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 set-aside order confirming demand as assessee failed to reply to SCN uploaded on GST portal; matter remanded
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was engaged in business of civil contract work and tax demand was raised on ground of discrepancy between GSTR-3B return and auto populated GSTR-2A and also on ground of reconciliation of turnover as per income-tax return and GSTR-3B return, impugned order was to be set aside and assessee was to be provided an opportunity to contest tax demand on merits on condition that assessee remitted 10 per cent of disputed tax demand.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: S. Sivakumar vs. State Tax Officer (Inspection-I)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 232 (Mad.)
HC directs GST Dept. to restore registration of assessee if he makes payment of revenue due within 7 days
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where registration of assessee was cancelled on ground of delay in filing return, GST Authorities were to be directed to intimate assessee of revenue due, if any, which was required to be paid and if assessee made such payment, registration of assessee was to be restored.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Sazia Karim vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 233 (Cal.)
HC set-aside order passed by Adjudicating Authority without communication of any date of hearing fixed in proceedings
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where notice under section 73(1) was issued upon assessee but without communication of any date of hearing fixed in proceedings or without issuance of any notice to assessee, impugned order was passed, same was to be aside and Adjudicating Authority was to be directed to pass a fresh order after hearing parties.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Siddh Sales Corporation vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 235 (All.)
HC directs proper officer to conduct a fresh visit to premises of assessee before passing cancellation order
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where GST Authorities had issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel registration of assessee on ground that assessee did not exist at registered premises, authority was to be directed to adjudicate show cause notice within thirty days after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to assessee and also conduct a fresh visit to said premises prior to passing a final order.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: SLG Trading Co. vs. Sales Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 236 (Del.)
AO can't impose tax & penalty without seeking further clarification/documents from assessee: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where proper officer passed impugned adjudication order recording narration that reply of assessee to show cause notice was unsatisfactory and was not supported with relevant documents, proper officer was required to seek further clarification/documents from assessee before passing impugned order and having failed to do so, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted for readjudication.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Spinclabs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 238 (Del.)
HC set-asides order for reversal of ITC as it was unclear how conclusion was drawn despite documents submitted to support reply
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee replied to SCN regarding issues of discrepancy in turnover and reversal of Input Tax Credit claimed in respect of purchases and also provided documents to support its reply, since assessee's reply and documents were not taken into consideration, assessment order was unsustainable as regards said issues, therefore same was to be set aside and matter was remanded back for reconsideration.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Tvl. Kavinkumar Textiles vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-I
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 246 (Mad.)
HC set-aside order as assessee didn?t participate in proceedings since it wasn't aware of it
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was unable to reply to show cause notice or participate in proceedings regarding tax demand, which arose solely from discrepancies between GSTR 3B returns and auto-populated GSTR 2A, it was deemed just and necessary to set aside orders demanding tax, albeit with conditions placed on assessee.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: National Inspection & Technical Services vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 242 (Mad.)
Summons issued by DGGI to verify clandestine supply by assessee isn?t barred by initiation of proceedings by State GST: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where DGGI conducted investigation at assessee's premises, seized records and accounts, issued summons under section 70 of GST Act, Assessee argued that State GST Authorities already proceeding against assessee for investigation of a tax period, DGGI could not have conducted a parallel proceeding and investigation for same tax period, DGGI was investigating clandestine supply by assesee whereas investigation by CT&GST (SGST) was with reference to receipt of materials from one supplier.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Satyam Castings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Director, DGGI
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 244 (Ori.)
Inkjet Printers with Barcode Reader & capability to connect to network are classifiable under CTH 8443 32 50: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Inkjet Printers with Barcode Reader, with communication protocol having Hot Folder, LAN indicating capability to connect to automatic data processing machine or to network, was classifiable under Tariff Item 8443 32 50 and eligible to exemption under Notifications No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01-3-2005 and 50/2017 dated 30-6-2017; department's claim that product was Digital Enhancement Press classifiable under Tariff Item 8443 39 10 rejected.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Monotech Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 226 (Tri.-Mad)
State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to levy stamp duty on Delivery Orders issued by carrier/shipper: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Misc.: Under Article 29 of Schedule 1 and Section 2(l) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to levy stamp duty on Delivery Orders (DO) issued by carrier/shipper after payment of their charges and customs duty by consignee, extinguishing shipper's lien on goods; DO was neither Bill of Lading nor Bill of Entry nor integral part of chain of events in course of import of goods.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 228 (Bom.)
No revocation of customs broker licence if there was no involvement of broker in alleged smuggling activities: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where second hand photocopier machines were imported on strength of IEC code of another person by mis-declaring it as electric arc welding machines, revocation of Customs Brokers' license alleging violation of provisions of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e) and 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Trans Asia Shipping Services vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 230 (Tri.-Bang)
No confiscation of goods if importer had no knowledge about mistake committed by foreign supplier: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where assessee had imported two pieces each of two different kind of machines but exporter had inadvertently sent three machines and one machine, respectively of both kinds and had subsequently offered discount to them as compensation for third machine, confiscation and imposition of penalty on them alleging misdeclaration of value of such machine could not be justified.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 229 (Tri.-Ahmd)
CESTAT remanded matter back to Adjudicating Authority to re-consider time limit prescribed for re-credit of Cenvat credit
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority to reconsider whether assessee was entitled to re-credit after 7 years, apart from applicability of section 11B of 1944 Act, and pass fresh orders.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Bajari Filaments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 222 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Demand time barred on issue of eligibility of cenvat credit on commission agent service as there were conflicting judgments: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Cenvat credit available in respect of input services having nexus with manufacturing activity and overall business activity of assessee.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Evonik Specialty Silica India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 223 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Installation of transmission towers for electricity is exempted from service tax: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: No service tax was payable by assessee on services of erection of transmission line towers, as 'services relating to transmission of electricity' included such services and exempted under Notifications Nos. 11/2010-ST and 45/2010-ST.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Kailash Devbuild India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 224 (Tri.-Del)
Assessee is entitled to avail credit on duty paid chassis supplied free of cost to it as body building amounts to manufacture: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Asessee having added body building charges and value of chassis supplied free of cost in computing assessable value for purpose of payment of duty for year 2006-07 and 2007-08 entitled to avail Cenvat credit on duty paid chassis supplied free of cost to it.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: S.M. Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. (Unit-II) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Bangalore
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 227 (Tri.-Bang)
Legal heir isn't liable to pay service tax if order was passed against assessee who died before adjudication: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Order passed against an assessee who had died 18 days after notice, cannot be recovered from his son.
KEY DETAILS:
Case Name: Late Shri Venku Reddy Pinnamreddy vs. Principle Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belagavi
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 225 (Kar.)
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.