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 order as proper officer didn’t consider detailed reply & also failed to grant opportunity to explain reply
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned show cause notice proposing a demand against assessee had been disposed of by impugned order and demand including penalty had been raised against assessee, since proper officer had not given any opportunity to assessee to submit clarification/documents, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded to proper officer for re-adjudication
Key Details:
Case Name: Central Govt. Employees Consumer Coop. Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, Delhi
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 373 (Del.)
HC modified order cancelling registration of assessee as he wasn’t interested in continuing business
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee sought cancellation of registration on ground of closure of business however same was rejected and registration of assessee was cancelled retrospectively vide impugned order, since assessee was not put to notice about retrospective cancellation, impugned order was to be modified to extent that registration was to be treated as cancelled from date when assessee made application for cancellation
Key Details:
Case Name: Chima Ram Harnand Rai vs. Principal Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 374 (Del.)
HC grants bail to person arrested for illegal extraction of minerals and causing loss of revenue to Govt.
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was arrested for illegal extraction of minerals and causing loss of revenue to Government, he was to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and giving one surety of Rs. 25,000
Key Details:
Case Name: Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal vs. State of Haryana
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 377 (P&H.)
Penalty should not have been imposed under section 129 for expired e-way bill due to tyre puncture of truck: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where goods of assessee were detained in transit and penalty was imposed under section 129 vide impugned order, since it was not a case that E-way bill was not available, instead same had expired, penalty should not have been imposed under section 129, thus impugned order was to be set aside and a penalty of Rs. 10 thousand was to be imposed under section 122
Key Details:
Case Name: Faruk Rathore vs. Dy. Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 375 (Raj.)
HC remanded matter for reconsideration since demand was confirmed on ground that assessee did not respond to SCN
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned order was passed confirming tax proposal on ground that assessee did not respond to show cause notice, since assessee's reply to notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was not taken into consideration in impugned order, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for re-consideration
Key Details:
Case Name: Imperial Shipping Service vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 380 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter as no opportunity was granted to assessee to substantiate that vehicle was purchased in furtherance of business
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee was denied ITC on purchase of tipper lorry on ground that same was covered under restriction imposed under section 17(5)(a), an opportunity was to be granted to assessee to substantiate its claim that said vehicle was purchased in furtherance of business, thus, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded on condition that assessee remitted 10 per cent of disputed tax amount
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Devi vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-1
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 381 (Mad.)
HC permitted assessee to file belated appeal since delay of 12 days was due to resignation of concerned employee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where appeal presented by assessee was rejected on ground of limitation, since delay was only of 12 days on account that concerned staff had left services of assessee causing delay in presentation of appeal, it was just and necessary that assessee be permitted to prosecute appeal, thus assessee was to be permitted to file same within 15 days
Key Details:
Case Name: Geotech Offshore Structures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 376 (Mad.)
HC restored appeal since Appellate Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not entertaining condonation application
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where appellate authority rejected an application for condonation of delay beyond prescribed period, it erred, as absence of an express or implied exclusion of Limitation Act allows for such condonation, thereby constituting a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jalajoga vs. State of West Bengal
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 382 (Cal.)
HC condoned delay in filing revocation application for cancellation of GST subject to depositing all pending dues
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Delay in assessee's invoking proviso to Rule 23 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules was condoned and subject to depositing all taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, assessee's application for revocation would be considered in accordance with law.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kundan Kumar Swain vs. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 383 (Ori.)
HC quashed SCN and order which were not signed either digitally or physically by GST Authority
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice and assessment order were not been signed by respondent-authority either digitally or physically as required under Rule 26 of CGST Rules, not sustainable, to be set side/quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kundan Steel Industries vs. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 384 (Telangana)
Demand order passed without issuing show cause notice is liable to be set aside: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned order passed against assessee creating demand without issuing show cause notice, impugned passed against mandate of section 73 of CGST Act, was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Laxmi Traders vs. Principal Commissioner of GST Department of Trade & Taxes
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 385 (Del.)
SC admits appeal and issues notice against HC ruling holding that GST leviable on transfer of development rights
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Supreme Court had issued notice against order of high court in which it was held that no right, title and ownership was created in favour of petitioner-assessee, therefore, transfer of development rights to petitioner-assessee was amenable to GST; Supreme Court had not stayed operation of impugned judgment/order, therefore, taxes would have to be paid.
Key Details:
Case Name: Prahitha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 386 (S.C.)
No anticipatory bail to the accused of making huge unlawful gain by causing huge loss to State Exchequer: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee involved in alleged commission of economic offences, for making huge unlawful gain by causing huge loss to State Exchequer, was putting up show for sincere involvement in business and carrying out same, as also entitlement to huge sum as incentive in form of ITC, was not to be granted anticipatory bail.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sibaram Patra vs. State of Odisha
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 387 (Ori.)
