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the GST is not leviable on the employee's portion of canteen charges.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Atul Mehta has observed that GST is leviable on the amount representing the contractual worker portion of canteen charges, which is collected and paid to the canteen service provider.

AAAR

Agricultural Manually Hand Operated Seed Dressing, Coating and Treating Drum Is Covered Under HSN Code 8436: AAAR

Applicant's Name: M/s Adarsh Plant Protect Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR) has held that the manually operated seed dressing, coating, and treating drum is covered within the description provided under the HSN Code 8436.

The two-member bench of Vivek Ranjan and Milind Toravane has observed that, as per HSN 843, other agricultural machinery includes seed dusting machines consisting of a revolving drum in which the seeds are coated with insecticidal or fungicidal powders.