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
SCN issued in name of deceased sole proprietor instead of legal representative is non-est in law: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Show cause notice issued to deceased taxpayer instead of legal representative is non-est in law, though fresh notice can be issued to legal representative carrying on business under Section 93 of CGST Act.
Key Details:
Case Name: Usha Gupta vs. Commissioner of CGST
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 47 (Del.)
Matter remanded as order was passed without providing proper opportunity of personal hearing to assessee: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Order passed under Section 74 of UP GST Act quashed where proper opportunity of personal hearing was denied before passing adverse adjudication order.
Key Details:
Case Name: Saptagirisha Engineers and Contractor vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 46 (All.)
Penalty order set aside as assessee was unable to respond to SCN due to absence of permanent Commissioner: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee paid entire GST amount with interest but failed to respond to penalty proceedings due to administrative vacancy, penalty order was set aside with liberty to file objections within stipulated time.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kulithalai Municipality vs. Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 43 (Mad.)
Blocking of ECL was to be quashed due to lack of personal hearing before blocking: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where no pre-decisional hearing was provided/granted by respondent-authorities before blocking Electronic Credit Ledger and there was no independent or cogent reason to believe except reports of Enforcement authority, impugned blocking order was impermissible in law as same was based on borrowed satisfaction.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ekaa Engineers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 42 (Kar.)
No IGST on ocean freight for goods imported on FOB basis as IGST is already paid on the value of goods including freight: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: IGST cannot be levied separately on ocean freight where transaction involves import of goods on FOB value.
Key Details:
Case Name: BLA Coke Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 41 (Guj.)
HC allowed proceedings to continue but restrained the dept. to give ruling on discounts and guarantee commission till final decision
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee challenged, Circular No. 212/6/2024-GST, dated 26-6-2024 and SCN pertaining guarantee commission and service tax liability, aspect of discounts and section 15(3)(b) of CGST Act, petition raised issues which warranted further consideration, respondents could continue with proceedings forming part of impugned SCN, however, were to desist from ruling on discounts, section 15(3)(b) and guarantee commission till final decision.
Key Details:
Case Name: JSW Steel Ltd. vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 12 (Del.)
Assessee was allowed to resubmit the annual return as the alleged mistake occurred in initial phase of GST: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was denied certain input tax credit for year 2017-18 since assessee had while filing annual return mistakenly and inadvertently marked place of supply as other territory instead of Kerala, alleged mistake was in year immediately after introduction of GST, respondent authority was to be directed to permit assessee to resubmit annual return for year 2017-18 by correcting mistakes.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ancheril Agencies vs. Deputy Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 7 (Ker.)
Laser imager to be classified under heading 9033 as parts and accessories, not as diagnostic instruments and apparatus: CESTAT
CUSTOMS? |? CASE LAW
Customs: Laser Imager compatible for use with a variety of digital modalities including but not limited to MRI machines was classifiable under Chapter Heading 9033 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 instead under Tariff Item 9018 90 19 as ‘other diagnostic instruments and apparatus’ or under Tariff Item 9018 13 00 as ‘magnetic resonance imaging apparatus’.
Key Details:
Case Name: Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 64 (Tri.-Mad)
Detention order upheld as authority provided the facts and circumstances and complied with all procedures for detention:HC
CUSTOMS? |? CASE LAW
COFEPOSA: Preventive detention : Where Sponsoring Authority proposed detention soon after person applied for bail, there was live link/nexus between incident date and detention order; as application for bail cancellation was filed before detention order, there was no case for its non-supply as it was not before Detaining Authority; fact that Sponsoring Authority could file for bail cancellation could not be ground to quash detention order; person could be detained on single incident; Detaining
Key Details:
Case Name: Joyi Kitty Joseph vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 99 (Del.)
SEZ-manufactured goods are outside the excise duty’s purview, including SAED and AED: CESTAT
CUSTOMS? |? CASE LAW
Customs: Additional excise duty (AED) levy as Road and Infrastructure cess on excisable goods, and Special additional excise duty (SAED) levy as surcharge, were in addition to excise duties; hence, Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, which was foundation of excise duties levy and excluded SEZ unit, was applicable and mutatis mutandis, and AED and AED levy on Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel and Aviation Turbine Fuel manufactured in SEZ unit and removed for export, also was excluded, and
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner Appeals -CGST & Central Excise, Rajkot vs. Reliance Industries Ltd,
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 68 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Matter was remanded as appeal was decided without proper service of hearing notices to assessee: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Where Department’s appeal was decided ex-parte by Commissioner (Appeals) without proper service of hearing notices to assessee, CESTAT set aside order and remanded back matter for fresh consideration after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kansal Clinic vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 85 (Tri.-Chan)
Demand of ST could not be sustained on common effluent treatment services provided by plant to its member units: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Common effluent treatment services provided by a common effluent treatment plant to its member units, being exempted from Service Tax, demand of Service Tax in respect of such services during period from July, 2912 to March, 2014 could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Perundurai Common Effluent Treatment Plant vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 67 (Tri.-Mad)
Matter remanded to requantify service tax where discrepancies observed in quantification of tax paid: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee disputed quantification of service tax demand, CESTAT remanded matter to adjudicating authority for requantification, considering payments made and receipt basis of taxation up to 2011, while setting aside penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 due to lack of suppression of facts.
