Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: 23 To 29 June 2024

Bombay High CourtDiscrepancies Between Dates Of Creation And Signing Assessment Order; Bombay High Court Quashes MVAT Order Passed Beyond 4 YearsCase Title: Karvy Innotech Limited Versus State of MaharashtraThe Bombay High Court, while noting the discrepancies between the dates of creation and signing of the assessment order, quashed the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT) Order, which was passed beyond the limitation period of 4 years.Madras High CourtTax Demand on Post Sale Discounts Received By Way Of Financial Credit Notes Not Tenable: Madras High CourtCase Title: Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)The Madras High Court has quashed the order imposing tax demands on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes on the ground that receiving a discount is not tenable in law.Kerala High CourtCredit Available On Advance Tax Paid For Stock-Transferred: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant CommissionerThe Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner will be entitled to credit for the entire amount paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 for the goods in question, which were stock-transferred to its branch office in Pollachi.Himachal Pradesh High Court Refusal To Entertain Refund Application Of Unutilized ITC; Himachal Pradesh High Court Imposes 10K Cost On Deputy CGST CommissionerCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 31Case Title: M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & othersThe Himachal Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Deputy CGST Commissioner for refusing to entertain the application of the assessee or petitioner for a refund of unutilized input tax credit.Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Ultra Tech's Claim For Grant Of Budgetary Support SchemeCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 32Case Title: Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus UOIThe Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the order rejecting Ultra Tech's claim for the grant of budgetary support.CESTATPenalty Can't Be Levied When Extended Limitation Period Is Not Invokable: Chandigarh CESTATCase Title: M/s P S Construction Versus CommissionerThe Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that when the extended period is not invokable, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is also not leviable since the ingredients for invoking the extended period and levying the penalty under Section 78 are the same.Recovery Provisions Of Central Excise Act Are Not Applicable To Service Tax: Chandigarh CESTATCase Title: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Versus CommissionerThe Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that recovery provisions of the Central Excise Act are not applicable to service tax.Dept. Can't Challenge Customs Duty Demand, Below Threshold Limit Prescribed By CBIC: CESTATCase Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus Sedna Impex India Pvt LtdThe Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), while dismissing the department's appeal, held that the department is precluded from challenging the commissioner's order if customs duty demand is below the threshold limit prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).Mumbai CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit To HDFC ERGO Against Duty Paid On Re-Insuring Motor VehicleCase Title: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus CommissionerThe Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the CENVAT credit taken by the appellant, HDFC ERGO, against duty paid on re-insuring motor vehicles while providing general insurance service for the period from April 2011 to March 2012.Coca Cola's "Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh" Is Classifiable As “Fruit Pulp Or Fruit Juice Based Drinks”: Allahabad CESTATCase Title: M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central ExciseThe Allahabad Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the product “Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh” is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule under the category of “fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks.”CA Certificate Sufficient To Grant Special Additional Duty Refund Claim: CESTATCase Title: M/s Faxtel Systems (India) Versus Commissioner of Customs BangaloreThe Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that once a CA certificate is produced, in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, such a certificate is sufficient to grant the refund claim. The Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund should not be denied merely for technical violations.“Convenience Fee” & “Cancellation Fee” Not Connected To Business Promotion; CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Against Yatra OnlineCase Title: M/s Yatra Online Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, CGST, GurugramThe Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal...

Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: 23 To 29 June 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags