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
Matter to be remanded as AO passed ex-parte order without allowing assessee to submit submissions: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where several contentions had been urged by assessee for purpose of contending that order passed by was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law, thus, without expressing any opinion of merits/demerits of rival contentions and in light of undisputed fact that impugned order was an ex-parte order which was passed without assessee contesting SCN, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remitted back.
Key Details:
Case Name: IL and FS Solar Power Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 409 (Kar.)
HC remanded matter as proper officer recorded identical observation in respect of each issue without applying his mind
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed reply to show cause notice in respect of each of issues mentioned in SCN, however proper officer passed impugned order recording identical observation on each issue by stating that assessee had not filed proper documents, impugned order was vitiated by complete non-application of mind and non-consideration of assessee’s reply, thus, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: Paramount Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 435 (Mad.)
Typographical error in EWB can’t be treated as tax evasion; HC quashes penalty imposed by dept.
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Penalty under section 129(3) could not be imposed on detention of goods and vehicle when discrepancy in e-way bill was only a typographical error and there was no intention to evade tax.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 457 (All.)
Recovery proceedings to be deferred till disposal of appeal filed against assessment order: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed appeal against assessment order, recovery proceedings initiated by department was to be deferred till disposal of appeal.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. R. Selvarathinam vs. Deputy State Tax Officer-II
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 456 (Mad.)
HC remanded matter since SCN & order were uploaded under ‘view additional notices‘ tab
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where entire communication including show cause notice alleging mismatch in GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B and consequential orders were uploaded on common portal under ‘view additional notices ‘ tab and assessee was not aware of same, since assessee had no occasion to view said column and impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to assessee, same was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Bright Power Projects India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 437 (Mad.)
CGST & SGST authorities can’t initiate parallel proceedings on same subject matter; HC quashes summons issued to assessee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: CGST authorities cannot initiate proceedings when same subject matter is already under investigation by SGST authorities; Blocked credit ledger and summons issued by CGST authorities were to be set aside as proceedings had already been initiated by SGST authorities on same subject matter.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kundlas Loh Udyog vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 455 (H.P.)
HC remanded matter as order of cancellation of GST registration was passed without providing hearing opportunity
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Order of cancellation of registration passed without providing opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason was not sustainable; matter was to be remanded to Assessing Officer at show-cause notice stage.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jay Ambe Enterprise vs. Deputy State Tax Commissioner
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 454 (Guj.)
CBIC has no statutory obligation to issue clarifications on GST-related queries raised by taxpayers: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: CBIC is not required to issue clarification on queries raised by taxpayers directly; further, Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI) could not issue any binding clarification as to chargeability of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to tax.
Key Details:
Case Name: Association of Power Producers vs. Solar Energy Corporation of India Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 451 (Del.)
Notification extending time limit for passing order u/s 73(9) was not in consonance with provisions of Section 168A: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Notification issued by CBIC extending time limit for passing of order under section 73(9) without recommendation of GST Council was not in consonance with provisions of section 168A.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jawahar Singh vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 453 (Gau.)
HC remanded matter to provide detailed reason for cancellation of GST registration
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee’s registration cancelled on ground of not providing opportunity of hearing and order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation, appeal against cancellation was dismissed on ground of limitation, impugned orders were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded with directions.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ashish Ghanshyambhai Surani vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 450 (Guj.)
HC directs GST Dept. to process refund application that was consequential to order-in-appeal
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where appeal was filed by petitioner against order-in-original and petitioner succeeded in appeal, refund application filed by petitioner which was consequential to order-in-appeal was to be directed to be processed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Adept Artvertising Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of State GST, Department of Trade and Taxes
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 449 (Del.)
Transaction can’t be treated as zero rated supply if Singapore based company does not have any place of business in India: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where applicant-assessee is Singapore based company which does not have any place of business in India and applicant-assessee does not have any GST registration in India, therefore, transaction done by applicant-assessee does not fall under definition of ‘export of goods’, hence, related transactions shall not be considered as ‘Zero Rated Supply’.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re: MCM Pacific Pte Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 421 (A.A.R. - GST - A.P.)
HC set-asides ex-parte order passed by AO as it was issued without affording adequate opportunity to be heard
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where multiple overlapping SCNs were issued, raising concerns regarding non-application of mind by department and subsequent ex parte proceedings deprived petitioner of a fair opportunity to present their case, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Aadhi Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 448 (Mad.)
HC dismissed writ as assessee failed to avail ample opportunities & relaxation to file GST TRAN-1
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee had ample opportunities to submit GST TRAN-1 form, including extended deadline up to 31.03.2019 and special window provided by the Supreme Court in 2022 but said window of relief was also not availed of by assessee, thus, instant writ petition was to be dismissed as there was no question of a credit being permitted.
Key Details:
Case Name: RSD Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 430 (Pat.)
Assessee can’t change classification of goods after accepting the classification done by Customs without any protest: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where applicant-assessee has agreed with classification done by Customs without any protest and discharged duties, further, there is no change in character of goods supplied by applicant-assessee to one imported, therefore, goods when supplied by applicant-assessee, post importation would be classified under same chapter, heading, sub heading and tariff item under which it was classified by Customs and on which IGST was discharged during course of import of said goods.
Key Details:
Case Name: In re : Imtiyaz Kaiyum Barvatiya
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 447 (A.A.R. - GST - Guj.)
