Centaxonline’s Tax Gazette
Powered by Centaxonline.com

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 export policy of Onions to "Free": Notification

FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS

The DGFT has issued notification to provide that the export policy of onions shall be amended from "Prohibited" to "Free" subject to minimum export price of USD 550 per Metric Ton.

Read More

Key Details:

Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 10/2024-25
Date of Statute: 04-05-2024

DGFT issued clarification on applicability of 3% amount on account of non-achievement of minimum value addition

FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS

The DGFT has issued policy circular to provide clarification that provisions relating to payment of 10% of CIF value and payment of 3% of shortfall in FOB value on account of non-achievement of minimum value addition are applicable only in cases where advance authorizations are issued on or after 01.04.2023.

Read More

Key Details:

Statute Number: POLICY CIRCULAR NO. 02/2024
Date of Statute: 03-05-2024

CBIC levied export duty of 40% on export of Onions: Notification

CUSTOMS ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS

The CBIC has issued notification to provide that there shall be levy of 40% export duty on export of onions with effect from 4th May, 2024.

Read More

Key Details:

Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 24/2024-CUSTOMS
Date of Statute: 03-05-2024

Case Chronicles

No relief to be given if assessee failed to differentiate stock belonging to it and also failed to produce valid documents: HC

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee challenged an interim order and contended that as per Section 67(7), seized goods must be returned if no notice is given within six months of seizure, and time cannot be extended without sufficient cause, since assessee even failed to differentiate stock belonging to them and also failed to produce valid documents in earlier of order of writ petition, assessee was not entitled for any relief and instant writ appeal was to be dismissed.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Kanak Timber House vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (S.B.)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 49 (Cal.)

Jharkhand HC set aside demand of interest raised by GST officer without initiating adjudication proceeding

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Without initiating any adjudication proceedings under section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act 2017, where liability had been disputed, department could not raise a demand for payment of interest on delayed furnishing of Return under section 39 of the CGST.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: East India Udyog Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 48 (Jhar.)

HC set-aside order passed by tax officer as no date, time or venue of personal hearing was disclosed in SCN

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where notices preceding impugned order under section 74(9) of UPGST Act did not disclose date, time or venue of personal hearing, in view of decision in Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023) as also in Mahaveer Trading Co. v. Deputy Commissioner State Tax & Anr. (Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024), impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: S.S. Suppliers vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 50 (All.)

HC granted bail to person accused of availing bogus ITC as arrest memo was totally silent about offences committed

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee was arrested for offence punishable under section 132(1)(c) of GGST Act, role attributed to assessee was that she had availed ineligible input tax credit of Rs.7.45 Crores on basis of purchases made from six registered entities, which according to revenue were non-existing, she was in custody since 2-2-2024.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Smit Dipen Shah vs. State of Gujarat
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 51 (Guj.)

HC directed GST Dept. to consider date of filing of manual refund application as relevant date for limitation

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where assessee could not filed refund application online due to glitch on portal, however filed manual application, respondent authority was to be directed to consider date of filing of refund application to be preferred by assessee as date of filing manual refund application as relevant date for purpose of limitation.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: ADM Agro Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 53 (Guj.)

HC remanded matter as assessee wasn’t provided opportunity to submit relevant documents in support of his reply

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where an audit was conducted and an audit report was issued and thereafter impugned assessment order was passed, petitioner was to be provided an opportunity to submit relevant documents

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Bajrang Clothing vs. State Tax Officer (FAC)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 55 (Mad.)

P&H HC stayed clarification issued by CBIC Circular regarding taxability of corporate guarantee provided by companies

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Effect and operation of Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST, dated 27-10-2023 regarding taxability of corporate guarantee by a person on behalf of another related person, or by holding company for sanction of credit facilities to its subsidiary company, to bank/ financial institutions shall remain stayed.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Acme Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 89 (P&H.)

GST registration can’t be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically without providing reasons: Delhi HC

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Merely because a taxpayer had not filed returns for some period did not mean that taxpayer’s registration was required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Bakshi Aerosole vs. Commissioner of DGST, Delhi
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 56 (Del.)

AO can’t create demand ex-parte without seeking further details from assessee if reply wasn’t found satisfactory: HC

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where petitioner filed a detailed reply to show cause notice proposing demand, if assessing officer was not satisfied with reply of assessee, further detailed should have been sought before forming an opinion, thus ex-parte impugned order passed by assessee officer confirming demand was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted for fresh adjudication.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 59 (Del.)

