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 dismisses review petition on setting aside penalty for e-way bill non-updation in cases of genuine difficulty
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Review of order modifying penalty for non-updation of Part-B of e-way bill was not maintainable when there was no injustice to State and enough explanation was provided in writ petition as regards non-updation of Part-B of fourth e-way bill.
Key Details:
Case Name: State Tax Officer vs. Relay Express Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 232 (Cal.)
Activity of laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of sewer system for Municipal Council is not exempt: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where applicant-assessee provides services to Municipal Council Kotputli, which is a ‘local authority’ and Entry No. 3B of Notification No. 13/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 exempts services provided to ‘Government Authority’ by way of water supply, public health, sanitation conservancy, solid waste management, slum improvement and up gradation , therefore, activity of providing, laying, jointing.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: Technocraft Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 252 (A.A.R. - GST - Raj.)
Penalty was set aside as vehicle was replaced due to an accident and there was no intention to evade tax
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where goods of petitioner were being transported and due to accident of vehicle mentioned in e-way bill, vehicle was changed, however, without considering same, goods were detained and penalty was imposed, which was also affirmed by Appellate Authority in impugned order, since assessee had no intention to evade tax and contentions of assessee were not considered while passing impugned order, same was to be set aside and matter was to remanded to pass fresh orders.
Key Details:
Case Name: Govindarajan M.P. vs. State of Kerala
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 231 (Ker.)
Matter remanded as order confirming demand was made without considering reply submitted by assessee: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where in replies to show cause notices, assessee had provided detailed explanations and reconciliations, but without considering same, demands under section 74 were confirmed vide impugned order, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: J.P. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 230 (Mad.)
Commission/discount earned in trading of vouchers/coupons is taxable service and liable for GST: AAAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where vouchers qualify to be considered as "goods" not “money” and appellant-assessee is engaged in trading of vouchers/coupons and getting commission in form of discount, on such services which are taxable, therefore, GST is applicable on commission/discount earned in trading of vouchers/coupons by appellant-assessee and time of supply will be determined as per Section 12(4).
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: Payline Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 251 (App. A.A.R. - GST - U.P.)
HC directed assessee to file appeal before Appellate Authority and dismissed writ petition
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee had filed Writ Petition challenging show cause notice proposing to deny ITC in respect of goods used in construction of building on their own land for giving it on lease to a society for running a school and adjudication order was passed subsequently in said show cause notice, such Writ Petition was to be dismissed with liberty to them to avail appellate remedy against adjudication order by filing appeal thereagainst before Appellate Authority and to rely upon decision.
Key Details:
Case Name: Chirantan Enterprises LLP vs. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 53 (M.P.)
Writ disposed as relief on declaration of transitional credit was addressed in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee sought declaration regarding Input Service Distributor’s entitlement to transition credit from pre-GST regime to GST regime under Section 140 of CGST Act, petition was disposed of noting that primary relief stands worked out due to Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, and directed proper officer to deal with remaining reliefs in accordance with law.
Key Details:
Case Name: Nivea India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 140 (Bom.)
Fly Ash Bricks with less than 90% fly ash content to be taxed at 5% GST: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Fly Ash Bricks with less than 90% fly ash content would be taxable at rate of 5% GST (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST)
Key Details:
Case Name: Shree Mahalaxmi Cement Products vs. State of Gujarat
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 58 (Guj.)
HC allowed opportunity to petitioner to take steps for summoning GST official to show no fake ITC was passed on
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner wanted to examine official from concerned GST Office to show that no input tax credit with respect to invoices in question passed on to him, GST Department informed that details in question not available with them, petitioner’s request to summon official declined by Trial Court, Trial Court was to be directed to give petitioner opportunity to take steps for summoning GST official.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kanwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jaswinder Singh Bhatia
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 125 (Del.)
Extension of payment deadline beyond statutory cut-off date under SVLDRS Scheme, 2019 is not permissible: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Extension of payment deadline beyond statutory cut-off date under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 not permissible as it would amount to modification of Scheme terms.
Key Details:
Case Name: Anupam Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 52 (Guj.)
HC set aside order since SCN was uploaded only on GST portal without physical service to assessee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Orders passed based on show cause notice uploaded only on GST portal without physical service to assessee whose GST registration stood cancelled, set aside for violation of natural justice principles.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Arun Medicals vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Salem
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 59 (Mad.)
Matter remanded since ITC was denied to assessee without following procedure prescribed in CBIC's circular: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where ITC claim of assessee was rejected vide impugned order on grounds of difference in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns, since procedure laid down in Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, dated 27-12-2022, for adjudication of such matters was not followed while passing impugned order, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rekha Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 229 (Kar.)
