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
Guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues in cases wherein first appeal is disposed of till Appellate Tribunal comes into operation
GST ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has issued circular to issue guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues in cases wherein first appeal is disposed of till Appellate Tribunal comes into operation. It is also clarified that in cases where the taxpayer decides to file an appeal against the order of the appellate authority, he can make the payment of an amount equal to the amount of pre-deposit by navigating to Services >> Ledgers>> Payment towards demand, from his dashboard.
Key Details:
Statute Number: CIRCULAR NO. 224/18/2024 - GST
Date of Statute: 11-07-2024
Clarification on various issues pertaining to taxability and valuation of corporate guarantee provided between related persons: Circular
GST ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has received various representations from trade and industry seeking clarifications on various issues pertaining to the taxability and valuation of supply of services of providing corporate guarantee between related persons. Therefore, the CBIC has issued circular to provide clarity regarding the applicability of Rule 28(2) which is amended retrospectively with effect from 26.10.2023.
Key Details:
Statute Number: CIRCULAR NO. 225/19/2024-GST
Date of Statute: 11-07-2024
CBIC provide clarity on revised procedure for electronic submission and processing of refund application by CSD
GST ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has issue circular to provide clarity on revised procedure for electronic submission and processing of refund application by CSD, in accordance with section 55 of CGST Act, in supersession of Circular No. 60/34/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 since a new functionality has been made available on the common portal which allows CSD to apply for refund by filing an application electronically on the common portal.
Key Details:
Statute Number: CIRCULAR NO. 227/21/2024-GST
Date of Statute: 11-07-2024
CBIC issued circular to clarify procedure for claim of refund on account of upward revision in prices of goods subsequent to export
GST ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The CBIC has issue circular to clarify that in case of upward revision in prices of goods subsequent to export, the exporter may file an application for refund of such additional IGST paid in FORM GST RFD-01 electronically on the common portal under the category “Any other” till the time such separate category is developed on the common portal.
Key Details:
Statute Number: CIRCULAR NO. 226/20/2024-GST
Date of Statute: 11-07-2024
Case Chronicles
HC allowed assessee to file review application before single Judge against issue of order passed without jurisdiction by AO
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where writ petition of assessee against assessment order was dismissed by Single Judge on grounds of alternate remedy of appeal, since main case of assessee was that assessment order had been passed by assessing authority without jurisdiction, same could be interfered with in writ petition, thus, assessee was to be granted liberty to file review application before single Judge.
Key Details:
Case Name: John Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 234 (Mad.)
HC set aside order to limited extent that it rejected part refund of assessee despite realisation of complete export proceeds
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee's part refund rejected on ground that export proceeds were not realized despite lapse of nine months, respondents after verification submitted that contention of assessee that exports proceeds were duly realized for reason that sales were made to Nepal and currency in which sale proceeds were to be received was INR and INR was duly received, was correct.
Key Details:
Case Name: SK Creations vs. Commissioner Central Tax and GST
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 228 (Del.)
HC remanded matter as order passed by proper officer was completely unreasoned
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where upon receiving a show cause notice, assessee replied to SCN explaining discrepancy between their returns and recipient's GST 7 return, but despite explanation, revenue issued an order concluding that said reply was not genuine, since impugned order was completely unreasoned, it could not be sustained and therefore same was to set aside and matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jupiter and Co. vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 223 (Mad.)
Proceedings issued by GST authorities without generating DIN would have no legs to stand in eyes of law: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned proceedings were issued by Competent Authority without generating Document Identification Number (DIN), same were liable to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sai Manikanta Electrical Contractors vs. Deputy Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 236 (A.P.)
HC permitted assessee to resubmit corrected Form-GSTR-1 as there will be no loss to revenue
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee had wrongly filed GSTR-1 return and in order to get input tax credit benefit said return needs to be rectified, thus assessee had sought for a direction to permit assessee to rectify GST Return, since by permitting assessee to rectify said return there will be no loss whatsoever caused to revenue, assessee was permitted to resubmit corrected Form-GSTR-1 return.
