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
Penalty deposited for expiry of e-way bill by assessee to be refunded since there was no intention to evade tax: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where e-way bill had expired one hour fifteen minutes prior to interception and finding of authorities with regard to intention to evade tax was not supported by factual matrix of instant case, impugned order imposing penalty on assessee was to be set aside and amount of tax and penalty deposited by assessee was to be refunded.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ld Goyal Steels Pvt Ltd vs. State Of UP
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 420 (All.)
Matter to be remanded for reconsideration after affording a personal hearing opportunity to assessee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Failure of respondent to provide a personal hearing to assessee in spite of an express request for a personal hearing vitiated impugned assessment order, thus, matter was to be remanded for reconsideration after affording a personal hearing opportunity to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. M.S. Enterprises vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 422 (Mad.)
Immovable property of assessee can't be attached before expiry of statutory period of three months; HC directed to issue release order
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where an order was issued against assessee by confirming tax proposal and assessee made requisite pre-deposit as per section 107 while filing appeal, and respondent attached immovable property of assessee even before expiry of statutory period of three months, respondent was to be directed to release said attachment within one week.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. Maxtile AAC Block vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 424 (Mad.)
HC directed dept. to pass fresh order after providing hearing subject to condition that assessee remitted 10% of disputed amount
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned order was passed confirming tax liability of assessee as assessee had failed to reply to show cause notice, same was to be set aside subject to condition that assessee remitted 10 percent of disputed tax amount and a fresh order was to be issued after providing reasonable opportunity including a personal hearing to assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sree Manoj International vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 421 (Mad.)
Proper officer to process refund application within 2 weeks as no deficiency memo issued despite statutory period of 60 days lapsed: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed refund claim and no deficiency memo issued despite statutory period of 60 days lapsing, proper officer directed to expedite processing refund application, dispose within two weeks as per law, petitioner permitted to avail further remedies against order on refund and interest claim.
Key Details:
Case Name: Aj Flight Reservations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 426 (Del.)
Cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect can’t be done mechanically: Delhi HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where Show Cause Notice was itself defective and cancellation order was cryptic without any reason, therefore, cancellation order could not be sustained; however, since, petitioner-assessee did not seek to carry on business or continue with registration, impugned cancellation order was to be modified to limited extent that registration should be treated as cancelled with effect from date of order i.e. 2-8-2023 and not retrospectively.
Key Details:
Case Name: Arvind Sharma vs. Superintendent, Range-115, Central Goods and Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 427 (Del.)
Assessee isn’t required to request for opportunity of personal hearing; it is mandatory to afford such opportunity: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where notice issued before assessment order passed against assessee raising demand in excess of Rs. 2,44,21,574 sought reply within 30 days, assessing officer mentioned "NA" against column description "Date of personal hearing" and against columns for "Time of personal hearing" and "Venue where personal hearing will be held", assessee was denied opportunity of oral hearing, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 428 (All.)
No penalty if Part-B of E-way bill wasn’t filled due to technical error and without any intention to evade tax: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where impugned order passed under section 129(3) levying penalty on assessee for non filling up of Part 'B' of e-Way Bill, appeal against said order rejected, respondent-authorities not been able to indicate any mens rea on part of assessee for evasion of tax, impugned orders were to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Axrecycle Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Mobile Aquad
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 429 (All.)
SC dismissed appeal against CESTAT order holding valuation by Revenue erroneous as tax effect was less than Rs. 2 crore
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Valuation of mis-declared food supplements containing/not containing beef. Apex Court dismisses Revnue’s appeal on low tax effect against CESTAT order holding valuation done by Revenue under Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Customs Valuation Rules as erroneous.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs Export, New Delhi ICD TKD vs. Balaji Overseas
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 412 (S.C.)
No penalty on CHA if there was no allegation of connivance on his part in smuggling of goods: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Person looking after clearance work importer company, was kingpin in attempted removal of valuable cargo without bill of entry, which was equivalent to smuggling, and resorted to forgery and other acts of omissions and commissions, was liable to penalty under Sections 112 and 114 AA of Customs Act, 1962.
Key Details:
Case Name: CELEBI Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 413 (Tri.-Del)
Export of psychotropic substance without obtaining export authorisation as per NDPS Rules is prohibited: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
NDPS: "Authorization" under Rule 58(1) of NDPS Rules, 1985 to export narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was mandatory, and it was not subsumed in "licence" under Section 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985; bail denied to consignor having licence to trade drugs as prosecution case that he attempted to export psychotropic substance disguised as pharmaceutical preparation prima facie was borne out by export invoices.
Key Details:
Case Name: Gudipati Subramaniam vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 416 (Bom.)
Services provided to manage overall implementation of project are covered under ‘Management Consultancy Service’: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Assessee being required to manage overall implementation of project and not execution of project, services rendered are covered under 'Management Consultancy Service'.
Key Details:
Case Name: Embassy Property Development Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 414 (Tri.-Bang)
Spectacle lenses cleared to DTA can’t be treated as semi-finished merely because same are required to be customized: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Spectacle lenses cleared to DTA cannot be treated as semi-finished merely for the reason that same are required to be customized before being fitted for a particular customer but appropriately describable as “ to be finished spectacle lenses” and eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. dated 1-3-2006.
Key Details:
Case Name: GKB Ophthalmics Ltd. (Unit II) vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 415 (Tri.-Bom)
No penalty can be imposed on assessee by relying on retracted statement of third party: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Charge of clandestine removal of goods based on statements of Directors/authorized signatory of assessee and duplicate copies of loose sheets, Hisaba Books and Kachcha Challans recovered from premises of third parties could not be sustained in absence of corroborative evidences such as purchase of raw materials, disproportionate power consumption.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 18 Centax 417 (Del.)
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.