Register Daily Newsletters My Bookmarks My Queries (D. Forum) My Replies (D. Forum) My Articles My Inbox (PM) Feedback/ Suggestions
Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

   For Sales / Support:
WhatsApp WhatsApp 9911796707
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals Articles News D. Forum Highlights Notes
TMI - e-Newsletter     TaxTMI    Excess Input Tax Credit penalty appeal dismissed...     TaxTMI    Excessive delay in issuing show cause notice &...     TaxTMI    Rectification: Show Cause Notice quashed for period...     TaxTMI    Investor locked into long-term capital gains bonds;...     TaxTMI    Customs duty dispute: Imported goods classified as...     TaxTMI    Undisclosed investments, agricultural land...     TaxTMI    Taxpayer's victory: AO's order upheld, PCIT's...     TaxTMI    Non-resident Singapore firm's software licensing...     TaxTMI    Bank penalized for delayed reporting of high-value...     TaxTMI    EOUs face automated Import Rules from 17.09.2024 -...     TaxTMI    Steel Extending validity of customs valuation rules...     TaxTMI    Relaxations for employee benefit trusts, aligned...     TaxTMI    New SEBI circular relaxes rules for REITs, enables...     TaxTMI    Phased rollout of quality standards for low-voltage...     TaxTMI    Virtual Hearings Mandatory: CBIC Reinstates Video...     TaxTMI    Latest Case-Laws     TaxTMI    Latest Notifications + Circulars     TaxTMI    GST Council Decisions     TaxTMI       Right Stop
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2024 July Day 23 - Tuesday

← Older Newer →
TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
July 23, 2024

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Insolvency & Bankruptcy Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws

Articles

News

Notifications

Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • High Court dismissed challenge to 100% penalty order u/s 74 GST law. Limited scope under Art 226. No relief. Raise grievances via appellate remedy.

    Challenge to assessment order levying 100% penalty was dismissed by High Court. Court held that impugned orders u/s 74 of GST enactments do not warrant interference under Article 226 due to limited scope. No extenuating reasons to extend relief to petitioner. Petitioner can raise grievances before Appellate Authority under GST enactments hierarchy.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Tax liability of legal rep under CGST Act questioned. Court quashed order, remitted case for fresh hearing allowing petitioner to defend.

    Legal representative potentially liable for tax u/s 93 of CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner claimed non-liability as business not taken over from late father. Court quashed order, remitted case for fresh decision after giving petitioner opportunity to defend tax liability as legal representative/heir in accordance with law. Similar petition earlier disposed allowing petitioner to defend liability. Petition allowed.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Notices/endorsements issued to non-existent entity quashed. Respondents free to pursue proceedings against appropriate entity as per law.

    Notices/endorsement in Form GST DRC-01 issued to a non-existent entity set aside. Proceedings initiated through show cause notices/endorsement quashed. Respondents at liberty to pursue proceedings against appropriate entity regarding subject matter as per law. Petitions disposed of on premise that no proceedings could be initiated against a non-existent company.
    Visit to Get Source

  • EOU entitled to IGST refund u/r 89 on exports, not u/r 96. Procedural lapses can't deny legitimate export incentives. Order set aside.

    100% EOU wrongly claimed refund u/r 96 instead of Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 on IGST paid on inputs/capital goods utilized for exports. HC held EOU entitled to exemption u/r 89 as exports made and refund claims based on shipping bills. Procedural irregularity should not obstruct legitimate export incentives. Impugned order set aside, matter remitted to pass fresh order examining exports for granting refund u/r 89 and Section 16(3) of IGST Act, 2017.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Navaratan Oil, Gold Turmeric Cream classified as drugs; Boroplus Cream as drug, not cosmetic; Sonachandi Chavanprash not a drug

