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 import policy condition of import of "Glufosinate and its Salts": Notification
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The DGFT has revised the item description of Glufosinate Technical and revised the import policy condition of import of "Glufosinate and its Salts". Henceforth, "Glufosinate and its Salt s" having any technical name, IUPAC name etc. shall be prohibited for import.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 14/2024-25
Date of Statute: 03-06-2024
Case Chronicles
HC set-aside order confirming demand as proper officer didn’t apply his mind to reply submitted by assessee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice proposing demand of tax was issued by respondent-department and a detailed reply was submitted by petitioner-assessee to said show cause notice, but, impugned assessment order was passed without taking into consideration said reply, therefore, matter was to be re-adjudicated.
Key Details:
Case Name: Wellness Marketing Exi Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 44 (Del.)
HC quashes order imposing GST on trade payables & employee benefit expenses relying upon financials of assessee
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where respondent-department passed an assessment order against petitioner-assessee in which it was unclear as to basis for imposing GST on total trade payables and how liability was imposed with regard to employee benefit expenses incurred by petitioner-assessee, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded for reconsideration.
Key Details:
Case Name: Universal Relocations India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 43 (Mad.)
HC remanded case to appellate authority to decide appeal on its merits since certified copy of order wasn’t filed within 7 days
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee/petitioner's appeal was dismissed for not submitting self-certified copy of order within 7 days per Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules, despite timely electronic filing, High Court quashed dismissal and remanded case to appellate authority to decide appeal on its merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Enkay Polymers vs. State Of U.P
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 39 (All.)
Matter to be remanded back since AO failed to apply his mind to reply submitted by assessee: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee submitted detailed reply to show cause notice under section 73 giving full disclosures under each of heads, impugned order recorded that reply was not duly supported by adequate documents, not clear and not satisfactory, proper officer had not applied his mind to reply, if further details were required, same could have been specifically sought from assessee, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Jullundur Motor Agency Delhi Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 40 (Del.)
HC set-aside order as it didn’t proceed on basis of sales suppression though SCN was issued on said ground
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where show cause notice and intimation was issued to assessee proposing tax liability with regard to sales suppression, whereas impugned order imposing tax and penalty did not proceed on basis of sales suppression, if authority intended to modify tax proposal, a fresh show cause notice was to be issued to assessee, thus impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Vela Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 35 (Mad.)
HC set-aside order as assessee failed to respond to notice issued under Sec. 73; matter remanded back for re-consideration
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee failed to respond to notice issued under section 73, impugned order passed under section 73 was to be set aside and case was to be remitted back to authority to pass fresh order on merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Ramesh Agency vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 31 (Mad.)
HC quashed appellate order as it was passed on wrong calculation of limitation period
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where the assessee's appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act was dismissed as time-barred, the High Court quashed the dismissal due to incorrect calculation of the limitation period, remanding the matter to the first appellate authority to condone the delay and hear the appeal on its merits.
Key Details:
Case Name: Balaji Coal Traders vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 38 (All.)
Data projectors having resolution of 1024 x 768 or less are classifiable under CTH 85286100 and entitled to exemption: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Video data projectors, not capable of efficient reception and projection of television or video signals, for use solely in automatic data processing system, were classifiable under Tariff Item 8528 61 00 and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 1.3.2005; department's claim for classification under Tariff Item 8528 69 00 and denial of exemption, rejected.
Key Details:
Case Name: Acer India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 21 (Tri.-Mad)
Government is empowered to exempt ADD on import of metallurgical coke from China by pig iron or steel manufacturers: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Central Government is empowered under Section 25(1) of Customs Act, 1962 to exempt anti-dumping duty imposition on import of metallurgical coke from China by pig iron or steel manufacturers using blast furnace.
Key Details:
Case Name: Fairdeal Supplies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 23 (Guj.)
No confiscation of gold if assessee discharged onus to prove that it was duly purchased from known seller: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where goldsmith had led sufficient evidence regarding existence of jeweller from whom he had purchased allegedly smuggled gold and explained source of money for its purchase, Revenue's allegations found to be based on assumptions and presumptions as their report about non-location of that jeweller was not in list of Relied Upon Documents; hence, goldsmith had discharged his burden of proof and entitled to return of confiscated gold.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kogatam Sadik Basha vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 24 (Tri.-Hyd)
No relief to gold dealer who produced different sets of invoices to justify transportation of smuggled gold: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where claimant of smuggled gold produced different sets of invoices and transit challans to mislead investigations, and repeatedly self-contradicted himself to legitimize seized gold, he failed to discharge his burden of proof under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962.
Key Details:
Case Name: R.K. Angangbi Singh vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 25 (Tri.-Cal)
Amending export policy with immediate effect to prohibit export of non-Basmati Rice without transitional arrangement was bad in law: HC
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY ?|? CASE LAW
FTP: As DGFT Notification No. 20/2023, dated 20-7-2023 had come into effect immediately without indication that it was retrospective, its clause 2 was bad in law and unjustified in absence of reasons to take in its sweep past concluded transactions yet to be performed and non-application of transitional arrangement in para 1.05 of FTP, 2023.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shriram Food Industry Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 26 (Bom.)
Goods can’t be classified as ‘silos’ without evidence that they were used for storing ensilage: CESTAT
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where goods imported were reflected in proforma invoice, purchase order, bill of entry, bill of lading, packing list, etc., as Poultry Feed Milling Machinery, same were specifically classifiable under Tariff Item 8436 10 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 instead of Tariff Item 8479 90 90 or 9406 00 93 as silos for storing ensilage if there was no evidence that same were silos and used for storing ensilage.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sneha Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 27 (Tri.-Hyd)
Corporate Guarantee is akin to ‘Bank Guarantee’; liable to service tax prior to 1-7-2012: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Corporate guarantee fee and quarterly credit protection fee received from subsidiary for providing it Corporate Guarantee against loan and Credit Protection Guarantee services during prior to 1-7-2012 was to be taxed under category of Banking and Other Financial Services.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation: (2024) 19 Centax 29 (Tri.-Bom)?
Legal Beacon
CBIC Guidelines - Initiation of Quicker GST Recovery Proceedings on Exceptional Cases
GST ?|? OPINION ?|? (2024) 19 Centax 68 (Article)
The CBIC has issued guidelines vide instruction No.01/2024-GST, dated 30th May,2024 [2024 (85) G.S.T.L. C5] for initiation of recovery proceedings by the proper officer even before the expiry of stipulated period of three months from the date of service of demand order.
Author
Ramesh Chandra Jena
B.A. (Hons.), M.A. (Eco.), D.M.M., LL.B. Advocate & Tax Consultant
CVD on Saccharin and Its Classification
CUSTOMS ?|? OPINION ?|? (2024) 19 Centax 67 (Article)
As per the Notification No. 2/2024-Cus. (CVD) dated 28.05.2024, validity of the levy of the Countervailing Duty (CVD), which was imposed on import of Saccharine originating in or exported from China PR vide Notification No. 2/2019-Cus. (CVD), dated 30.08.2019, shall remain in force up to and inclusive of date 28.02.2025.
Author
Samir Kumar Sinha
M. Sc(Math), Appraiser(Retd.)
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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????