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
Order denying refund solely relying upon Circular which was held to be conflict with GST Act to be set aside: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order of Appellate authority denying refund solely relying upon Circular No.135/15/2020-GST is set aside when said Circular has already been held to be in conflict withSection 54 (3)(ii) of Central Goods andServices Tax Act, 2017 and therefore, held to be invalid.
Key Details:
Case Name: MO Industries vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 16 (Raj.)
Matter to be remanded back since order was passed based on mismatch without providing opportunity to explain: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Assessment order set aside where mismatch between GST returns and Form 26AS alleged, directing reassessment after providing opportunity to explain discrepancy and remitting 10% of disputed tax.
Key Details:
Case Name: Gayathri Construction vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 14 (Mad.)
HC set aside order u/s 130 confiscating goods which were found excess during search proceedings by GST officers
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where in survey carried out under section 67 of UPGST Act goods found excess, notice under section 130 read with section 122 of UPGST Act issued for confiscating goods, tax and penalty levied, even if excess stock found proceedings under section 130 of GST Act could not be initiated, demand for tax can be quantified and raised only in manner prescribed in section 73 or section 74 of CGST Act, impugned orders were to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shree Om Steels vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 19 (All.)
ITC is not blocked on capital goods used for transmission of electricity to factory premises: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where applicant-assessee fulfills all conditions mentioned under Section 16 and Input Tax Credit sought by applicant-assessee on capital goods in form of wires/cables, electrical equipment used for transmission of electricity from power station to factory premises, is not blocked by Section 17, therefore, applicant-assessee is eligible to avail ITC on capital goods in term of wires/cables electrical equipment for installation.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: Elixir Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 12 (A.A.R. - GST - Guj.)
HC directed Appellate Authority to re-determine ITC eligibility as order appeared to be reproduction of observations made by AO
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Appellate authority was to be directed to reconsider matter with respect to issue of movement of goods and test out whether e-way bills, tax invoices, bank statements and party ledger disclosed by assessee matched with transactions in order to be eligible for ITC.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shiva Chemicals vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax Jorasanko and Jorabagan Carge
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 18 (Cal.)
Matter to be remanded for fresh consideration since assessee’s reply to show cause notice was not properly considered: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee's reply to show cause notice was not properly considered, orders set aside and remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity to submit additional documents.
Key Details:
Case Name: J.P. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 15 (Mad.)
Matter to be remanded back since demand was confirmed solely on ground that assessee didn’t reply to notice: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where tax proposal relating to a mismatch between assessee's GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A was confirmed solely on ground that assessee did not reply to show cause notice, whereas a sum of Rs.3,17,300/- was appropriated from assessee's bank account, which represents more than 10% of disputed tax demand in respect of assessments forming subject of instant writ petition, thus order in original was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back.
Key Details:
Case Name: Fazil Trader @ Farook vs. Deputy State Tax Officer/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 13 (Mad.)
No GST is leviable on nominal amount deducted from salary of employees who are availing facility of food: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where it is clarified by CBIC circular, that perquisites provided by 'employer' to 'employee' in terms of contractual agreement entered between employer and employee, will not be subjected to GST, therefore, deduction of nominal amount made by applicant-assessee from salary of employees, who are availing facility of food provided in factory premises would not be considered as a 'supply' under provisions of section 7; No GST is applicable.
Key Details:
Case Name: In re: Alleima India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 10 (A.A.R. - GST - Guj.)
Madras HC set aside order as reply of assessee was not considered while proposing tax on circular trading
领英推荐
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee received show cause notice proposing tax on ground of circular trading and unlawful availment of ITC and it replied to show cause notice, however same was not considered while passing impugned order, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Urayur Cotton Company vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 20 (Mad.)
Suit for damage for malicious prosecution is to be filed within one year of acquittal: SC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
CUSTOMS: Limitation period for filing Suit against Government for damages/compensation for malicious prosecution under Customs Act, 1962 was one year. However, service of notice to Government under Section 80 of CPC was mandatory and period of limitation was to be determined taking into account provisions of this Section.
Key Details:
Case Name: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Puspha L. Tolani
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 5 (S.C.)
No substantial question of law arises if CESTAT set aside penalty imposed by adjudicating authority: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: No substantial questions of law arose from exercise of discretion by Tribunal in setting aside penalty imposed after giving reasons, appeal dismissed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner, Central Tax vs. Serene Developers
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 7 (Bom.)
Reimbursement of share of premium paid to parent company for insurance obtained from abroad is taxable under RCM
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Medical insurance of employees and their families eligible for cenvat credit when entire period of dispute was before amendment of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 1-4-2011.
Key Details:
Case Name: CB Richards Eills South Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 1 (Tri.-Del)
HC set aside ex-parte adjudication order as assessee was unable to respond to SCN due to medical treatment
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Ex-parte adjudication order to be set aside as assessee was unable to respond due to medical treatment and one more opportunity granted to respond and be heard.
Key Details:
Case Name: Manoj Kumar Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 3 (Ori.)
Value of supplies made free of cost by service recipient not to be included in taxable value: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Nature of service undertaken by assessee was same both before and after 01.06.2007, therefore, demand of service tax on works contracts executed prior to 1.6.2007 under head 'commercial or industrial construction service' cannot be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shrey Associates vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 8 (Tri.-Del)
No proceedings can be initiated without finding that particulars furnished in SVLDRS declaration are false: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
SVLDR: Initiation of proceedings under Section 129(2) of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 post issuance of discharge certificate under SVLDRS, 2019 without any finding that material particular furnished in declaration was subsequently found to be false, set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: M. Ramzan and Co. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 2 (Bom.)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????