    Navaratan Oil, Gold Turmeric Ayurvedic Cream, and Nirog Dant Power Lal were classified as drugs under Entry 37 of the CGST Act and TGST Act, while Boroplus Antiseptic Cream, Boroplus Prickly Heat Powder, and Sonachandi Chavanprash were classified as cosmetics under Entry 36. The HC held that Sonachandi Chavanprash, being edible, cannot be classified as a drug. Boroplus Antiseptic Cream, with medicinal value, cannot be treated as a cosmetic. Boroplus Prickly Heat Powder, containing medicinal ingredients, was rightly classified as a drug. Navaratan Oil, marketed as a cosmetic but containing incidental medicinal properties, should be classified as a drug. Gold Turmeric Ayurvedic Cream, licensed and marketed as an ayurvedic medicine for skin blemishes, should be classified as a drug, not a cosmetic.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Tax demand quashed due to lack of natural justice. Petitioner to remit 10% tax within 2 weeks for reconsideration.

    Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner unable to contest tax demand as consultant failed to inform about proceedings - examining impugned order, tax proposal confirmed due to non-reply to show cause notice - proposal related to comparison between inward supply from GSTR 2A and outward supply - petitioner opted for composition levy, filed GSTR 4 quarterly returns - in circumstances, interest of justice warrants reconsideration by putting petitioner on terms - impugned order set aside on condition petitioner remits 10% of disputed tax demand within two weeks - petition disposed off.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Refund application dismissed. Option to pay or contest seizure. Chose payment, skipping adjudication. Delayed 7 years after release.

    Maintainability of appeal against order under CGST/SGST Act adjudication on refund application dismissed. Appellant had option to pay amounts demanded or contest seizure and insist on adjudication order. Appellant chose payment, leading to release order without tax/penalty determination. If payment was mistake, appellant should have sought refund and adjudication on refund application. Appellant solely to blame for delay of over 7 years after release of goods. Writ Appeal dismissed, upholding Single Judge's dismissal of Writ Petition.
    Visit to Get Source

  • ITC denied on commodities & cancelled dealers' supplies. Petitioner showed invoices, bills & returns. Order lacked findings, wrongly demanded lorry receipts. HC remanded, allowed fresh reply.

    Petitioner challenged ineligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on certain commodities as per Section 17(5) of GST statutes and ITC on supplies from cancelled dealers. Petitioner submitted invoices, e-way bills, and supplier's returns proving payment of tax. Impugned order lacked findings on first issue, confirmed tax proposal on second issue citing lack of lorry receipts, weighment slips, and payment proof, despite show cause notice not seeking these. High Court set aside impugned order, remanded matter for reconsideration, allowed petitioner to submit additional reply with relevant documents on movement of goods within 15 days.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Delay in filing appeal rejected, mismatch in GSTR returns. HC directs appellate authority to consider appeal on merits if re-presented within 10 days.

    Court considered condonation of delay in filing appeal, mismatch between petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. Held appeal was rejected as filed 29 days beyond condonable period u/s 107 of GST statutes. Petitioner stated inability to file appeal timely due to order being uploaded on portal, known on specific date. Considering facts and circumstances, HC directed appellate authority to consider and dispose appeal on merits, subject to petitioner re-presenting appeal within 10 days. Petition disposed by way of remand to appellate authority.
    Visit to Get Source

    • Income Tax

  • Tribunal dismissed appeal ex-parte; HC found no fault of assessee, remanded appeal back for fresh hearing on merits.

    Tribunal dismissed assessee's appeal ex-parte regarding addition u/s 68 for bogus LTCG and addition to share capital on ground of failure to discharge onus. HC held assessee not negligent towards statutory rights of appeal, but Chartered Accountant engaged failed to perform professional duty diligently. No fault or negligence attributable to assessee saddled with tax liability. On humanitarian ground, appeal remanded back to Tribunal for fresh decision on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Assessee's real estate income estimated at 8% turnover. 40% receipts allowed as agricultural income due to lack of documentation. Appeal partly allowed.

