Tax Cases Monthly Round-Up: November, 2022

Indirect Taxes Supreme Court 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. Delhi High Court 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. Bombay High Court 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...

Tax Cases Monthly Round-Up: November, 2022

Mariya Paliwala

Tags