Key Details:
Case Name: SMIS Industrial ConsultancyServices (p.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 133 (Tri.-Mad)
CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural lapses when substantive eligibility is not questioned: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural lapses when substantive eligibility is not questioned.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Chandigarh-I
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 131 (Tri.-Chan)
Logistics/handling charges collected by car dealer on sale of cars were not exigible to service tax: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee collected “logistics charges” from customers on sale of cars but did not pay service tax, Tribunal held that such charges were part of sale value subject to VAT and not exigible to service tax, as they related to pre-sale activities.
Key Details:
Case Name: Surjeet Auto Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Goods, Service
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 115 (Tri.-Del)
Department can't demand service tax from the service recipient if the service tax has already been paid by the service provider: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: CESTAT held that when service tax is already paid by service provider, department cannot confirm same demand against service recipient.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kerala Ceramics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 114 (Tri.-Bang)
CENVAT credit can't be denied solely for non-registration/delayed registration as ISD provided there was substantial compliance: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural infractions when there is substantial compliance with statutory requirements, even if documents were issued before obtaining Input Service Distributor registration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Concast Steel & Power Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-II
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 113 (Tri.-Cal)
Assessee was entitled to interest on 7.5% of tax deposited which was mandatory pre-deposit required for filing the appeal: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee deposited entire demanded amount under protest before filing appeal, Tribunal held that interest is payable only on mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of tax demanded from date of deposit till date of refund.
Key Details:
Case Name: Brahmaputra Cracker an Polymer Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Dibrugarh
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 112 (Tri.-Cal)
Commission paid to foreign agents for export orders qualifies for exemption as it related to textile processing: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Appellate Tribunal allowed assessee’s appeal and set aside denial of exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-ST, holding that commission paid to foreign agents for procuring export orders was eligible for exemption as it related to “textile processing” in broader sense.
Key Details:
Case Name: Madras Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 100 (Tri.-Mad)
Department liable to pay interest on delayed refund from expiry of 3 months from receipt of refund application: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
Excise: Assessee is entitled to payment of interest, three months from date of refund application made by them under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944; Clause (ec) of Section 11B Explanation (B) ibid. is with reference to “relevant date” in context of limitation for making of such application for filing of refund claim.
Key Details:
Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 98 (Tri.-Cal)
CVD/SAD paid on the import of goods under an EPCG license prior to 01.07.2017 is refundable in cash under GST law: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
Excise: Refund of CVD and SAD paid in GST regime in respect of capital goods imported under EPCG license prior to 30-6-2017 towards non-fulfillment of export obligation was admissible in terms of Sections 142(3) and 142(6) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hindustan Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 69 (Tri.-Del)
Services provided to foreign clients but performed in India qualify as export if reports are delivered outside India: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee provided management consultancy services to foreign entities and claimed benefit of export of services, CESTAT allowed appeal holding that services used outside India qualify as export under Export of Service Rules, 2005, even if performed in India.
Key Details:
Case Name: Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 134 (Tri.-Chan)
Amount paid by assessee based on audit observations to be considered as tax and not a deposit: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee paid service tax based on audit observations and later filed refund claim treating payment as deposit due to absence of final audit report, Tribunal held that amount paid was tax and not deposit, and refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Tax Mysore GST Commissionerate vs. P. G. Setty Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 130 (Tri.-Bang)
Service tax not applicable on car parking charges collected by shopping mall from visitors
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Car parking charges collected by shopping mall not liable to service tax under “renting of immovable property service” as land used for parking purposes is specifically excluded from definition of immovable property under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994.
Key Details:
Case Name: South City Projects (Kolkata) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 132 (Tri.-Cal)
Legal Beacon
Canon India 2.0: Is It A Matter of Right Conclusion, Elucid Findings, But Few Things Still A Miss?
CUSTOMS | OPINION | (2024) 24 Centax 148 (Article)
Providing a cause of merriment for the Customs Department, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the petition seeking review of its judgment in M/s Canon India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 2018) (hereinafter referred to as “Canon India 1.0”). Read More
Author
Advocate Salil Arora
Chief Consulting Officer, Amicus Rarus
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????