    Assessee's income from real estate business estimated at 8% of turnover due to lack of evidence for claimed 5% rate. Partial disallowance of agricultural income due to absence of documentation in assessee's name, with 40% of receipts allowed as agricultural income based on pragmatic considerations. Assessee's appeal partly allowed.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Monetary limit not breached for 2006-07 to 2010-11, appeals dismissed. For 2011-12 & 2012-13, exemption u/s 12AA allowed.

    Monetary limit for filing appeals before High Court not breached for assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11, appeals dismissed as not maintainable. For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, tax effect exceeds monetary limit but fundamental issue regarding availability of exemption to Trust u/s 12AA already decided in Trust's favor, questions of law raised by revenue answered against revenue in Trust's favor.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Reopening invalid: Unverified info, retracted statement, no independent inquiry. AO failed to verify evidence. Mere suspicion, no legal basis.

    Reopening of assessment based on credible information from Investigation Wing was invalid. Addition u/s 68 regarding unaccounted money ploughed back as share capital and premium was made solely relying on retracted statement without independent inquiry by Assessing Officer (AO). Reasons for reopening lacked live nexus, were based on borrowed satisfaction, and had infirmities and mismatch in amounts and names of investors. AO failed to verify authenticity of information and evidence adduced by assessee. Addition made on mere suspicion and conjectures without legal basis. Appellate authorities rightly quashed addition and reopening, as AO did not bring out independent application of mind, and reasons recorded were fragile and factually incorrect.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Income duly accounted, corroborated by audits & returns. No unexplained investments/expenses. Rent, contractor payments substantiated. CIT(A) & ITAT upheld assessee's stand.

    Assessee followed mercantile system of accounting, recognizing income upon accrual and rendering of services. Unexplained cash deposits were duly accounted for, corroborated by statutory audit and service tax returns. No investment in undisclosed property; property taken on lease substantiated by agreements and ledger entries. Unexpired fee calculation consistent with accounting policy. Rent agreements and comprehensive rent payment details provided, negating estimated disallowance. Contractor payments through banking channels with TDS deducted, establishing business expediency. CIT(A) rightly deleted additions made by AO based on objective scrutiny of facts and accounting principles. Revenue appeal against CIT(A) order dismissed by ITAT.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) partly upheld. Arm's length pricing adjustments directed. Education cess disallowed. Stock exchange charges allowed.

    Section 14A disallowance restricted to 2% of exempt income due to inapplicability of Rule 8D for the relevant assessment year. TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) upheld for payments to Team Lease for providing staff on contractual basis. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for global overhead charges paid to Deutsche Securities Inc., New York deleted as payments not taxable as fees for included services under India-USA tax treaty. TPO/AO directed to recompute arm's length price after granting volume and marketing cost adjustment. Education cess disallowance upheld due to retrospective amendment. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for VSAT/lease line charges and transaction charges paid to stock exchanges deleted as not fees for technical services. Benefit of 5% variation u/s 92C(2) denied as per Special Bench ruling.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Reopening beyond 4 yrs invalid due to lack of evidence of non-disclosure. Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) not required to be declared.

    Reopening of assessment after expiry of four years due to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was found invalid. The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to establish that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. There was no requirement to declare deemed dividend in the return of income or tax audit report for that year. The assessee's account with the company was in the nature of a current account with multiple transactions. The CIT(A) incorrectly considered only the closing credit balance as deemed dividend. The AO did not correctly assume jurisdiction u/s 147 as the assessee's failure to disclose material facts was neither brought out by the AO nor evident from the record. Therefore, the reopening was incorrect and not in accordance with the first proviso to Section 147, and the decision was in favor of the assessee.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Deduction u/s 57 against income u/s 56 disputed. Expenses apportionment challenged. Remanded to verify assessee's formula consistency. If consistent, no addition.