No double taxation if tax collected at stage of detention can be claimed as refund if excess tax paid in regular returns: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee challenged circular directing creation of liability for tax paid under section 129 of CGST Act, writ petitions were dismissed, holding that tax collected at stage of detention under section 129 can be claimed as refund if excess tax paid in regular returns.
Key Details:
Case Name: Chetna Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Goods and Service Tax Network
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 427 (Mad.)
HC set-aside cancellation of GST registration as assessee couldn’t file return & pay tax due to financial crisis
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee’s GST registration was cancelled due to default in payment of tax, cancellation order was set aside and restoration of registration directed, allowing assessee to file returns and remit outstanding dues within specified timeframe.
Key Details:
Case Name: Chendur Film International vs. Superintendent of GST & Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 426 (Mad.)
HC condoned delay in filing application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration subject to payment of dues
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Delay in filing application for revocation of cancelled registration could be condoned subject to payment of tax, interest, penalty and late fee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bimal Kishore Sahu vs. Additional Commissioner, GST (Appeals)
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 425 (Ori.)
Writ can’t be filed against recovery of tax from cash ledger before expiry of appeal period: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to challenge recovery of tax from electronic cash ledger and attachment of bank account when alternate remedy by way of appeal was available; however, if 10 per cent of tax in dispute was recovered, stay could be granted.
Key Details:
Case Name: Basanti Medical Stores vs. State of West Bengal
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 424 (Cal.)
Time spent in writ petition to be excluded while computing period of limitation for appeal: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: When order was not uploaded in portal and petitioner was prevented from preferring appeal, time spent in writ petition was to be excluded while computing period of limitation for appeal.
Key Details:
Case Name: Amarnath Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 423 (Ori.)
Appeal filed against penalty can’t be rejected merely because tax wasn’t challenged by assessee: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee paid tax imposed in assessment order and challenged penalty component in appeal, however same was rejected vide impugned order holding that penalty alone could not be challenged, sae was not proper, thus, impugned order was to be set aside and appeal was to be restored.
Key Details:
Case Name: Aatral Associates vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 386 (Mad.)
Order confirming demand to be set aside if SCN didn’t specify date, time & venue for personal hearing: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice was issued under section 73, which did not mention details of personal hearing and impugned order was passed thereafter, since SCN denying personal hearing opportunity was bad in law, consequential impugned order also became bad in law, thus impugned order and SCN were to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Phuljhora Agro Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 436 (Cal.)
Anticipatory bail application not maintainable if person is summoned to give evidence in inquiry under GST: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where summons were issued under section 70 to applicants, following decision of SC in State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer 2023 (76) G.S.T.L. 146/(2023) 8 Centax 224 (S.C.), application filed by applicants for grant of anticipatory bail was not maintainable.
Key Details:
Case Name: Anant Bansal vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 432 (All.)
Interim protection to be granted as notification extending time limit for passing order lacked GST Council's approval: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned assessment order was passed relying on Notification No. 56/2023-CE issued by CBIC, whereby time limit to pass orders under section 73 for years 2018-20 had been extended, and assessee challenged said notification on grounds that same was in violation of section 168(A), as there was no recommendation for same from GST council, respondent authorities were to be directed to file affidavits and interim protection from coercive action was to be granted to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Pallab Kumar Pandit vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 434 (Gau.)
HC set aside penalty on CHA in absence of any evidence that CHA had knowledge of concealment of red sanders in export consignment
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Penalty under Sections 114(i) and 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 could not be imposed on CHA for his failure to obtain KYC of exporters and also for not advising them to comply with provisions of said Act if he had no knowledge of export of red sanders in guise of canola seeds for which he had filed shipping bills on behalf of exporters.
Key Details:
Case Name: Viksun Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs-New Delhi
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 444 (Tri.-Del)
License can’t be cancelled for mentioning wrong address in Customs warehouse licence application due to typographical error: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Mentioning wrong address in Customs warehouse licence application due to typographical error, not importing goods into warehouse and starting manufacturing activity in it, and not obtaining registration and uploading documents required under CBIC Circular, were not serious licence warehousing conditions violation warranting licence cancellation.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shiv Probuild Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 420 (Tri.-Del)
Portion of life insurance premium allocated to savings/investment can't be considered separate exempted service: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: CESTAT held that for life insurance companies paying service tax on 1% of premium under Rule 6(7A) of Service Tax Rules, portion of premium allocated to savings/investment is not “exempted service” under Rule 2(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Key Details:
Case Name: HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 442 (Tri.-Bang)
Leasing of aircraft from foreign entities with transfer of effective control doesn't constitute supply of tangible goods service: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Leasing of aircraft from foreign entities with transfer of effective control does not constitute “supply of tangible goods” service liable to service tax under reverse charge. Non-scheduled air transport services are not taxable prior to 01.07.2010.
Key Details:
Case Name: Deccan Charters Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 438 (Tri.-Bang)
Services received for procurement, finance, legal etc. are classifiable under management or business consultant services: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: CESTAT partly allowed assessee’s appeal, holding that services received were correctly classified as ‘management or business consultant’ services, but TDS amount need not be included in taxable value and extended period of limitation was not justified. Matter remanded to examine CENVAT credit eligibility.
Key Details:
Case Name: VSL India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 445 (Tri.-Mad)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????