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.
Statutory Scope
CBIC notified exchange rates effective from February 16th, 2024: Notification
CUSTOMS ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has notified the rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currencies into Indian currency or vice versa, with effect from 16th February 2024, for import and export of goods.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 13/2024
Date of Statute: 15-02-2024
CBIC issued revised guidelines and format for Arrest Report and Incident Report where arrest not made
CUSTOMS ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has issued an instruction to prescribe revised guidelines and format for Arrest Report and Incident Report where arrest not made. The intimation of arrest shall continue to be sent by the Chief Commissioner/Director General through email within 24 hours of arrest.
Key Details:
Statute Number: INSTRUCTION NO. 02/2024-CUSTOMS
Date of Statute: 15-02-2024
Case Chronicles
HC to decide applicability of GST on annuity paid by NHAI for construction of road to concessionaires
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where concession agreements were executed between assessee and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways [MoRTH] for execution of work project, annuity as provided in concession agreement is payable during concession period, assessee contends that annuity paid to them is exempt from GST based on a Notification No. 32/2017- Central Tax (Rate), said matter requires further examination, issues notice, returnable and as an interim relief
Key Details:
Case Name: Dhola Infra Projects Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 242 (Gau.)
Order rejecting refund claim issued without providing adequate reasons for rejection of refund claim to be quashed: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee deposited a sum of Rs.57,98,945/- towards tax demand under GST regime under protest and refund claim of said amount deposited in protest was rejected on ground that application was filed under category “Any Others, refund claim could not be rejected merely on ground that such refund claim does not fall within specific categories, since order rejecting refund claim was issued without providing adequate reasons for rejection of refund claim
Key Details:
Case Name: Engineers India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Central Tax)
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 243 (Mad.)
HC set aside order of cancellation of registration which was passed without giving any reason
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where appeal filed by assessee against order of cancellation of registration was dismissed on ground of limitation, appellate authority had dismissed appeal of assessee, revenue would not be able to exercise revisional power under section 108, therefore, impugned orders passed by Appellate Authority as well as order of cancellation of registration were to be quashed and set aside and matter was remanded back.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shree Ganesh Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 245 (Guj.)
Identical SCN except for change in period which was already quashed is also liable to be set aside
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where two show cause notices reflected identical content except for changes in financial year, tax rate, and turnover amount, subsequent issuance based on same grounds was deemed invalid and quashed in accordance with prior judgment.
Key Details:
Case Name: Glaxosmithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 246 (Telangana)
Recovery proceedings can be initiated only if amount is not paid within a period of 3 months from date of service of order: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where order under section 73(9) was passed against petitioner confirming liability for ineligible ITC and interest, petitioner intended to file appeal against sr. no. 1 of order for which period of limitation under section 107(1) had not expired, petitioner was to be allowed to file appeal with respect to amount under Sl. no.1.
Key Details:
Case Name: Penna Cement Industries Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 248 (A.P.)
Assessee should file appeal against assessment order passed by Adjudicating Authority under GST Act: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Assessment orders could be challenged via statutory appeal mechanisms before resorting to writ petition.
Key Details:
Case Name: Lotus Electricals vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 247 (A.P.)
Assessee is entitled to receive documents on basis of which SCN was issued before filing reply to it: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice issued by respondent-department to petitioner-assessee alleging wrong availment of IGST Refund lacked basis of issuance, therefore, writ petition was disposed of by directing petitioner-assessee to file a request detailing documents that were required by petitioner-assessee for purposes of filing a proper reply to show cause notices.
Key Details:
Case Name: Pooppally Coir Mills vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 249 (Ker.)
Amount collected by hospital from patients and paid to consultant doctors for treating patients is exempt: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee, providing healthcare services for psychiatric, substance use, and neurological disorders, offers inpatient care with room charges capped at Rs 5000/day, supply of medicines, consumables, and food to inpatients is integral to healthcare service, forming a naturally bundled "Composite supply," qualifying for exemption under Sl. 74(a) of Notification No 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: Spandana Rehabilitation Research and Training Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 250 (A.A.R. - GST - Kar.)
Customs had to bear demurrage charges for not allowing export of consignment whose export became prohibited after clearance: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where Customs Authority had cleared shipment of goods whose export subsequently became prohibited, DRI Customs Authorities had to bear demurrage charges for not allowing export of such consignment, especially when High Court had already held that export prohibition was applicable from date of its issuance and consignments already cleared by Customs Department could not have been covered.
Key Details:
Case Name: Union of India vs. Asian Food Industries
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 229 (Guj.)
Benefit of exemption can’t be denied just because essentiality certificate was issued belatedly by Govt.: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Essentiality Certificate having been belatedly issued by the Government department upon subjective analysis that the goods are meant for use in designated project(s), spelt out in Notification No. 84/97-Cus., dated 11-11-1997, appellants cannot be denied with the benefit provided by Government of India in public interest.
Key Details:
Case Name: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 230 (Tri.-Bom)
CESTAT rightly held that bar of unjust enrichment would not apply if vessel was still in use and not sold or disposed of: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Tribunal conclusively held that bar of unjust enrichment would not apply, vessel in question being still in use and not sold or disposed of and said fact also certified by Chartered Accountant; Therefore, order of Tribunal was correct.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 232 (Cal.)
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty to be set aside as dept. failed to substantiate grounds for confiscation: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Imported goods cannot be treated as 'hazardous goods' but fall appropriately under the category of 'fuel oil' as various parameters prescribed for IS 1593:1982 are fulfilled; impugned order for confiscation of imported goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty is set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: G.L. Khanna & Sons vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 235 (Tri.-Bom)
HC directs Customs to issue detention waiver certificate as no fault was found on importer’s part
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where department had not rebutted importer's explanation that difference in unit price of goods in supplier and manufacturer's invoices was due to export incentive received from supplier, department could not deny detention waiver certificate on ground that entries in bill of entry were wrong due to mis-declaration of value of goods; department, in its public duty, ought to have immediately informed importer reason for denial, moreso considering norms of ease of doing business.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 240 (Bom.)
SC dismissed SLP against HC order holding that Flipkart would be entitled to refund along with interest
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
VAT: Refund is to be made within two months of filing returns; further, petitioner having duly filed objections before OHA, demand raised cannot be enforced in terms of Section 35(2) ibid.; therefore, appellant would be entitled to refund along with interest.
Key Details:
Case Name: Valued Added Tax Officer vs. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 234 (S.C.)
SC dismissed appeal against CESTAT order classifying activities related to drilling oil under “mining service” w.e.f. 01.06.2007
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Supreme Court dismissed appeal against CESTAT order wherein it was held that activities like wireline logging, perforation and other wireline related services involving mechanical jobs like cutting, puncture, plug/packer setting, cable splicing, etc., undertaken by appellant at the time of drilling oil well are integrally connected with mining of oil or gas and have direct nexus with drilling of well would be covered by the taxable category of "mining service" w.e.f. 1-6-2007.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Schlumberger Asia Service Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 239 (S.C.)
CESTAT remanded matter to decide eligibility of credit on steel plates used for keeping capital goods in operations
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise/Cenvat: Since assessee's claim that steel plates are inputs was discarded by original authority on procedural grounds and was not considered by first appellate authority at all, demand under Rule 14 of CCR set aside and matter remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 236 (Tri.-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.
Delivering the Customs Tariff of India for 45+ years.
Be a part of the R.K. Jain legacy now!
Buy Now with FREE ‘Express’ Delivery! https://centax.one/wwqTQ