    Deduction claimed u/s 57 against income returned u/s 56 - manner of apportioning assessee's expenses to earning income u/s 56 disputed - Revenue authorities rejecting assessee's apportionment and allocating expenses on different basis challenged - Issue remanded to Assessing Officer to verify if formula adopted by assessee for apportioning interest expenses to interest income u/s 56 is consistent with previous assessment year accepted by Assessing Officer - If consistent, no addition to assessee's income - Assessing Officer directed to apportion expenses u/s 57 in line with previous year's assessment - Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Charitable entity granted exemption u/ss 11 & 12 for conducting exhibitions sans commercial intent. Accumulation sans Form 10 condoned. Prior period expenditure allowed.

    Charitable entity u/s 2(15) denied exemption u/ss 11 and 12 by Assessing Officer (AO) on grounds of conducting exhibitions being commercial in nature. ITAT held no markup on consideration charged from exporters, thus activity beyond purview of trade, commerce, business or services related thereto. Assessee not hit by proviso to section 2(15) for conducting exhibitions within India or overseas. AO directed to grant exemption u/ss 11 and 12. Regarding disallowance u/s 11(2) for not specifying objects for accumulation in Form 10, CIT(A) relying on Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court orders held lack of declaration not fatal. Board resolution accumulating surplus for specified purposes u/s 11(2) perused. Claim for prior period expenditure allowed by CIT(A) as expenditure incurred towards trust objects, upheld by ITAT.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Interest/dividend income from co-op banks deductible u/s 80P(2)(d) for co-op societies. Allow deduction for interest earned from co-op banks.

    Deduction u/s 80P - deduction of income earned as interest/dividend from co-operative bank is allowable. Section 80P(2)(d) reflects that if income by way of interest or dividend is derived by the Co-operative Society from its investment with any other Co-operative Society, the whole of such income shall be deducted in computing the total income. Income by way of interest or dividend earned from investment with any other Co-operative Society, including Co-operative Banks, is deductible in computing the total income. Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have allowed deduction for interest/dividend income earned from Co-operative Banks u/s 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction for interest earned from Co-operative Banks, subject to verification.
    Visit to Get Source

    • Customs

  • Govt imposes 17.57% countervailing duty on radial tyres above 16" for buses/trucks from China for 5 yrs to protect domestic industry.

    Countervailing duty imposed on tariff items 40112010 and 40118000 covering new/unused pneumatic radial tyres with nominal rim diameter code above 16 inches used in buses and lorries/trucks originating in or exported from China PR at 17.57% of CIF value for a period of five years. Duty applicable on imports from any country if goods originate from China PR, and on imports from China PR if goods originate from any other country. Duty levied pursuant to final findings of designated authority regarding countervailable subsidies and likelihood of injury to domestic industry.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Duty credit extended to SEZ units exporting under RoDTEP Scheme. Shipping bill/export bill required from 1st July 2024.

    Amends Notification No. 24/2023-Customs (N.T.) regarding duty credit for goods exported under RoDTEP Scheme. Inserts "or unit in Special Economic Zone" after "Export Oriented Unit" in clause 2(1)(b). Adds proviso that for exports by SEZ unit, shipping bill/bill of export shall be presented on or after 1st July 2024. Enables duty credit for SEZ units exporting under RoDTEP Scheme.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Bail granted despite recovery of diamonds & foreign currencies due to non-communication of grounds in known language, violating Art. 22(5). (5)

    Bail granted u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. despite recovery of diamonds and foreign currencies, as grounds of detention not communicated in writing to accused in language known to him, violating Article 22(5) of Constitution as per Supreme Court's decisions in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel and Prabir Purkayashta cases; bail allowed subject to conditions safeguarding prosecution's interests, despite prima facie materials against accused.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Iron ore export duty paid excess, Fe content <62% on WMT basis. Refund ordered as per precedents. Impugned orders set aside.