HC quashed assessment order as assessee wasn’t expected to monitor GST portal after cancellation of registration

GST ?|? CASE LAW

GST: Where registration of petitioner was cancelled and subsequently impugned assessment order was issued after issuing show cause notice to assessee on portal, assessee could not be expected to monitor GST portal in same manner as a registered person for receiving notices, thus impugned order was to be quashed and subject to assessee remitting 10 percent of disputed tax demand, fresh order was to be passed.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Showkathhussain Mohamedismaile vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 61 (Mad.)

Coconut imported in powder form with fat content less than 55% is classifiable under CTH 2306 50 20: CESTAT

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Coconut imported in powder form with fat content less than 55% was classifiable under Tariff Item 2306 50 20 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as defatted coconut and eligible to benefit of exemption under Sl. No. 114 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Commissioner of Customs vs. Pavan Enterprises
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 39 (Tri.-Bang)

Refund of excess duty paid on export of bauxite due to short shipment to be allowed: CESTAT

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Where moisture in Metallurgical Grade Gibbstic Bauxite at port of discharge was found to be above permissible and price renegotiated, but there was nothing on record whether assessment was provisional, department was aware of likely variance in prices due to higher moisture content, and moisture content was declared at time of export, matter remanded to adjudicating authority to check all these facts to decide on exporter's refund claim on renegotiated price.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Rawmin Mining and Industrial Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar (Prev)
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 42 (Tri.-Ahmd)

Confiscation of gold bars not warranted if importer has duly produced valid documents supporting its acquisition: CESTAT

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Where noticee demonstrated licit possession of seized foreign marked gold, and department failed to demonstrate falsity in noticee's evidence, noticee had discharged their burden under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, and hence, confiscation of gold bars set aside.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Satish Kumar Subudhi vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 43 (Tri.-Cal)

Importer of engine parts of Mirage Aircraft is entitled to benefit of concessional rate of BCD of 2.5%: AAR

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Importer of engine parts of Mirage Aircraft, designed specifically for turbojet engines of IAF's military aircraft, and not usable in other aircraft engines or function, was entitled to benefit of concessional rate of BCD @ 2.5% under Sr. No. 545 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30-6-2017.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: In Re: Shriprop Aerospace Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 44 (A.A.R. - Cus. - Del.)

Destruction of obsolete raw material may be allowed after intimation to customs authority: CESTAT

FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CASE LAW

FTP: Harmonious reading of Para 6.15(b) of FTP and Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 25-5-2015 prior to substitution of condition (8) by Notification No.32/2015-Cus dated 25-5-2015 tacitly implied that destruction of obsolete raw materials may be allowed; hence, denial of importer’s request for permission to destroy and clear such raw materials on payment of duty on scrap value, set aside.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Te-Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 46 (Tri.-Bang)

Refund amount can’t be retained if it was to be repaid to overseas supplier as per agreement: CESTAT

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Where Microsoft had advanced to importer amount for duty and interest demanded by Indian Revenue Authorities and agreement between two had condition that importer will refund to Microsoft excess amount, importer had not passed refund amount to any other person, especially as it was shown receivable in their account after Settlement Order regarding same; hence, refund could not be disallowed on ground of unjust enrichment.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Sonata Information Technology Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 45 (Tri.-Bang)

SC dismissed revenue’s appeal against CESTAT order classifying Furnace Oil under Tariff Item 2710 19 50

CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW

Customs: Classification of Furnace Oil to be under Tariff Item 2710 19 50 of Customs Tariff.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: Commissioner of Customs vs. Gaurav Lubricants Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 66 (S.C.)

Appeal against order of CESTAT regarding determination of rate of duty or value would be maintainable before SC: HC

EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW

Excise: Where order of CESTAT had decided issue with regard to determination of any question having relation to rate of duty or to value of goods for purpose of assessment, appeal against such order would be maintainable before Supreme Court and not before High Court.

Read More

Key Details:

Case Name: PEB Steel Lloyd (I) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 41 (M.P.)?

Legal Beacon

Interest Under GST - Still a Delima!

GST ?|? OPINION ?|? (2024) 18 Centax 79 (Article)

With the amendment introduced vide Finance Act, 2019 by inserting proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017, it has been clarified that interest, if any, shall be applicable only on cash component of the output liability discharged under GST in the event of delay in filing GSTR-3B return.

Read More

Author

Krita Lodha
CA

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.

R.K. Jain’s Foreign Trade Policy 2023 | 28th Edition | CENTAX
R.K. Jain’s Foreign Trade Policy 2023 | 28th Edition | CENTAX

Authentic | Amended | Updated Coverage on Foreign Trade Policy, including:

? Glossary of Terms for FTP

? Notifications

? Public Notices

? Aayat-Niryat Forms

? Allied Act & Rules

Look Inside the Book: https://centax.one/iwkKW

Buy Now with FREE ‘Express’ Delivery! https://centax.one/VwjbN

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Centax的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了