HC set aside order & remanded matter since assessee failed to reply to SCN uploaded on “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where tax proposal under section 73 of CGST Act was confirmed only because assessee failed to reply to show cause notice by enclosing relevant documents, intimation and show cause notice were uploaded on "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab on GST portal, impugned order was to be set aside and assessee permitted to contest tax demand on merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Silver & C.Z. International vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 388 (Mad.)
Notification rescinding ADD Duty without sunset review and Designated Authority’s recommendation was irregular & illegal: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Notification rescinding Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) issued without sunset review and Designated Authority's (DA) recommendation, was irregular, illegal and without power; procedure in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-Dumping Duties Rules, 1995 was not as directory as that would render futile ADD levy, especially when DA had recommended its continuation.
Key Details:
Case Name: Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 369 (Guj.)
HC upheld CESTAT order holding that delay of 14 years in concluding proceedings was unjustified
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where assessee had replied to show cause notice within reasonable time and also participated in personal hearing conducted on multiple dates, adjudication order passed after more than a decade of issuance of such show cause notice was to be considered to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and order of CESTAT quashing such adjudication order could not be faulted.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. Namdev Exports
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 368 (Cal.)
No penalty on director for not opting SVLDRS if dispute was remanded back to adjudicating authority: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Where main noticee-company granted benefits under SVLDRS, imposition of penalty on director who failed avail benefit of scheme not justified.
Key Details:
Case Name: B.V. Kshatriya vs. Commissioner of GST & CE
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 364 (Tri.-Bom)
No penalty if assessee paid proportionate Cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods belatedly: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Penalty imposed on assessee with strong prima facie case on limitation and had paid proportionate credit in respect of exempted inputs and input services despite demand being time-barred, set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Lyka Labs Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 367 (Tri.-Ahmd)
No service tax demand if invoices indicate that erection services were provided to electricity department: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: No question of taxability of service would arise for invoices that were issued to Electricity Department and demand to be confined only to invoices of erection services etc. issued to private party under normal period of limitation.
Key Details:
Case Name: Frontech Electricals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 366 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Providing temporary manpower for specific task & raising invoices as per quantum of work not taxable as manpower supply service: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Service provided by assessee did not fall under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service since payment was on basis of per Kg of goods manufactured as per work contract.
Key Details:
Case Name: Dayanand Mishra vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 365 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Expenses incurred by dealers on advertisement not to be included in assessable value of vehicles cleared by assessee: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Advertisement expenses incurred by dealers on their own accord not to be included in assessable value for purpose of payment of excise duty.
Key Details:
Case Name: Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 370 (Tri.-Chan)
Legal Beacon
Seat of Arbitration is To Be Base of Connection with Arbitraiton Proceedings and Not With Cause of Action
CUSTOMS ?|? OPINION ?|? (2024) 18 CENTAX 395 (ARTICLE)
In ‘Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation v. Satinder Mahajan’ – OMP (COMM) 307/2021 - High Court, Delhi – decided on 01.05.2024, Satinder Mahajan, the respondent, in this case is registered under MSME Act. The respondent made an agreement with the petitioner for the construction of bus depot at Kharkhari Nahar Village, New Delhi.
Author
CS. Dr. M. Govindarajan
PCS & IP
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.
Centaxonline.com provides authentic, reliable resources related to Foreign Trade Policy. Join the Centaxonline.com network and leverage our resources and tools to empower your practice and research.
???????? ??????????????????
? Access Essentials – Your Gateway to FTP, Handbook of Procedures, Aayat Niryat Forms, and more
? Stay Updated with the Latest in Circulars, Notifications, etc.
? Research Powerhouse of over 6,000 Case Laws
? Precision Tools to Help You Filter with 15 Parameters for Targeted Results
? Expert Summaries – Concise Insights with Single and Three-line Summaries & Professionally Drafted Head Notes
? Trustworthy Content that is Current and Authoritative
? Ever-Growing Library that Features Continuously Updated Statutory Content and Extensive Case Law Database
???????????????? ????????????????
? Expert Articles for Insights from Industry Leaders
? Ease of Use
? Search Excellence – Find What You Need with an Advanced Search Engine
? Newsletter Customisation – Stay Informed Your Way with a Customisable Newsletter
Join the Centaxonline.com Network! https://centax.one/p8NA
?????????? ????????????????????????.??????:
Established in the early seventies by the late Shri R.K. Jain, Centax Law Publications has steadfastly committed to providing publications and software of exceptional credibility and authenticity. Recognised and respected by Courts, Tribunals, and Tax Professionals, our offerings have consistently maintained a distinguished presence in the industry.