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
DGFT amends import policy condition of several items under Chapter 85 of ITC (HS), 2022: Notification
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The DGFT has issued notification to amend import policy condition of several items under Chapter 85 of ITC (HS), 2022 and it is provided that requirement of compulsory registration under Chip Imports Monitoring System in terms of Policy Condition No. 08 of Chapter 85 of ITC (HS), 2022 has been discontinued.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 41/2024-25
Date of Statute: 29-11-2024
Case Chronicles
Petitioner can avail ITC of GST paid on land and construction done thereon if building can be treated as plant on basis of functionality test
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where GST was paid on purchase of land and also on constructions done thereon, in view of decision of Supreme Court in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Ors. V. M/s Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 756 (SC) upholding vires of section 17(5)(c) and (d) by holding that by using functionality test, a building could be held to be a plant.
Key Details:
Case Name: Compucom Software Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 292 (Raj.)
HC orders departmental action agaisnt Asst. Comm. for insubordination and directs fresh review of refund claim on merits
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where Assistant Commissioner rejected refund application filed by assessee as time-barred, defying Joint Commissioners appellate order to decide it on merits, said insubordination undermines CGST hierarchy and creates administrative chaos, therefore order rejecting refund application was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Proxima Steel Forge Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 294 (P&H.)
Matter remanded as assessee didn’t respond to notice due to adaptation issues with e-mechanism after introduction of GST
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was unable to access GSTIN portal and, hence, could not participate in adjudication proceedings as assessee was not adapted to e-mechanism after introduction of GST, one final opportunity was to be granted to assessee to put forth their objections before Adjudicating Authority.
Key Details:
Case Name: S. Sesappan vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-2
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 287 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter due to improper service of notice and lack of opportunity to present case
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Assessment order set aside where show cause notice and order were only uploaded on GST portal without physical service, remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity for reply and hearing.
Key Details:
Case Name: EN TEE EN SWAMY vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 301 (Mad.)
Matter remanded due to lack of personal hearing before order passed u/s 74 of UPGST Act
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order passed under Section 74 of UP GST Act without granting proper opportunity of personal hearing cannot be sustained, as personal hearing is mandatory in adjudication proceedings unless specifically waived by notice.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hindustan Enterprises vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 302 (All.)
Provisions of Sec. 130 couldn’t be invoked if excess stock was found during inspection: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where stock of goods was held to be in excess, proceedings should have been initiated against assessee under section 73 or 74; however, where proceedings was initiated under section 130, impugned orders could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: J.H.V. Steels Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 303 (All.)
HC directed Competent Authority to decide pending objections against provisional attachment within four weeks
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where bank account of petitioner had been attached under section 83 though petitioner had no relation with entities named in order, objection filed by petitioners, had not been decided despite same being in consonance with Guidelines dated 23-2-2021 issued in this regard, respondents competent authority was to be directed to decide pending objections within four weeks.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jhalak Enterprises vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 304 (All.)
GST officer was directed to conclude proceedings on suspension of registration within 3 weeks
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee’s registration had been suspended, responses submitted by assessee within time not concluded by respondent authority within statutory time limit as per Rule 22 of CGST Rules, respondents were to be directed to examine replies submitted by assesse and dispose of SCN proceedings.
Key Details:
Case Name: Mindforce Research Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 305 (Del.)
HC directed dept. to decide on cancellation of GST registration of assessee within 4 weeks
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where respondent-department submitted that some inquiries were going on into alleged bogus firms and appropriate decision regarding petitioner-assessee’s cancellation of registration would be taken within a month, therefore, writ petition was disposed of with a direction that appropriate decision regarding cancellation of petitioner-assessee’s registration would be taken within given time.
Key Details:
Case Name: Pihu Enterprises vs. Chanchal Yadav
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 306 (Del.)
GST registration cancellation order passed without assigning reasons violated natural justice principles: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Orders cancelling GST registration and rejecting appeal without assigning reasons cannot be sustained; matter remanded for passing speaking order after hearing opportunity.
Key Details:
Case Name: Pushpa Enterprises vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 307 (All.)
Order passed u/s 73 without granting personal hearing or opportunity to correct clerical mistake is liable to be set aside
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner-assessee was not provided opportunity of hearing by respondent-department to respond to show cause notice or to correct clerical mistake in GSTR-9 filing, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: R.Mohanraj & Co. vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 309 (Mad.)
Order blocking ECL quashed due to failure to provide pre-decisional hearing to assessee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order blocking electronic credit ledger was to be quashed same being passed without providing pre-decisional hearing and order contained independent or cogent reasons to believe.
Key Details:
Case Name: Prince Steel vs. State of Karnataka
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 314 (Kar.)
Order blocking ECL to be quashed due to lack of reasoning and pre-decisional hearing
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order blocking electronic credit ledger without recording reasons to believe and without granting pre-decisional hearing is not sustainable.
Key Details:
Case Name: Royal Steel vs. State of Karnataka
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 315 (Kar.)
Petitioner was allowed to take ITC in respect of delayed returns as per amended GST law
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Input Tax Credit in respect of delayed returns filed for Financial Year 2019-20 was to be allowed; interest and penalty levied were to be refunded with 6 per cent interest.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shri Sai Super Market vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 318 (Jhar.)
Clear Float Glass with absorbent and non-reflective thin tin layer is classifiable under Tariff Item 7005 10 90: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Clear Float Glass with absorbent and non-reflective thin tin layer was classifiable under Tariff Item 7005 10 90 and not under Tariff Item 7005 29 90, and eligible to benefit under ASEAN India Free Trade Area Agreement; there was no legal prescription as to which side of CFG should have absorbent, reflective/non-reflective layer or that metal layer should be by conscious coating.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bagrecha Enterprises Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 245 (Tri.-Mad)
Commissioner (A) cannot reject appeal on limitation when delay of 3 days falls within extended condonation period
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Commissioner (Appeals) cannot reject appeal on limitation when delay of 3 days falls within extended condonation period under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 without providing opportunity to file condonation application.
Key Details:
Case Name: Anantha Associates vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Jabalpur
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 339 (Tri.-Del)
Limitation period for appeal can't be calculated from date of affixation of order on factory gate if order wasn't served first via prescribed modes
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Limitation period for appeal cannot be calculated from date of affixation of order on factory gate when service was not first attempted through prescribed modes under Section 37C of Central Excise Act.
Key Details:
Case Name: Seven Seas Royal Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise-Jodhpur-I
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 341 (Tri.-Del)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????