Centaxonline’s Tax Gazette
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Centaxonline's Tax Gazette – Where Complexity Meets Clarity.
Today, we draw the definitive line between being informed and uninformed, empowering you with the latest and most essential tax insights.
Case Chronicles
Bail of accused can't be cancelled without hearing accused’s counsel; matter to be remanded: SC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where counsel for appellant was not heard by High Court before passing order of cancellation of bail granted to appellant by trial Court, thus, there had been a breach of principles of natural justice and therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was remanded back.
Key Details:
Case Name: Gautam Garg vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 333 (S.C.)
HC restrains GST authority from issuing final order for period already covered by audit
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Show cause notice under GST Act overlapping with period of concluded audit raises jurisdictional issue, requiring adjudication order to be withheld pending resolution.
Key Details:
Case Name: J.K. Chemicals vs. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 334 (Cal.)
Dept. should regularise past returns filed by ‘Fryums’ manufacturer at Nil rate of tax on ‘as is’ basis: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where AAR held unfried fryums to be taxable at rate of 18 per cent while AAAR held it exempted and ultimately GST Council held it taxable at rate of 5 per cent and CBIC circular stated that issue of past period GST upto 27-7-2023 would be regularized on ‘as is’ basis, since upto 27-7-2023 petitioner had not paid any GST, they could not be subjected to any levy as it was status of payment of GST by petitioner that would continue to prevail upto 27-7-2023.
Key Details:
Case Name: J. K. Papad Industries vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 335 (Guj.)
HC set-aside order levying tax for mismatch in GST returns without proper notice and hearing
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned GST assessment order was passed without proper notice or opportunity to rectify returns mismatch, order set aside and fresh hearing directed after partial deposit, upholding principles of natural justice.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Cuurro Motors vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST), Chennai
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 340 (Mad.)
HC set aside order since registration of assessee was cancelled without assigning any reason
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where registration of assessee was cancelled without assigning any reason in order terminating cancellation or in show cause notice, same was a clear violation of natural justice, therefore order cancelling registration was to be set aside and registration was to be restored.
Key Details:
Case Name: D K Enterprises vs. Superintendent
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 367 (A.P.)
Attachment order passed without issuing a notice or granting opportunity of hearing to be set aside: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where Competent Authority had attached demat accounts of petitioner in a proceeding against one ‘W’ company, wherein petitioner was a director, without issuing a notice or granting opportunity of hearing, such attachment orders were to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Gaurav Modwel vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 368 (Bom.)
Customs should consider assessee’s representation regarding refund of ITC and pass orders after considering error in GSTR-1: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Errors in GSTR-1 filing leading to non-processing of refunds require consideration of representation and opportunity of hearing before passing orders.
Key Details:
Case Name: A. Abdul Latheef vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 357 (Ker.)
HC directs GST authority to consider assessee’s representation against recovery notice issued without providing reasons
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST : Where assessee challenged recovery notice issued without proper reasons under GST Act, revenue authorities directed to consider assessee’s representation and dispose of the same on merits within 2 weeks, without quashing the impugned notice.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Iqbal Alloy Steels vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 360 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter as assessee couldn’t file reply to SCN since relevant documents were seized by GST authority
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where on account of said search and seizure operations conducted by Superintendant, Central Tax (HPU), assessee was not in a position to submit a detailed reply to SCN issued under section 73 as all documents, books of accounts, registers, computer data, hard disk were seized, thus, order issued under section 73 was to be set aside and matter remitted back to revenue for reconsideration to stage of submitting reply to SCN.
Key Details:
Case Name: Vijaya Trading Company vs. State of Karnataka
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 366 (Kar.)
HC remanded matter since order passed after cancellation of registration was not noticed
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where registration of assessee had been cancelled retrospectively and thereafter impugned orders of assessment were passed with regard to output tax liability, which were not noticed by assessee due to cancellation of registration, impugned orders were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded on condition that assessee admitted its tax liability.
Key Details:
Case Name: Global Distributors vs. Assisstant Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 369 (Ker.)
HC set-aside order of cancellation of GST registration since order was passed on same date of issuing SCN
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where date of show cause notice issued to assessee proposing to cancel registration and order cancelling registration was same, such order was to be set aside for being cryptic in view of judgement passed in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works v. State of Gujarat [2022] 137 taxmann.com 332 (Gujarat)
Key Details:
Case Name: Himat Trading Co. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 370 (Guj.)
HC set-aside order imposing penalty as ITC was reversed before issuance of any notice by dept.
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee had wrongly claimed ITC and thereafter reversed said ITC in its entirety by filing Form GSTR-3B before any notice was issued to assessee, it could be concluded that assessee was an honest tax payer, therefore, impugned order passed against assessee raising demand for excess claim of ITC was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kurian Tharayil Sabu vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 371 (Ker.)
Assessee to be granted one final opportunity since notices in DRC-01A and DRC-01 hadn't been uploaded: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was subjected to assessment under section 74 and it contended that while impugned order stated that notices in DRC-01A and DRC-01 had been uploaded, however, same had not been uploaded resulting in denying assessee an opportunity to put-forth its explanation, impugned order was to be set aside and assessee was to be granted one final opportunity.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. C.M. Promotors vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 373 (Mad.)
