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
AAAR denies rectification application of taxpayer as there is no apparent error in advance ruling
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Since, no error is found in impugned order passed by Appellate Authority, which is apparent on face of record, therefore, subject application for rectification of error, filed by appellant-assessee in terms of section 102 is rejected.
Key Details:
Case Name: In re: Puranik Builders Limited.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 225 (App. A.A.R. - GST - Mah.)
NAA directed the taxpayer to pass the benefit of profiteered amount under GST to the buyers with 18% interest
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where a construction service provider had not passed on additional benefit of Input Tax Credit to customers/buyers by way of commensurate reduction in price of flats/shops purchased by them, Director General of Anti-profiteering was justified in computing profiteered amount by examining all supplies made to other buyers/customers beyond application filed by complainant.
Key Details:
Case Name: Vivek Gupta vs. Maheshwari Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 224 (N.A.P.A.)
HC granted time to taxpayer where his registration was cancelled as he could not file GST returns due to ill health
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: GST registrations cancelled for non-filing of returns allowed conditional revival upon filing returns and paying dues within specified timeframe.
Key Details:
Case Name: A.R.J. Engineering Works vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 226 (Mad.)
HC set aside the demand order as the same was passed without considering assessee's reply and partial payment
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where tax payments were not considered and reasonable opportunity not provided before assessment, order set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after allowing assessee to reply and granting personal hearing.
Key Details:
Case Name: Amici Design Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 229 (Mad.)
HC permits manual rectification of taxpayer’s GST returns; rejects revenue's denial as there is no revenue loss
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee, who had filed GST returns within time but with certain errors, should be permitted to amend GST returns filed if there was no loss to revenue due to said errors.
Key Details:
Case Name: Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 227 (Bom.)
Jharkhand HC directs Water Resources Dept. to reassess GST claim post-SOP policy update
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of 8% of value of work done to remit amount towards GST liability rejected, Government of Jharkhand, subsequent thereto, taken policy decision by issuing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) w.r.t. said issue, respondent authority was to be directed to look into pending representation of petitioner for reconsideration of claim based upon SOP and order of Court in W.P.(T) No.2108 of 2019, dated 12-10-2022.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bhardwaj Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 232 (Jhar.)
HC remanded the matter for fresh consideration where SCN was served only on GST portal and no other mode: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where notice was uploaded only on GST portal without other communication, order denying Input Tax Credit set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: B K T Spin Dish Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 230 (Mad.)
Recovery against Order of levy of GST on seigniorage fee and mining lease stayed in light of pendency of decision of SC: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: GST liability on seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts stayed pending Supreme Court decision; assessee allowed to submit reply within 4 weeks.
Key Details:
Case Name: C. Srinivasa Moorthy vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 233 (Mad.)
HC held that opportunity of personal hearing is mandatorily to be provided before issuing order under Section 74 of the CGST Act
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Opportunity of personal hearing must be granted before passing order under Section 74 of GST Act; order passed without such hearing liable to be quashed and remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 234 (All.)
HC directed assessee to file appeal and get his documents verified by the officer where the reply of assessee to SCN was not satisfactory
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee had filed Reconcilation Statement (Form GSTR-9C) disclosing un-reconciled annual turnover, assessee only submitted copy of profit and loss account in two pages, authority in impugned order under section 74 of CGST Act rejected assessee’s explanation by recording cogent reasons, assessee was to be directed to avail remedy of appeal.
Key Details:
Case Name: Prem Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 235 (M.P.)
HC remanded matter for re-adjudication where ex-parte order was passed
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Failure to provide opportunity for personal hearing before passing order under Section 74 of GST Act renders order invalid; matter remanded for fresh consideration after granting due hearing.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bansal Tubewells vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 231 (All.)
HC directed revenue to consider the reply of assessee that was already filed but was not considered by revenue
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where revenue issued a notice highlighting discrepancies between assessee's GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B, despite assessee's detailed replies, including clarification that a notice mistakenly addressed to M/s Paridhee did not pertain to them, revenue issued a demand notice under Section 73; instant writ petition was to be disposed of directing revenue consider assessee's earlier reply regarding its own returns only.
Key Details:
Case Name: Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 236 (All.)
HC set aside the order as taxpayer was not aware of the SCN and he did not reply to the same
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was unaware of proceedings due to notices being uploaded on GST portal, matter remanded for fresh consideration, directing authorities to provide opportunity to contest demand after partial payment.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Dharieneesh Housing Developers vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 237 (Mad.)
HC granted additional time to taxpayer to furnish reply as he did not notice the SCN issued
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee failed to notice GST portal notices, assessment order quashed and remanded for fresh orders after opportunity to reply and be heard, subject to 10% tax deposit.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Jeyaprakash vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 238 (Mad.)