Key Details:
Case Name: Chintamaniswar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chairperson, Central Board of Indirect Taxes
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 222 (Ori.)
Royalty charged for manufacturing aggregates from boulders purchased from quarries having mining permit is taxable at 18%: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Royalty charges collected by applicant-assessee for manufacturing aggregates (Stone crusher unit) from boulders purchased from quarries having mining permit would fall under SAC 997337 and would attract 9% CGST and 9% SGST.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: R.V. Minerals
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 227 (A.A.R. - GST - A.P.)
Redemption fine imposed for importing goods below minimum import price to be upheld: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Import of hot dipped galvanized steel coils below minimum import price set by DGFT Notification No. 38/2015-20 liable for confiscation and imposition of fine, considering mitigating circumstances redemption fine reduced.
Key Details:
Case Name: Specta Decor Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 218 (Tri.-Bang)
Safeguard duty can’t be demanded on imported goods before date of publication of notification in official gazette: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Safeguard duty could not be demanded where bill of entry and entry inward were filed much before date of publication in official gazette of notification that had imposed safeguard duty; date of effect of notification shall be from date of its publication in Official Gazette and not merely from its date.
Key Details:
Case Name: PMC Projects IP Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 216 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Used Digital Multifunctional Machines to be released on payment of redemption fine & penalty: CESTAT
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CASE LAW
FTP: Used digital multifunctional machines could not be absolutely confiscate even if imported in violation of statutory provisions, and in absence of evidence of profit margin, they could redeemed on payment of fine of 10% of enhanced value and penalty of 15% of enhanced value.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs vs. Sri Banashankr Traders
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 219 (Tri.-Bang)
Re-export to be allowed without payment if goods couldn’t be cleared from warehouse due to COVID-19 situation: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: For goods warehoused during COVID-19, where there was no allegation of fraud of wilful omission against importer, even if bonding period had expired and demand notice issued or decision taken to auction goods, importer’s request for re-export should be allowed without duty, interest, fine and penalty, and warehousing period extended to enable export.
Key Details:
Case Name: Velankani Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 220 (Tri.-Bang)
Customs authorities can’t deny FTA benefits without conducting verification of certificate of origin: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Alkalised Cocoa Powder import from Malaysia was eligible for benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 1-6-2011 and Notification No. 53/2011-Cus dated 1-7-2011, which could not be denied on allegation of not fulfilling 35% value addition condition where department had neither discarded certificate of origin nor carried out independent verification.
Key Details:
Case Name: Malas Fruit Products vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 214 (Tri.-Ahmd)
No bar to quash criminal proceedings if person was exonerated from allegations in adjudication proceedings: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
FERA: Where adjudicating authority exonerated accused under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on merits and not on technical ground, continuance of criminal prosecution on same facts and circumstances would be abuse of process of court as criminal cases have higher standard of proof.
Key Details:
Case Name: ITC Ltd. vs. S.K. Mukherjee
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 213 (Cal.)
HC justified rejection of application of exporter for conversion of shipping bill from duty drawback to advance authorisation
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where exporter was in business for quite some time and not novice, their plea that by inadvertent mistake they obtained duty drawback benefits by filing Duty Drawback shipping bills instead of Advance Authorisation Scheme, rejected; Customs department’s rejection of exporter’s request for conversion of shipping bills to Advance Authorisation Scheme upheld especially as it was not made within prescribed 3 months.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shine Flexible Prints and Packs Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 217 (Ker.)
No penalty shall be levied on customs broker if there was no mens rea on his part: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where assessing officers had not objected to classification, DGFT had allowed MEIS benefits, and Customs Broker had not directly benefited by their contravention, there was no mens rea to impose penalty; classification was question of law and it could not be treated as misdeclaration or misstatement.
Key Details:
Case Name: Max Miller Agencies vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 20 Centax 215 (Tri.-Mad)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????