HC directed Appellate Authority to dispose of appeal on merits since assessee had shown reasonable cause of delay
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed appeal with a delay of 285 days and same was rejected vide impugned order, since assessee had shown reasonable cause of delay, delay in filing appeal was to be condoned and Appellate Authority was to be directed to dispose of appeal of assessee on merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Deepa Traders vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 374 (Mad.)
Matter to be remanded since assessee filed response along with relevant comparative statements but AO didn't consider: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned order of Adjudicating Authority proceeded on basis that assessee had not responded to notice, whereas assessee had filed response along with relevant comparative statements, impugned order suffered from violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, warranted interference.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. N.A.R. Stores vs. State Tax Officer, Office of the Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 376 (Mad.)
HC set-asides order issued u/s 74 since responses of assessee during inspection were not mentioned in order
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessment orders were challenged for lack of consideration of assessee’s responses and computational errors, orders were set aside, partial payment of disputed tax directed, and fresh adjudication ordered with due opportunity of being heard.
Key Details:
Case Name: Krishna Iron & Steen Company vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 359 (Mad.)
HC condoned delay of 12 days in filing appeal as assessee was unaware of order passed by revenue
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee’s appeal against order passed by revenue was rejected due to delay of 12 days in filing appeal, since assessee was unaware about order passed by revenue as all notices/communications were uploaded under column, viz., "View Additional Notices and Orders", in GST portal which assessee was not aware about, said rejection order was to be set aside and delay of 12 days in filing appeal before Appellate Authority was to be condoned.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Jayalakshmi Steel Corporation vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 361 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter to tax authorities to pass fresh order after enforcement of provisions of Finance Act, 2024 relating to GST
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: GST assessment order remanded for fresh consideration after implementation of Council recommendations and statutory amendments.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Kalidoss vs. State Tax Officer, Kumbakonam
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 362 (Mad.)
HC awarded compensation since Customs had denied exit permit to foreign national despite her acquittal by two courts
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Foreign nationals have fundamental right of life and liberty, they must be treated equally before law, and their right to live honoured and protected; where Customs had denied foreign national exit permit despite her acquittal by two courts and brazenly filed appeal against acquittal despite CBEC Circular and Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., foreign national awarded compensation for mental agony, trauma, and sufferings
Key Details:
Case Name: Cong Ling vs. Frro Bureau of Immigration, Mumbai
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 321 (Bom.)
Importer can’t be permitted to deny correctness if enhancement of value is accepted by importer: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: When enhancement of value is accepted by importer, it becomes declared transaction value requiring no further investigation and importer cannot be permitted to deny its correctness.
Key Details:
Case Name: Singla Sales Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 316 (Tri.-Del)
No penalty on CHA for not checking antecedents of importer if no connivance was found with importer: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Penalty is not imposable on Customs Broker or its employee when on same charge, suspension of CB Licence was revoked by High Court and CB was allowed to do work on regular basis as Customs Broker.
Key Details:
Case Name: Pallab Mitra vs. Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and C.X., Kolkata
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 383 (Tri.-Cal)
Corrigendum is effective from date of issuance of original Notification; CESTAT allowed exemption benefit to importer
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Corrigendum is effective from date of issuance of original Notification, therefore, importers are eligible to benefit of Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended for disputed Bills of Entry filed during period from 24.01.2020 to 22.05.2020.
Key Details:
Case Name: FCI Oen Connectors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 379 (Tri.-Bang)
Date of let export order is the date of payment of duty by exporter; exemption benefit to be allowed to exporter: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Date of let export order is the date of payment of duty by exporter which is after coming into force of Notification No.129/2008-Cus dated 07.12.2007 which exempted Iron Ore Fines from export duty; hence iron ore fines exported are exempted from payment of duty
Key Details:
Case Name: Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 380 (Tri.-Cal)
Cenvat credit can't be denied merely due to non-registration as ISD if service tax has been paid: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Cenvat credit can be distributed 100% to a single unit of assessee, as per Rule 7(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, without proportionate distribution to other units, as restriction was only introduced in 2016 amendment.
Key Details:
Case Name: Unifrax India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhavnagar
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 385 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Credit on GTA services from place of removal up to 1.4.2008 was admissible to assessee: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Credit on GTA services from place of removal up to 1.4.2008 was rightly admissible to assessee, following judicial precedent of Supreme court in similar issue.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shalimar Paints Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Howrah
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 384 (Tri.-Cal)
As we conclude this issue of Tax Gazette, we hope you've gained clarity and insights on the critical legal and tax matters that shape our world. Remember, with Centaxonline. You're not just informed. You're insightfully empowered.
The Renowned ??????-?????????? is now '????????????’!
Introducing ????????????????????????.??????.
It combines our Editorial legacy of ???? ?????????? and our Research legacy of ???? ?????????? with the latest technology.
Offering reliance and expertise as consistently as ever.
Experience a century’s expertise of tax laws with a 7-day FREE TRIAL: https://centax.one/I5Fj
????????????????
? ???????????????????? ????????????
? ????-?????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ???? ??.??. ????????’?? ?????? ??????????
? ????????-???????? ?????????????????? ???? ???????? ????????, ????????????????, ??????.
? ??.???? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?????? 1940?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????