No relief to assessee if appellate authority failed to record any cogent reason to reverse finding of fact: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where competent authority had detained goods of assessee under transport on ground that e-way bill was not duly filled and there was an intent to avoid payment of tax, since First Appellate Authority by impugned order allowed appeal of assessee without recording any specific finding of fact to reverse finding that there was no intent to evade tax merely observing that there was no such intention , impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: State of U.P. vs. S/S B.P.T. Marketing
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 239 (All.)
Delhi HC sets aside retrospective GST registration cancellation and orders fresh hearing
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where registration of assessee was cancelled with retrospective effect on ground that reply to show cause notice was not filed, in view of fact that Show Cause Notice was issued without specifying any date for personal hearing and impugned cancellation order also did not set out any reason for cancelling assessee's GST registration with retrospective effect, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Birchand vs. Commissioner of DGST
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 240 (Del.)
HC remanded matter as assessee was unaware of order and notices issued by tax authorities
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where there was discrepancy in respect of supply reported in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed by assessee and assessee submitted that it was a small time operator and was unaware of impugned order and notices that preceded impugned order and was willing to comply with reasonable conditions that court may impose , impugned assessment order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Annamalai Ammal Moder Rice Mill vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 243 (Mad.)
CESTAT held that Apatite (Ground) Calcium Phosphate is classifiable under Chapter 25 and not 28 under Customs tariff
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Apatite (Ground) Calcium Phosphate, natural mineral product used for producing ceramic tableware, was classifiable under Heading 2510 and not under Heading 2835.
Key Details:
Case Name: Artabroch Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 217 (Tri.-Ahmd)
No extended limitation period applicable where benefit was wrongly availed by assessee but without malafide intention: Tribunal
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Extended period could not be invoked to demand customs duty for wrong availment of Country-of-Origin (COO) benefit as importer (a) had no control on government authority which issued COO; (b) was neither aware nor legally supposed to know facts behind issuance of COO; and (c) no mala fide could be attributed to them as department had not strictly complied with retroactive check.
Key Details:
Case Name: MESSRS GLOBAL EXIM vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUNDRA
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 220 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Remuneration paid to director is in nature of employee-employee relationship; hence exempt from service tax: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Company’s Vice-Chairman cum Managing Director, with dual/multiple roles in same or other companies, or Member of Parliament, was company’s employee and there was no “service” under Section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994 liable to Service tax where there were provisions for terminating his agreement on non-fulfilment of obligations/duties and his remuneration/commission was declared in company’s account books and subjected to TDS as salary.
Key Details:
Case Name: Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax Tirupati - GST
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 216 (Tri.-Hyd)
Sale of educational CDs/DVDs not taxable as service; earlier tax demands upheld due to fraudulent intent involved: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Imparting skills, knowledge, lessons on any subject or field or when provided by entity, institution or establishment which is excluded by specific and legislated exclusionary clause would alone be outside taxable activity.
Key Details:
Case Name: DEWSOFT OVERSEAS Pvt. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-I
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 219 (Tri.-Del)
CESTAT held that coal beneficiation is a mining service and not business auxiliary service
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Where service charges were meant for undertaking all steps in coal beneficiation process, value meant for each step was part of word “such” in Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994, and mere fact assessee sold rejects did not segregate process of origination of rejects from coal beneficiation; there was no justification for leaving rejects while calculating value of beneficiation process.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bhatia Coal Washeries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 218 (Tri.-Del)
CESTAT held that refund is admissible where documents are produced to prove that there is no unjust enrichment
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Refund is admissible when assessee has submitted documents at original stage to demonstrate that incidence of excess paid Central Excise duty was borne by them and not passed on to any other person.
Key Details:
Case Name: Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 221 (Tri.-Bom)
CESTAT Chennai held that no service tax on discounts provided on export goods
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Where deduction in export invoice was discount to assessee’s German buyer and not payment to Indian office/agent of Dubai company who was buying and sourcing agent of German buyer conducting quality test in India on garments procured by German buyer from assessee, no Service Tax could be demanded under categories of Business Auxiliary Service and Technical Inspection and Certification in absence of consideration paid for alleged commission agent services.
Key Details:
Case Name: Original Knit Exports vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 222 (Tri.-Mad)
Tribunal held that construction services to government authority are exempt under service tax
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Construction of additional or alternate building for Garrison Engineer, a Government authority under Military Engineering Service along with supply of material being a work contract service to a Governmental Authority was not liable to service tax in view of exemption granted under Notification No.25/2012 dated dated 9-6-2012.
Key Details:
Case Name: Orion Industry vs. Commissioner of Central GST, Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax, Bhopal
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 223 (Tri.-Del)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????