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
All India Institute of Medical Sciences can't claim GST Exemption on pure services received from its vendors: AAR
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bibinagar established by Government by an Act of Parliament, not “Central Government” but a “Governmental Authority, not eligible for exemption under serial numbers Sl. No. 3 & 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017.
Key Details:
Case Name: In Re : All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 341 (A.A.R. - GST - Telangana)
HC quashed order as demand mentioned in abstract was different from that in discussion on discrepancy
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where, in impugned assessment order, observation of proper officer was limited to a reversal of alleged excess ITC claim of Rs. 20,04,676 whereas, in abstract of total demand, SGST dues of Rs. 4,09,63,596 were mentioned and in respect of discrepancies 7 to 20, comparing same with article at pages 151 to 153 of typed set, observations were found lifted straight from article, impugned order was to be quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Coromandel Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. Deputy State Tax Officer (ST)
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 344 (Mad.)
Order attaching all bank accounts of assessee was very harsh if there was no material on record showing attempted tax evasion: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice had not yet been adjudicated and there was no material on record showing attempted tax evasion, provisional order attaching all bank accounts of assessee was deemed very harsh, leading to hold such attachment as unsustainable.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kaleidoscope vs. State of West Bengal
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 345 (Cal.)
HC remanded matter to consider delay condoning application as pre-deposit was made in DRC-03 due to technical glitch
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where technical glitch led to use of alternative form for pre-deposit by assessee, and delay condoning petitions were overlooked in impugned order , rejection of appeals solely based on form used was deemed procedurally unfair, necessitating reconsideration by Respondent authority.
Key Details:
Case Name: Manjunatha Oil Mill vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 347 (A.P.)
HC set aside confiscation order as facts mentioned in it weren’t part of show cause notice
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where confiscation order was based on facts not disclosed to assessee in show cause notice, it violated principles of natural justice and was liable to be quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Metro Fress Trading Company vs. State of Gujarat
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 348 (Guj.)
No penalty can be imposed on assessee for non-filling up of Part-B of E-way bill without any intention to evade tax: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where goods and details in invoice matched and only shortfall was non-completion of Part B of e-way bill, which was subsequently rectified, presumption of tax evasion solely because of short distance between origin and destination of goods was deemed unjustified, leading to quashing of penalty order.
Key Details:
Case Name: Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 350 (All.)
Re-assessment of BOE without issuing SCN to change classification of imported goods is unjustified: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: It was gross error and injustice to reputed Public Sector Undertaking where it had voluntarily sought re-assessment and reversed benefit under Notifications, on which assessing officer changed classification without giving notice, and Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed appeal against it as time barred from date of initial filing of Bill of Entry, and not taking it from date when it was revised.
Key Details: Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 328 (Tri.-Cal)
Customs Broker can’t be held liable if exporters were not traceable after issuance of ‘Let Export Orders’: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Denial of opportunity to Customs Broker to cross examine witness relied on in Inquiry Officer’s report resulted in serious prejudice; GST authorities’ report based on their inquiry six months from export date, could not relied on to say that exporters were not in existence on export date; revocation of Customs Broker licence and penalty on them set aside, moreso as exporter’s IEC particulars were verified from Customs system
Key Details:
Case Name: Naman Gupta vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General)
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 329 (Del.)
Beneficial alternate exemption notification can be claimed subsequent to import if it was available at time of import: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where importer of cumin seed could not re-export it within six months prescribed in Notification No. 158/95- Cus., dated 14.11.1995, change of Notification in bill of entry to Notification No. 94/1996-Cus dated 16-12-1996 was permissible in terms of Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 as importer was eligible for it on date of import; beneficial alternate exemption notification cane be claimed subsequent to import if it was available at time of import.
Key Details:
Case Name: Olam Agro India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 330 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Gold Dore bars with gold content marginally above 95% can’t be held as prohibited goods: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where test report on Gold Dore bars (GDB) samples showed gold content in excess of prescribed 95% within tolerance limits of ±/.25, it was so miniscule that prima facie propensity to smuggle could not be inferred; as importer had paid differential duty and one GBD was also available with department to secure its interest, GDB provisionally cleared with additional condition of bond for full value of consignment plus 20% of penalty
Key Details:
Case Name: Tasha Gold Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import)
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 335 (Tri.-Del)
Penalty under section 114A of Customs Act is to be imposed equivalent to duty and not duty and interest: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: "Or" Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 between duty and interest is disjunctive and refers to different situations, one in which person is liable to duty and in other liable to interest only; hence penalty under Section 114A equal to duty and interest thereon, was not sustainable.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs vs. Unnati Fortune Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 336 (Tri.-All)
Expert evidence given can't be brushed aside for non-technical reasons without countering it: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Demand is not sustainable when allegation of clandestine clearances of goods imported duty free is made without any evidence to this effect.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. FIL Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 326 (Tri.-Chan)
Credit is admissible on mirror assembly and saree guard cleared with two wheelers: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Cenvat Credit is admissible on mirror assembly and saree guard cleared with two wheelers as they are covered under ‘input’ and also the same is a statutory requirement under Motor Vehicles Act.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 327 (Tri.-Chan)
No penalty if assessee followed classification adopted by importer-seller while re-selling machines: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
VAT: Reseller cannot adopt classification different to that of importer-seller, and for penalty imposition cannot be said to have wilfully classified goods under wrong head with intention to evade payment of correct/higher rate.
Key Details:
Case Name: Professional Copier Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 332 (Ker.)
Turnover can’t be enhanced merely on basis of loose documents recovered during survey of assessee’s premises: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
VAT: Valuation could not be enhanced based on loose documents recovered during survey of assessee's premises when assessee had explained those papers, their reply not disbelieved by authorities and no contrary finding recorded, and Tribunal, as last court of fact, had found authorities had not given substantial reason for enhancing turnover.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sri Shanti Readymade vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 334 (All.)
Penalty was imposable when false performance certificate was issued by CA for grant of advance licenses: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Penalty was imposable when false performance certificate was issued by appellant CA to fraudulent parties resulted in grant of advance licenses which were used for evasion of huge excise duty on the clearance of goods clandestinely from EOUs.
Key Details:
Case Name: Vishal Jain vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Surat-II
Citation: (2024) 15 Centax 337 (Tri.-Ahmd)
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.
Delivering the Customs Tariff of India for 45+ years.
Be a part of the R.K. Jain legacy now!
Buy Now with FREE ‘Express’ Delivery! https://centax.one/wwqTQ