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
Dept. can't merely reproduce statutory language in SCN for cancellation of GST registration: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration must contain sufficient details of alleged violations, not merely reproduce statutory language, to enable effective reply by assessee.
Key Details:
Case Name: Max Enterprises vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 23 (Telangana)
HC sent back case as order was issued without addressing objections and breaching natural justice principles
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where revenue had passed order against assessee without considering assessees objection/reply to show cause notice and thus said order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and non application of mind to material on record, writ petition was to be disposed of.
Key Details:
Case Name: Kajah Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 22 (Mad.)
HC set-aside cancellation of GST registration as assessee was given only one day to submit reply to SCN
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee’s registration was cancelled, assessee not in position to submit reply to show cause notice as was arrested, only one day was given to submit reply and appear for personal hearing, necessary particulars, details, etc. were not forthcoming in impugned notice, impugned order was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Imthiaz vs. Superintendent LgstO-260 Mangaluru
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 20 (Kar.)
Time limit for filing refund application to be counted from date of filing original application: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner filed first refund application within limitation period but second application was filed on advice of department after expiry of limitation period, time limit for refund would be determined from date original application was filed, thus, refund claimed could not be said to be barred by limitation.
Key Details:
Case Name: Hallmark vs. Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Department
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 19 (J & K and Ladakh)
Allahabad HC directed dept. to calculate penalty as per Sec. 129(1)(a) if petitioner came forward as owner of detained goods
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner was owner of goods in transit that were detained by revenue, those goods were to be released in terms of section 129(1)(a) instead of calculating amount of penalty under section 129(1)(b)
Key Details:
Case Name: Fadil Enterprises vs. State of U.P.
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 18 (All.)
Service of notice via email is recognized mode under Section 169 of CGST Act, 2017: HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee challenged disposal of appeal without opportunity of hearing, writ petition dismissed, holding that service of notice via email was valid under Section 169 of GST Act, and assessee’s failure to appear despite notice precluded claim of inadequate notice.
Key Details:
Case Name: Delta Goods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 17 (Cal.)
CAT to examine on merits petition seeking extension of NFU Scheme to Group-B Officers under CBIC: Bombay HC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST/EXCISE/ST/VAT: Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) while dismissing petition seeking extension of Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFU) Scheme to Group-B Officers, had not properly appreciated contentions advanced; matter was to be readjudicated.
Key Details:
Case Name: All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers vs. Union of India
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 16 (Del.)
HC set aside order passed without considering reply of assessee explaining discrepancy in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Where there was a discrepancy in GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B filed by assessee, and impugned order was passed without considering reply of assessee explaining such discrepancy, impugned order was to be set aside for being in violation of principles of natural justice and matter was to be remitted.
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl.Elango Auto Electricals vs. Deputy State Tax Officer
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 254 (Mad.)
Building could be regarded as a plant if essential for conducting business activity of supplying leasing/renting services: SC
GST ?|? CASE LAW
GST: Clauses (c) and (d) of section 17(5) are constitutionally valid; plain interpretation of said clauses does not lead to any ambiguity and, hence, question of reading down these provisions does not arise; question as to whether construction of immovable property carried out by an assessee amounts to plant is to be decided on its merit by applying functionality test.
Key Details:
Case Name: Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax vs. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 62 (S.C.)
Classification for motor cars in CKD kit will be respective classification of parts and not as motor vehicle under Heading 8703: AAR
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
CUSTOMS: Where applicant imports motor cars in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kit, assemble them at their plant in India, but five critical parts are manufactured in India and applicant manufactures axle within their plant, proposed imports will not reflect essential characteristics of motor vehicle under Heading 8703 and will be classified as per their specific classifications without invoking Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules; Entry No. 526 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30-6-2017,
Key Details:
Case Name: BMW India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 29 (A.A.R. - Cus. - Del.)
Management fee paid to group company for routine management services is not includible in transaction value of imported goods: AAR
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
CUSTOMS: Where third-party manufacturer only undertakes raw material conversion, payments it receives for raw material and conversion charges are consideration for finished goods which may be accepted as transaction value of goods where no other direct or indirect payment accrues; where third party manufacturer procures raw material on own account, transaction value will be FOB value of manufactured goods; third party manufacturer is not related party.
Key Details:
Case Name: Forever New Apparels Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 28 (A.A.R. - Cus. - Del.)
Summons issued in smuggling case can’t be challenged before HC if it was issued in accordance with law: HC
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Search and seizure proceedings having been initiated at business premises of jewellery shop owner based on statement of a third person from whose possession seizure of gold was effected by alleging smuggling, acts or omissions against such shop owner to whom seized gold allegedly belonged had constituted offence relating to prohibited goods which were punishable upto seven years under Section 135(1)(b)(i)(C) of Customs Act, 1962
Key Details:
Case Name: Om Prakash Soni vs. Union Of India
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 27 (Raj.)
CESTAT upheld Assessing Officer’s value enhancement of imported goods as there was no violation of natural justice principles
CUSTOMS ?|? CASE LAW
Customs: Where importer accepted in writing contemporaneous data of imported goods Assessing Officer produced, paid Customs duty on enhanced value and stated that speaking order was not required, Assessing Officer was not required to determine value and give reasons for rejection of transaction value; there was nothing on record to support importer’s contention they were coerced to give acceptance letters and there was no violation of natural justice principles.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 30 (Tri.-Del)
Tribunal rightly held that interconnected undertakings can’t be treated as related person in absence of specified relationship: SC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
Excise: Even if it is accepted that buyers company are interconnected undertaking of assessee company it cannot be treated as related person in terms of Section 4(3)(b) ibid. in absence of relationship as specified under sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) thereof; hence transaction value of goods between assessee and so-called interconnected undertaking is correct valuation.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Silvassa vs. Sterling Generators Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 22 Centax 569 (S.C.)
SC dismissed SLP against HC order that composition amount is to be paid on gross turnover of local sales of gems and stones
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
VAT: Export sales are to be excluded from gross turnover and accordingly composition amount is to be paid on gross turnover of local sales.
Key Details:
Case Name: Assistant Commissioner Anti-Evasion vs. Gem India Export
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 32 (S.C.)
Service tax cannot be levied on the amount collected towards liquidated damages: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Service tax is not leviable on debit notes raised to offset the excess credit in the ledger account.
Key Details:
Case Name: KJS Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Jabalpur
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 34 (Tri.-Del)
CESTAT set aside demand due to unclear SCN, lack of consideration flow and misapplication of ST provisions
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX ?|? CASE LAW
ST: Demand set aside due to unclear show cause notice, lack of consideration flow, and misapplication of service tax provisions under Finance Act, 1994.
Key Details:
Case Name: Harini Colours vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore
Citation: (2024) 23 Centax 33 (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?? ???????? ??????????????????
? ???????????? ?????????????? ????????, ??????????, ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????, ?????? & ?????????????? ????????????
? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????????, ???????????? & ??????????????-??????