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 issued clarification on classification of laboratory chemicals: Circular
CUSTOMS ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has issued circular to clarify that in order to classify goods under heading 9802, the goods have to be imported and intended only for own use i.e. other than trading, further sale etc. Further, in case of packing exceeding 500 gms or 500 ml, the goods will be classified under their appropriate heading.
Key Details:
Statute Number: CIRCULAR NO. 18/2024
Date of Statute: 23-09-2024
Case Chronicles
HC grants interim relief to assessee as validity of notification extending time limit for passing order is questioned
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Impugned order under section 73(9) for Financial Year 2018-19 passed post 30-4-2024, Notification No.56/2023-CE, dated 28-12-2023 is not in consonance with provisions of section 168(A) of CGST Act, all consequential actions taken on basis of such notification would fail, however, since examination required as regards applicability of force majeure in respect to above notification opportunity was to be granted to authorities to place on record their stand, till next date no coercive action.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 408 (Gau.)
HC remanded matter as SCN was only uploaded on GST portal depriving assessee’s opportunity to defend case
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice and order under GST Act were only uploaded on portal without physical service, order set aside and matter remanded, directing deposit of 10% tax demand, reply filing, and personal hearing before fresh order.
Key Details:
Case Name: Candour Auto Components vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 406 (Mad.)
HC quashed order of retrospective cancellation of GST registration since SCN issued by dept. didn't propose it
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Cancellation of assessee’s GST registration with retrospective effect was in violation of principles of natural justice as SCN issued by revenue did not propose cancellation of assessee’s GST registration with retrospective effect, therefore, instant writ petition was to be disposed of directing revenue to restore assessee’s GST registration for a period of thirty days to enable assessee to file its returns.
Key Details: Case Name: Bansal Exim vs. Commissioner of DGST, Delhi
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 404 (Del.)
Penal provisions of IPC can't be invoked without invoking penal provisions of section 132 of CGST Act: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where complaint was made and FIR was registered against one Shreenath Soya’s proprietor in which petitioner had been implicated later on, penal provisions of IPC invoked without invoking penal provisions of section 132 of CGST Act, no sanction before launching prosecution taken from Commissioner as required under section 132(6) of CGST Act, FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom were to be quashed, as against petitioner.
Key Details:
Case Name: Deepak Singhal vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 407 (M.P.)
HC grants leave to file appeal before appellate authority as assessee was misled by wrong advice
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST : Writ petition challenging GST adjudication order after appeal period expiry may be disposed with leave to file belated statutory appeal, subject to conditions.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bhakat Battery House vs. State of West Bengal
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 405 (Cal.)
HC quashes detention of goods as no mens rea could be indicated by department for tax evasion
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where respondent-department had not been able to indicate any mens rea of petitioner-assessee for evasion of tax, therefore, process of detention leading to show cause notice and imposition of penalty was without any basis in law; impugned order was liable to be quashed and set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Amplus Kn One Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 402 (All.)
Nutritional supplements consisting of creatine, nitrates, glutamine & amino acids are classifiable under CTH 2106 90 99
GST ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Nutritional supplements, consisting of creatine preparations, nitrates, glutamine, and amino acids, classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99, were liable to 18% IGST rate under Sr. No. 453 of Schedule III of Notification No.1/2017-IGST-Rate dated 28.06. 2017 and not IGST @ 28% under Sr. No.9 of Schedule IV; Sr. No. 9 was not general entry covering entire Heading 2106, and it was not applicable as impugned products were not covered under it.
Key Details:
Case Name: Neuvera Wellness Ventures P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 418 (Tri.-Ahmd)
AAR held that GST at 5% to be levied on supply of “pre-packaged and labelled” shrimps
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where supply of pre-packaged and labelled shrimps by applicant-assessee in pouches or boxes fall within definition of ‘pre-package and labelled’ commodity and Ministry of finance, Government of India clarified that GST is applicable on ‘pre-packaged and labelled’ goods, therefore, GST would be applicable on supply of “pre-packaged and labelled” shrimps and it will be liable for GST at 5%.
Key Details:
Case Name: In re: Asvini Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 399 (A.A.R. - GST - A.P.)
Price declared in invoice couldn’t be taken if quality, quantity and description of imported goods were different: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: When quality, quantity and description of imported goods were different from declarations, price declared in invoice could not be taken as price of goods actually imported; as importer had not produced evidence of identical goods sold in market, it was appropriate to follow Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
Key Details:
Case Name: Daya Enterprises vs. Commissioner Of Customs (Export) ICD, Tughlakabad
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 412 (Tri.-Del)
Amendment from one shipping bill type to another could not be claimed as right: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Customs physically examine goods for shipping bill (SB) amendment to drawback claim which can be permitted only if goods were identified as those imported; drawback declaration on SB was mandatory to ensure Customs subject goods to checks; it was case of negligence and there was no mistaken filing or inadvertence as exporter had filed three SBs over one month without following procedure; rejection of conversion request upheld.
Key Details:
Case Name: J.K. Tyre and Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 416 (Tri.-Mad)
SCN issued ten years even after commencement of investigation was time barred: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
FTP: Drawback recovery for non-receipt of remittances on export goods were execution proceedings from shipping bill assessment which could not be covered in show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962; in absence of proposal in SCN for confiscation of goods under Section 113, penalty could not be imposed under Section 114.
Key Details:
Case Name: Nasib Exports vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 417 (Tri.-Del)
CESTAT remanded matter for verification of credit already reversed and computation of applicable interest
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee reversed excess CENVAT credit attributable to trading activity after audit objection, CESTAT set aside demand and penalties, remanded matter for verification of credit reversed and computation of applicable interest.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bangalore Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Taxes, Bengaluru
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 411 (Tri.-Bang)
Credit allowed on ST paid for Group Personal Accident Policy, Group Term Life Policy and Group Mediclaim Policy for employees: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST/Cenvat: Cenvat credit of Service Tax is available in respect of Service Tax paid on premium for Group Personal Accident Policy, Group Term Life Policy and Group Mediclaim Policy for employees.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of CGST, Delhi East vs. Essjay Ericsson Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 414 (Del.)
Freight margin is not taxable as ‘Cargo Handling Service’ in absence of physical cargo handling: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: CESTAT held freight margin not taxable as ‘Cargo Handling Service’ absent physical cargo handling, and incentives from liners not taxable as 'Business Auxiliary Service, following precedent.
Key Details:
Case Name: Flyjac Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bangalore
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 415 (Tri.-Bang)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????