Centaxonline’s Tax Gazette
Powered by Centaxonline.com

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

Verification of authenticity of Licences, Authorisations, Scrips, Certificates, Instruments etc. issued by DGFT using the UDIN: Trade Notice

FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS

The DGFT has issued trade notice to informe that the provision for verification of authenticity of electronically-issued documents using UDIN such as Licences, Authorisations, Scrips, Certificates, Instruments etc. is already implemented on the DGFT Website for all stakeholders.

Read More

Key Details:

Statute Number: TRADE NOTICE NO. 09/2024-25
Date of Statute: 23-07-2024

Case Chronicles

No penalty on transporter for not carrying original tax invoice; HC quashes order passed by tax official

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Transporter was not required to carry original tax invoice and since assessee was levied with double tax as he was already paid tax as required to be paid and once again he was compelled to pay tax with penalty therefore, same was liable to be refunded.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Kolvekar Logistics vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 425 (Kar.)

HC directed assessee to file statutory appeal since there was no procedural violations in assessment order

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee challenged impugned assessment order in writ petition within period of limitation prescribed under section 107, there being no procedural violations in impugned order, petition of assessee was not to be entertained

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: PSX Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. Proper Officer
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 433 (Mad.)

HC modified order of cancellation of GST registration as it was cancelled retrospectively without any reason

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Show Cause Notice and impugned order issued cancelling GST registration of assessee were bereft of any details as neither show cause notice, nor order spelled out reasons for retrospective cancellation.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Komal Enterprises vs. Commissioner of GST Delhi
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 426 (Del.)

HC set aside order detaining goods for non-generation of e-invoice as mistake committed by assessee was bonafide

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee's goods in transit were detained as E-tax Invoice was not generated as per Rule 48 of CGST Rules, tax invoice, GR's, E waybills, were with goods, no discrepancy with regard to quality and quantity of goods as mentioned in Tax Invoice, error committed by assessee a human error, limit of annual turnover for issuing e-way bill reduced w.e.f. 1-8-2022 to Rs. 10 crores, mistake committed by assessee was bonafide, impugned order was to be set aside.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Nancy Trading Company vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 429 (All.)

HC stayed proceedings initiated to levy GST on transaction of assignment of long term leasehold right

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where petitioner received notice calling upon petitioner to show cause why GST on transaction of assignment of long term leasehold right be not levied, case was directed to be heard with pending Special Civil Application No. 11345 of 2023, further proceedings pursuant to impugned show-cause were notice not to be continued.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Mahaveer Warehousing and Logistics vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 427 (Guj.)

HC set-aside order as it was passed without considering explanation of assessee

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee claimed lack of proper communication of notices and sought opportunity to explain discrepancies, assessment order set aside conditionally, directing revenue to provide reasonable opportunity and pass fresh order after hearing.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Sri Selva Ganesh Hardwares vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 430 (Mad.)

Madras HC set aside order imposing 100% penalty as tax was paid before issuance of order

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee paid tax dues after inadvertently availing ineligible input tax credit, 100% penalty order under Section 74 set aside, remanded for reconsideration with opportunity for assessee to be heard.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Jayasri Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 419 (Mad.)

HC declined to entertain writ petition filed by assessee who didn't take any step for revocation of cancelled registration

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where registration of assessee had been cancelled and electronic credit ledger of assessee had been blocked, since assessee had not taken any step for revocation of cancellation of its registration, High Court was not inclined to entertain writ petition filed by assessee.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Innojet Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Goods & Services Tax
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 432 (Ori.)

Order passed without hearing assessee to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to pass fresh orders: HC

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee filed application under section 161 for rectification of certain mistakes in an assessment order, but impugned order was passed without hearing assessee, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted to pass fresh orders after hearing assessee.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Tvl. Podhigai Motors vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 434 (Mad.)

HC refused to direct dept. to release seized black pepper as authenticity of buyer was in doubt

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Black pepper seized alleging smuggling from Sri Lanka was not to be released but liable to be sold by Customs authorities as Certificate of Origin was fake andauthenticity of its India based buyer was also in doubt.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Supreme Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 413 (P&H.)

Tribunal should decide matter on merits rather than dismissing appeal on ground that writ was pending before HC: HC

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Where a person had filed appeal to CESTAT against adjudication order and made mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for hearing such appeal, it should have been disposed of on merits instead of dismissing it in limine on ground thatWrit Petition against such adjudication order was pending before High Court.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Yasir Ibnu Muhammed vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 416 (Ker.)

Micro Crystal Porcelain Tiles are classifiable under CTH 6907 90 90 as Unglazed Ceramic Tiles: CESTAT

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Imported Micro Crystal Porcelain Tiles are classifiable under Tariff Item 6907 90 90 as Unglazed Ceramic Tiles, not Tariff Item 7016 90 00 as Polished Glass Tiles, due to their essential character being porcelain, not glass.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Kairali Granites vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 411 (Tri.-Bang)

SC dismissed appeal against ruling of CESTAT holding that LED bulbs sold to GOI to be assessed under Section 4

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

EXCISE: Supreme Court dismisses appeal against order of CESTAT holding that LED bulbs sold to Government of India undertaking at a contracted price for further distribution to electricity consumers under UJALA Scheme at almost same price at which those were bought from assessee i.e. Rs. 75/- per bulb compared to RSP of other bulbs i.e. Rs. 225/- per bulb were to be assessed under Section 4 instead of Section 4A of Central Excise Act.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Principal Commissioner of CGST vs. Surya Roshni Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 440 (S.C.)

Advertisement in Print Media wasn't taxable being covered under negative list; SC dismissed appeal

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

ST: Demand on service tax under reverse charge under obsolete provisions of Finance Act, 1994 not sustainable when various services were received post introduction of negative list regime.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 438 (S.C.)

SC dismissed appeal against CESTAT order classifying “Liv 52 Protec" as medicaments/drugs

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

EXCISE: “Liv 52 Protec" is classifiable as medicaments/drugs under Chapter Sub-heading 300339 for the period upto February 2005 and under Chapter Tariff Item 3004 90 11 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from March 2005 onwards.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Himalaya Drug Company vs. Commissioner of Central Tax
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 437 (S.C.)

Clinker cleared to sister unit to be valued as per Rule 4 if part of production is sold to unrelated buyers: CESTAT

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

Excise: Goods cleared on stock transfer basis to sister unit for captive consumption were to be assessed under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 instead of Rule 8 of said Rules if a portion of goods were also sold by assessee to independent buyers.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 414 (Tri.-Bang)

Credit on input services could not be denied if Service Tax was paid on output services that were not taxable: CESTAT

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

ST: Construction of Residential Complex service was not leviable to Service Tax prior to 1-6-2007.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Sreevatsa Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 412 (Tri.-Mad)

No denial of process loss if it was duly certified by expert that it was in normal range: CESTAT

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

Excise: Processing loss of 11-17% in manufacture of phenolic resin & phenol formaldehyde resin due to technical reasons was acceptable, and Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disregarding expert opinion and technical literature, hence order was set aside.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Gem Synthetics and Polymer (India) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 410 (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.

????????????????????????.?????? | Take a 7-day FREE TRIAL!
????????????????????????.?????? | Take a 7-day FREE TRIAL!

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?? ???????? ??????????????????

? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????

? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????


要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了