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
HC directed assessee to approach concerned officer for restoration of his GST number within a period of 7 days
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where registration of assessee was cancelled for failure to respond to show cause notice and assessee undertook to deposit taxes, penalty along with interest, Competent Authority was to be directed to restore GST number of assessee and thereafter assessee was to deposit taxes, penalty along with interest
Key Details:
Case Name: Bashir Ahmad Dar vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 346 (J&K)
Rectification application submitted by assessee for certain discrepancies in order should be considered expeditiously: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where proceedings were initiated against assessee for certain discrepancies and impugned order was passed, since assessee had filed an application for rectification of impugned order along with relevant documents to endeavour to reconcile differences, GST Authorities were to be directed to consider and dispose of rectification application within two weeks
Key Details:
Case Name: Bhandari Steels Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 347 (Mad.)
HC directed GST authorities to open portal to enable assessee to file GST return
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed writ petition stating that it could not file Form GSTR-3B due to suspension of GSTIN and sought direction to GST Authorities to open portal so as to enable it to file return, delay in filing revocation application was to be condoned and GST Authorities were to be directed to open portal subject to assessee depositing all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bisan Singh vs. Commissioner of CT and GST
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 348 (Ori.)
HC remanded matter as assessee was not aware of proceedings as notice & order were uploaded on GST portal
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee, a goods transport agency failed to reply to show cause notice and subsequently impugned order was passed confirming tax demand, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration on condition that assessee remitted 10 percent of disputed tax amount
Key Details:
Case Name: C. Ramamoorthy Contract & Lorry Service vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 349 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter back to AO as assessee didn’t have reasonable opportunity to contest tax demand on merits
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed writ petition challenging order passed by Adjudicating Authority on ground that it did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest tax demand on merits, said order was to be set aside and Adjudicating Authority was to be directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to assessee on condition that assessee remitted 10 percent of disputed tax amount
Key Details:
Case Name: Gauresh Industries vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 351 (Mad.)
HC set aside order passed without hearing assessee & directed assessee to remit 10% of disputed tax demand
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed writ petition challenging order passed under section 74, since impugned order was issued without assessee being heard, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to authority for reconsideration on condition that assessee remitted 10 per cent of disputed tax demand
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Sri Bhavani Automobiles vs. State Tax Officer (ST)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 354 (Mad.)
Matter to be remanded since assessee was unaware of proceedings due to cancellation of its GST registration: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was unaware of proceedings in view of cancellation of its GST registration, assessee was to be provided with an opportunity to contest tax demand on merits by putting assessee on terms to remit 10 per cent of disputed tax demand
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. E. Clouds vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 352 (Mad.)
Order to be set aside if AO had not applied his mind & merely held that reply was devoid of merits: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where demand was raised against assessee under section 73 of CGST Act, proper officer had not considered detailed reply submitted by assessee before passing impugned order, merely held reply was devoid of merits and without any justification, had not applied his mind to reply, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Mohd. Zahid vs. Sales Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 357 (Del.)
Services received outside India are taxable under RCM if recipient is located in taxable territory: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee participated in jewellery exhibition outside India, supply of services had taken place outside India, as per Notification No. 10/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section(3) of section 5 of IGST Act, receiver of service i.e., assessee was person registered in taxable territory,
Key Details:
Case Name: Savio Jewellery vs. Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 361 (Raj.)
HC condoned delay in filing revocation application if assessee shall deposit all taxes, interest, late fee & penalty
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee’s application for revocation of cancellation of registration rejected on ground of limitation, subject to assessee depositing all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty, etc. due and complying with other formalities, delay in assessee’s invoking proviso to Rule 23 of OGST Rules to be condoned and assessee’s application for revocation was to be considered in accordance with law.
Key Details:
Case Name: Muck Cleaning Workers Development Society vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 358 (Ori.)
Merely transferring of unutilized credit amount to electronic credit ledger didn’t negate entitlement to interest: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST/VAT: Where assesssee, a chemical manufacturing company, carried forward unutilized input tax credit under GST Act but later reversed it and claimed a VAT refund, however assessing Officer initially rejected refund, but Commissioner allowed it on appeal, when requesting refund with interest, Assessing Officer provided a shortfall in interest, merely transferring amount to electronic credit ledger did not negate 's entitlement to interest,
Key Details:
Case Name: R.N. Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 360 (Guj.)
Bail order to be made absolute considering period of pre-trial incarceration of more than 2 months of GST Superintendent: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner, accused in a bribery case was granted interim bail, investigation going on till date of hearing, after obtaining FSL reports and after concluding investigation, final challan report under section 173(8) Cr.P.C to be submitted in Special Court, considering period of pre-trial incarceration of more than two months, there was no justification for further pre-trial incarceration, interim order was to be made absolute
Key Details:
Case Name: Prem Raj Meena vs. State of Haryana
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 359 (P&H.)