    Appellant exported 15,000 MT of iron ore with 58.61% Fe content on WMT basis. Customs duty was provisionally paid at Rs. 300/PMT instead of applicable rate of Rs. 50/PMT for Fe content below 62% as per notification. Following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents, it was held that Fe content determination on WMT basis is correct. Appellant is eligible for refund of excess duty paid. Impugned orders set aside, matter remanded to adjudicating authority for finalizing assessment and granting eligible refund.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Helicopter import exempted from customs duty under condition 104 if used for non-scheduled air transport services.

    The appellants imported a helicopter (Model No.412-EP, Sr. No.36643 registered as VT-HGK) vide B/E No.397583 dated 26.12.2007. The exemption entry 347B of the N/N. 21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002, as amended by notification No.61/2007-Customs dated 03.05.2007, exempts import of helicopters from basic customs duty subject to condition No. 104. The appellants had a contractual arrangement with a company for providing helicopter services by making available the specified aircraft(s) owned by them, for which they had obtained Non-Scheduled Air Transport Services (Passenger) permit. The Tribunal held that the import of helicopter by the appellants would be covered by the exemption entry under Serial No. 347B, being eligible for exemption from the whole of the import duties of customs. The impugned order confirming the demand of customs duty, confiscation of imported goods, redemption fine, and penalties was set aside, allowing the appeal.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Refund claim not barred by limitation if paid under protest. Sec 27 recognizes protest payment, not vacation. Excludes penalty/fine refunds.

    The period of limitation of one year does not apply when the amount claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, only recognizes the fact of payment of amounts under protest and does not recognize the vacation of such protest once it is established that the amount claimed as refund was paid under protest. The provisions of Section 27 cannot be applied to refund claims for penalty and fines, as these amounts were paid under protest as per the department's direction for effecting the clearance of goods, though the order imposing the fine and penalty was challenged in appeal. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by the limitation provided in Section 27, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim lacks merit, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
    Visit to Get Source

    • Indian Laws

  • Concession agreement is a lease, stamp duty payable on lessee's amount spent, not entire project cost. Amendment valid.

    Concession agreement constitutes a lease u/s 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Stamp duty payable on the amount spent by the lessee, not the entire project cost. Amendment to Article 33 of Schedule 1(A) of the Indian Stamp (M.P.) Act, 2002 valid. Doctrine of legitimate expectation serves as a procedural safeguard, not a substantive right. Doctrine of promissory estoppel inapplicable against exercise of legislative power. Concession agreement upheld as a lease without perversity. Demand for stamp duty on entire project cost set aside, to be recalculated based on amount spent by lessee. Excess amount deposited to be refunded. Appeals partly allowed.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Broker sought bail in fake Demat accounts case. Court: No direct role proven, granted bail after 5 months custody on conditions.

    Applicant stock broker sought bail in case involving creation of fake Demat accounts and siphoning off money from dormant shareholder accounts. Court held despite applicant being in touch with accused and forwarding WhatsApp messages about dormant shares, no material showed applicant's active role or benefit from alleged activities. Employee's statement u/s 164 CrPC did not implicate applicant. With scant material linking applicant directly to incident and over 5 months in custody, Court allowed bail on furnishing bond and sureties subject to conditions imposed by Trial Court.
    Visit to Get Source

    • IBC

  • Dismissal of salary arrears claim for 103 employees. No double payment. RP not liable for CoC-approved payments during CIRP.

    Dismissal of application seeking payment to 103 employees towards salary arrears. Settlement with 103 employees examined. No double payment made to employees. Held: Appellant's prayers not liable to be allowed. Respondent's reply affidavit categorically explained payments made with CoC approval. No personal liability on RP for payments made after CIRP with CoC approval. Appellant's apprehension of double payment to 103 employees clarified - they won't receive salary payment under Resolution Plan but entitled to gratuity and provident fund. No ground to interfere with Adjudicating Authority's order. Appeal dismissed.
    Visit to Get Source

    • PMLA

  • Reporting entities must obtain KYC Identifier, retrieve & update KYC records from Central Registry for client due diligence.