Matter remanded as assessee wasn’t given personal hearing before passing assessment order
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST : Alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, assessment order quashed and matter remanded for reconsideration after providing opportunity of personal hearing to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rice Lake Weighing Systems India Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 80 (Mad.)
HC directed dept. to verify if goods transferred from branches covered under centralized registration for claiming transitional credit
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Transitional CENVAT credit claimed on inter-branch transfers under centralized registration requires verification of registration coverage and demonstration of duty payment through supporting documents.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner Gst Appeals
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 87 (A.P.)
Recovery of amounts during GST investigation without adjudication is contrary to law if coercion is established through timely retraction
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Recovery of amounts during GST investigation without adjudication, even if claimed as voluntary self-ascertainment under Section 74(5), is contrary to law and Article 265 when coercion is established through timely retraction.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kesar Colour Chem Industries vs. Intelligence Officer
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 88 (Kar.)
No power with Appellate Authority or courts to condone delay beyond prescribed statutory period in filing appeal: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Appeal filed beyond prescribed limitation period under GST law cannot be condoned as neither appellate authority nor courts have power to condone delay beyond statutorily prescribed period.
Key Details:
Case Name: Maa Vindhyavasini Impex vs. State of Up
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 91 (All.)
Order set aside as there is no evidence that the SCN was served upon the assessee: SC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Impugned order is set aside when Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 not served upon assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Geetha Veenathu Parambil vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 200 (S.C.)
Detention of imported goods quashed due to lack of reasons to doubt genuineness of Country of Origin (COO) certificate: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Detention of import consignment without “reason to believe” that goods did not conform to Country-of-Origin criteria and its verification online or reciprocal process, and imposing conditions for provisional release, was not sustainable; it was incumbent on proper officer to form opinion about COO certificate on basis of record; onerous conditions for provisional release based on CBEC guidelines were also not sustainable in law.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ausil Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 35 (Del.)
Office memorandum issued for not imposing anti-dumping duty on import of Aluminum Primary Foundry Alloy Ingot to be set aside: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Anti-dumping : Office Memorandum, dated 23-5-2022 issued by Ministry of Finance conveying decision of Central Government not to impose countervailing duty on import of Aluminum Primary Foundry Alloy Ingot originating in or exported from Malaysia despite recommendations of Designated Authority in its Final Findings, dated 31-1-2022 for its imposition, being unreasoned, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, was to be quashed and matter was to be remitted to Central Read More
Key Details:Case Name: Vedanta Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaCitation: (2024) 24 Centax 201 (Tri.-Del)
?
[20] SVLDR Scheme grants immunity/waiver from “redemption fine” if basic excise duty is paid: HCEXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAWSVLDRS : SVLDR Scheme grants immunity/waiver from “redemption fine” if basic excise duty is paid as per the Scheme. Read More
Key Details:Case Name: Esbee Electrotech LLP vs. Union of IndiaCitation: (2024) 24 Centax 199 (Bom.)
?
[21] Oxygen Captively Consumed and used only in copper concentrate for purification eligible for exemption: HCEXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAWExcise : Oxygen produced in assessee’s plant is captively consumed and used only in copper concentrate for purification and is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. Read More
Key Details:Case Name: Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara II vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 182 (Guj.)
?
[22] No service tax demand if bank discharged tax on forex transactions as per IBA's advice: CESTATEXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAWST : Where bank pays service tax on forex transactions at fixed rate per transaction instead of composition rate, discharge of tax per transaction through invoices complies with Rule 6(7B) of Service Tax Rules. Read More
Key Details:Case Name: United Bank of India vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, KolkataCitation: (2024) 24 Centax 168 (Tri.-Cal)
?
Services consumed in SEZ are eligible for exemption even if provided as a sub-contractor through the main contractor: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Where assessee provided services as sub-contractor in Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Tribunal allowed appeal holding that such services are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 04/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004, even if provided through main contractor and not directly to SEZ unit.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rishabh Construction Co vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-II
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 180 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Oxygen produced and captively consumed in copper concentrate purification is eligible for excise duty exemption: CESTA
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise : Oxygen produced in assessee’s plant is captively consumed and used only in copper concentrate for purification and is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bharuch
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 181 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Credit would be allowed on towers and pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) being “goods” and not immovable property: SC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
CENVAT/ST: Mobile service providers (MSPs) who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business, more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) etc. can take benefit of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for purpose of payment of service tax on output services rendered by them.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune
Citation: (2024) 24 Centax 266 (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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????