No requirement to adjudicate SCN by Commissioner of Customs if SCN issued by competent and authorized officer: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Petitioner cannot seek a direction to the Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice when Show Cause Notice has been issued by competent and authorized officer and there are no peculiar circumstances warranting such transfer of jurisdiction.
Key Details:
Case Name: Yamal Manojbhai Jagada vs. Chief Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 345 (Del.)
Thermal Conductive Putty used in mobile phones to fill gaps & achieve good heat transfer is classifiable under CTH 3824 9900: AAR
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Thermal Conductive Putty, composed of alumina and zinc oxide treated with combination of different siloxanes, used in mobile phones manufacturing to fill gaps between solid surfaces to achieve good heat transfer, is classifiable under CTH 3824 9900 as it is not chemical separately defined in nomenclature; it is not classifiable under CTH 28182090 as it is neither element nor compound which could be placed under Chapter 28.
Key Details:
Case Name: In re : Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 344 (A.A.R. - Cus. - Del.)
Limitation period of one year for filing refund claim of Additional Duty is not applicable: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: CESTAT Bench at New Delhi was bound by decision of its jurisdictional High Court in Sony India that as Additional Duty was refundable only on documentary evidence of sales tax payment in subsequent sale, over which importer had limited control, Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14-9-2007 and Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 could not impose one year limitation and had to be read down as they commenced limitation before accrual of right to refund.
Key Details:
Case Name: Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 343 (Tri.-Del)
Goods capable of use with automatic data processing machines eligible for exemption from BCD: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Sr. No. 4 of Notification No. 25/2005–Cus. dated 1-3-2005 does not say that goods have to be used only for IT industry to claim exemption; hence, Uninterrupted Power Supply system/static converters, capable of use for connecting to automatic data processing machines, were entitled to exemption under this Notification.
Key Details:
Case Name: Socomec Innovative Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 342 (Tri.-Mad)
Adjudication order passed after more than a decade of issuance of SCN could not be sustained: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where assessee had replied to show cause notice within reasonable time and also participated in personal hearing conducted on multiple dates, adjudication order passed after more than a decade of issuance of such show cause notice was to be considered to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Namdev Exports vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 341 (Tri.-Cal)
Customs Dept. is bound by opinion of DGFT to determine whether imported goods are restricted or free: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
FTP: Round Ridge Cement Tiles, classifiable under Tariff Item 6810 19 90 with value declared as USD 6.98 per square, was freely importable, and it was not in ambit of restrictions under DFGT Notification No.77 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 09.01.2009; DGFT had authority to interpret scope and application of Foreign Trade Policy and its opinion was binding on all concerned, including Customs Department.
Key Details:
Case Name: Monier Roofing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 339 (Tri.-Bang)
Suppression of facts by assessee must be deliberate and with intent to evade payment of tax for invoking extended period: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Commissioner not examined as to whether suppression of facts “wilful” and with intent to evade payment of duty, therefore, extended period of Limitation not correctly invoked and accordingly, not sustainable.
Key Details:
Case Name: Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 340 (Tri.-Del)
Legal Beacon
Understanding of Cross Interference - Cross Empowerment in GST
GST ?|? OPINION ?|? (2024) 18 CENTAX 372 (ARTICLE)
The concept of cross empowerment means irrespective of jurisdiction one authority (CGST) can adjudicate cases of (SGST) authority and vice versa. Presently, the issue of cross empowerment is the burning topic across the country. There are many notices were issued by the CGST / SGST authorities but the adjudications proceedings were being challenged before the Court on the ground of beyond jurisdiction as the implementation of cross empowerment has not been notified till date.
Author
Ramesh Chandra Jena
B.A. (Hons.), M.A. (Eco.), D.M.M., LL.B. Advocate & Tax Consultant
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.
Centaxonline.com provides authentic, reliable resources related to Foreign Trade Policy. Join the Centaxonline.com network and leverage our resources and tools to empower your practice and research.
???????? ??????????????????
? Access Essentials – Your Gateway to FTP, Handbook of Procedures, Aayat Niryat Forms, and more
? Stay Updated with the Latest in Circulars, Notifications, etc.
? Research Powerhouse of over 6,000 Case Laws
? Precision Tools to Help You Filter with 15 Parameters for Targeted Results
? Expert Summaries – Concise Insights with Single and Three-line Summaries & Professionally Drafted Head Notes
? Trustworthy Content that is Current and Authoritative
? Ever-Growing Library that Features Continuously Updated Statutory Content and Extensive Case Law Database
???????????????? ????????????????
? Expert Articles for Insights from Industry Leaders
? Ease of Use
? Search Excellence – Find What You Need with an Advanced Search Engine
? Newsletter Customisation – Stay Informed Your Way with a Customisable Newsletter
Join the Centaxonline.com Network! https://centax.one/p8NA
?????????? ????????????????????????.??????:
Established in the early seventies by the late Shri R.K. Jain, Centax Law Publications has steadfastly committed to providing publications and software of exceptional credibility and authenticity. Recognised and respected by Courts, Tribunals, and Tax Professionals, our offerings have consistently maintained a distinguished presence in the industry.