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
HC set-aside cancellation of GST registration as SCN was cryptic and didn’t state any specific allegation
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned show cause notice proposing cancellation of assessee's GST registration did not state any specific allegation, which could be explained by assessee, impugned cancellation order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: A P Enterprises vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 319 (Del.)
Car seat covers permanently attached to raw foam seat of vehicle to be classified under CTH 9401: AAAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Original car seat covers which are manufactured and designed by appellant-assessee to permanently fit over raw foam seat of vehicles is classifiable under HSN Code 8708 and GST is liable to be paid at 28%.
Key Details:
Case Name: In re : Saddles International Automotive & Aviation Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 314 (App. A.A.R. - GST - A.P.)
States can tax mineral rights but interest & penalty for demands made prior to 25-07-2024 to be waived: SC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST/EXCISE/ST/VAT: States can tax mineral rights & mineral land wref 1-4-2005, but interest & penalty for demands made prior to 25-7-2024 to be waived.
Key Details:
Case Name: Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 313 (S.C.)
HC remanded matter as refund was rejected by stating that dealer didn’t upload supporting documents
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where IGST refund claim on exports was rejected for non-submission of documents, remanded for reconsideration based on portal documents and allowed submission of additional documents
Key Details:
Case Name: Colors of Rainbow vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 304 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter as refund application was rejected without considering period excluded for limitation
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order rejecting assessee’s refund applications solely on grounds of delay was to be set aside, as these applications were filed within excluded period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for calculating limitation period under Section 54 or Section 55, in accordance with Notification 13/2022-Central Tax.
Key Details:
Case Name: ITP Media India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 306 (Bom.)
HC remanded matter as no clarity was given in SCN whether tax was to be levied on amount collected from passengers
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where passenger services fee (PSF) and user development fee (UDF) collected by airliner through its general sales agents (GSAs) from passengers along with ticketing charges were paid to Airport Authority of India as a pure agent from passengers, amount collected by airliner are taxable only in hand of Airport Authority of India; if any other separate charges were collected by airliner for acting as pure agent of Airport Authority of India,
Key Details:
Case Name: Malindo Airway SDN BHD. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 310 (Mad.)
HC directed proper officer to release detained consignments upon furnishing security as required
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner’s vehicle intercepted, E-way bill expired, proceedings under section 129 of TSGST Act initiated, petitioner’s request to upload EWB 03 Part A & B on common portal not acceded to, no decision on reply to show cause notice, assessee been intimated of next date of physical hearing, proceedings were therefore underway, court was not to interfere in matter, respondent was to be directed to release consignments upon furnishing security as required.
Key Details:
Case Name: R.G. Group vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 311 (Tripura)
Matter to be remanded for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to assessee subject to 10% payment of disputed tax: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was unaware of assessment proceedings due to cancelled GST registration, matter remanded for fresh consideration, directing opportunity to contest tax demand on merits after partial payment.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. SMA Tex vs. Proper Officer/Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 312 (Mad.)
Writ petition against order levying GST on royalty to be dismissed as alternate remedy of appeal was available: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed writ petition against impugned order whereby GST was levied on amount of royalty paid by assessee to state government in respect of mining lease, there being an alternate remedy of appeal available to assessee, writ petition could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Star India Industries vs. State of Jharkhand
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 316 (Jhar.)
HC set-aside order confirming tax proposal as assessee was unaware of proceedings as SCNs were only uploaded on GST portal
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where tax proposal relating to mismatch between assessee’s GST returns was confirmed without assessee being heard and assessee was unaware of proceedings because communications were only uploaded on GST portal, interests of justice warrant that assessee be given an opportunity to contest tax demand on its merits, accordingly, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Fashion Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer (ST)
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 318 (Mad.)
IP Phones that enable voice calls are classifiable under Tariff Item 8517 18 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: IP Phones that enable voice calls via internet, ethernet cable or Wi Fi connection were classifiable under Tariff Item 8517 18 10 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as telephone sets of push button type and not under Tariff Item 8517 62 90 of said Tariff.
Key Details:
Case Name: Cisco Commerce India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 297 (Tri.-Bom)
No penalty can be imposed on importer if investigation is not conclusive to prove case of circular trading: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where footballs and sport articles were exported to a firm allegedly owned and operated by exporter’s son, denial of duty drawback by alleging over-invoicing and circular trading solely based on statements of exporter, his employees and other co-accused and market survey report could not be justified in absence of any corroborative evidence if they were not examined by adjudicating authority and had retracted their statements in a proceedings against their arrest before High Court,
Key Details:
Case Name: Anil Parmar vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 266 (Tri.-Bang)
Service tax not applicable if services provided by foreign Co. wasn’t used in India; matter to be remanded: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: CESTAT remanded matter to reconsider whether advertising services by foreign providers were actually received and used in India for determining service tax liability.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 296 (Tri.-Ahmd)
HC set-aside order passed by Commissioner & remanded matter back as assessee was not served with any SCN
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Ex-parte order passed without service of show cause notice set aside and matter remanded for fresh assessment.
Key Details:
Case Name: Samir Kumar Mohapatra vs. Deputy Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Jharsuguda
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 300 (Ori.)
No penalty if assessee had no deliberate intention to avoid or evade service tax payment on rental income: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 not invocable without clear grounds of fraud or suppression in show cause notice.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shri Shakti Resorts and Hotels Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), Telangana
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 303 (Tri.-Hyd)
Supply of barge to be used for transporting cargo from ship to shore not covered under ‘Port Services’: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Charges collected by a shipping company from its customers under head barge working income, general transport income, lighterate and local transport income, stevedoring, loading, unloading, transport and rake handling income, tug working income, rack transport income, ship to shore and local transport income, transport division income, dispatch money income, machinery usage income, etc.,
Key Details:
Case Name: Shreeji Shipping Service (I) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 301 (Tri.-Ahmd)
SC dismissed appeal CESTAT order holding that no ST leviable on foreclosure charges collected by banks/NBFCs under BOFS
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Supreme Court dismisses appeal after condonation of delay against order of CESTAT wherein it was held that foreclosure charges collected by banks/non-banking financial companies from their customers on premature termination of loan could not be leviable to Service Tax under category of Banking and Other Financial Services.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vs. Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 21 Centax 268 (S.C.)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????