Indirect Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 17 To 23 March 2024

Mariya Paliwala

24 March 2024 8:00 AM GMT

  • Indirect Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 17 To 23 March 2024

    Supreme Court Customs Act | Importer's Subsequent Import Bill Be Discarded If Undervalued To Previously Imported Identical Or Similar Goods: Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Global Technologies and Research versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import) Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 239 Recently, the Supreme Court held that under the Customs Act, the...

    Supreme Court

    Customs Act | Importer's Subsequent Import Bill Be Discarded If Undervalued To Previously Imported Identical Or Similar Goods: Supreme Court

    Case Title: M/s Global Technologies and Research versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import)

    Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 239

    Recently, the Supreme Court held that under the Customs Act, the Importer's Bill of Entry of subsequent imported goods can be discarded if the subsequent imported goods are undervalued to the previously imported identical or similar goods.

    Delhi High Court

    Tribunal's Discretion To Dispense Obligation To Deposit Duty/Interest Or Penalty In Cases Of Undue Hardships: Delhi High Court

    Case Title: G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs

    The Delhi High Court has held that the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, gives discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to dispense the obligation to deposit the duty, interest, or penalty.

    Bombay High Court

    Categorising Body Massager As Adult Sex Toy, Officer's Imagination, Not Covered Under 'Prohibited Goods': Bombay High Court

    Case Title: Commissioner of Customs NS-V vs. DOC Brown Industries LLP

    The Bombay High Court has held that categorising the body massager as an adult sex toy was purely the officer's imagination.

    Allahabad High Court

    CGST | 'Capital Goods' Are For Long-Term Use, 'Inputs' For Day-To-Day Operations, Not Capitalized In Books Of Accounts: Allahabad HC Clarifies

    Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170 [Writ Tax No. 777 of 2022]

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

    The Allahabad High Court has clarified that 'capital goods' as defined under Section 2 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are for long term use whereas 'inputs' are meant for day-to-day business operations and are not capitalized in the books of accounts.

    S75(4) UPGST | 'Or' Is Disjunctive In Nature, Each Option To Be Considered Independently: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: M/S Shree Sai Palace vs. State Of U.P. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 171

    The Allahabad High Court has held that the use of word 'or' in Section 75(4) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is disjunctive in nature which means that there are two situations provided in which opportunity of personal hearing must be afforded to an assesee and both situations must be considered independently while applying Section 75(4).

    CGST | Travelling Beyond SCN Erodes Trust In Integrity & Impartiality Of Adjudicatory Process: Allahabad High Court

    Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited V. State Of U.P. And Others

    Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

    The Allahabad High Court has held that Department travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice undermines the right to fair hearing of an assesee and also erodes the trust in integrity and impartiality of the adjudicatory process.

    Consistency Sacrosanct In Taxation Matters, Department Can't Take Different Stand In Identical Situations: Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Samsung

    Case Title: M/S Samsung India Electronics Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Others

    Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 170

    The Allahabad High court has held that the Department must take consistent stands in identical fact situations for different tax periods as consistency is paramount in tax regime.

    Gujarat High Court

    Gujarat High Court Grants Bail In Case Of Alleged Issuance Of Invoices Without Supply Of Goods Under CGST Act

    Case Title: JATINBHAI PRAFULBHAI KAKKAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 29

    The Gujarat High Court has granted bail for an individual implicated in a case related to an FIR filed under Sections 132(1)(b) and (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The case revolves around the purported issuance of GST invoices without actual delivery of goods, allegedly resulting in a significant financial loss to the government treasury.

    Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Co-Accused In Rs. 700 Crore GST Scam Case Involving Tax Amount Of 35 Crores

    Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal

    LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 31

    The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the State against the order granting regular bail to an accused in a multi-crore scam case.

    Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1466 Crore Alleged GST Scam Case

    Case Title: HITESH PRABHUDAS LODHIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

    LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 30

    The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to a man in a case involving an alleged GST scam amounting to Rs. 1466 crores.

    Rajasthan High Court

    Issuance Of Summons Is Not Initiation Of Proceedings Referable To Under Section 6(2)(B) Of CGST Act: Rajasthan High Court

    Case Title: Rais Khan Versus Add. Commissioner

    The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that issuance of summons is not initiation of proceedings referable to under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.

    Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Credit Availed On Outward Transportation Services Eligible When Freight Charges Are Included In Taxable Value: Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Case Title: M/s INOX Air Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax Division

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that credit availed on outward transportation services is eligible when the freight charges are included in the taxable value.

    CESTAT

    Services Of Planning Travel Itinerary Of Clients Classified As “Air Travel Agent” And Not Under Business Support Service: CESTAT

    Case Title: M/s. International Travel House Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax

    The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that services for planning travel itineraries for clients are classified as “air travel agents” and not under business support services.

    Excise Duty Not Payable On Waste And Scrap Of Packing Material Of Inputs If Travels Beyond Show-Cause Notice: CESTAT

    Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus M/s Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.

    The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty is not payable on waste and scrap packing material of inputs, and demand is not sustainable if it has travelled beyond the show-cause notice.

    In Absence Of Service Recipient And Service Provided Service Tax Can't Be Demanded And Confirmed: CESTAT

    Case Title: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Versus Joint Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jaipur

    The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that in the absence of such service recipient and service provided service tax cannot be demanded and confirmed.

    Remuneration Paid To Whole-Time Directors As Commission Based On Profit Doesn't Attract Service Tax: CESTAT

    Case Title: Gujarat Guardian Ltd. Versus C.C.E-Bharuch

    The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that remuneration paid to whole-time directors as commission based on profit doesn't attract service tax.

    Advertisement Expenses Incurred By Dealers Not To Be Included In Assessable Value For Payment Of Excise Duty: CESTAT

    Case Title: Suzuki Motorcycle India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

    The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers on their own accord are not to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of excise duty.


    Next Story