    Central Government amends Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 regarding client due diligence. Reporting entities must obtain KYC Identifier from client or Central KYC Records Registry and retrieve KYC records online, unless specified exceptions apply. Updates in client's KYC record informed by Registry must be retrieved and incorporated by reporting entity within prescribed timeline. Provisions for retrieval and utilization of KYC records from Registry also introduced.
    Visit to Get Source

    • SEBI

  • SEBI amends AIF Regulations, adds new chapter for migrated venture capital funds with eligibility criteria, investment norms & restrictions.

    SEBI amended Alternative Investment Funds (AIF) Regulations to introduce a new Chapter III-D for "migrated venture capital funds" - funds previously registered as venture capital funds under 1996 regulations. Key provisions include eligibility criteria, investment conditions, tenure, private placement requirements, restrictions on public offerings and listing for 3 years. Existing venture capital funds must migrate within 12 months or face enhanced regulatory reporting. Other changes relate to definitions, applicability, registration process, and fee structure.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Master Circular regulates ESG Rating Providers. Specifies requirements, obligations. Board responsible for compliance.

    Master Circular regulates Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Rating Providers (ERPs) under Securities and Exchange Board of India (Credit Rating Agencies) Regulations, 1999. Specifies procedural/disclosure requirements and obligations for ERPs. Mandates ERPs comply with conditions, have necessary systems/infrastructure. Board of Directors responsible for compliance. Applicable immediately upon notification. Listed entity as per SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. Monitoring through yearly internal audit. Issued under SEBI Act, 1992 to protect investors, promote securities market development/regulation.
    Visit to Get Source

  • SEBI allows ESG Rating Providers to rate products/issuers in IFSC under IFSCA guidelines. Aims to protect investors & promote market.

    SEBI has enabled ESG Rating Providers (ERPs) to undertake ESG rating activities under IFSCA guidelines. ERPs can offer ESG ratings for products/issuers as required by IFSCA. IFSCA will deal with issues, complaints, enforcement actions, and information sharing related to ERP services in IFSC. SEBI's circular aims to protect investor interests and promote securities market development by regulating ERPs.
    Visit to Get Source

  • SEBI allows CRAs to rate under IFSCA norms. IFSCA to oversee CRAs' IFSC ops, complaints & enforcement. Effective immediately.

    SEBI enables Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) to undertake rating activities under International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) guidelines. Issues arising from CRAs' IFSC activities will be dealt with by IFSCA under its powers. IFSCA will handle complaints, enforcement actions, and information sharing regarding CRAs' IFSC services. The circular is immediately effective, exercising SEBI's powers under relevant laws and regulations.
    Visit to Get Source

    • Service Tax

  • Drilling bore wells for agriculturists claimed exemption under negative list. Court upheld revenue's jurisdiction to issue show cause notice invoking extended period after inquiry.

    Petitioner engaged in drilling bore wells for agriculturists claimed exemption under negative list entry of Finance Act, 1994. Court held that to invoke extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1), mandatory requirements contemplated in Act were stated in show cause notice regarding petitioner's liability to pay service tax and penalties. Petitioner was given opportunity to reply and personal hearing. Once show cause notice invoking extended period is issued and inquiry conducted, grounds urged must be challenged through appeal under Act, not by challenging revenue's jurisdiction to issue notice. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal u/s 85 precludes entertaining writ petition under Article 226. No cogent reasons shown for revenue not providing sufficient cause to invoke extended period. Petition dismissed.
    Visit to Get Source

    • Central Excise

  • Reversal of Cenvat credit for exempted goods with interest allowed; Revenue can't demand 10% of exempted value if opted for reversal.

    Reversal of Cenvat credit proportionate to input service used for exempted goods along with interest is a valid option u/r 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Revenue cannot insist on payment of 10% amount of value of exempted goods when assessee has opted for reversal with interest. Tribunal properly acted as appellate authority u/s 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944, and no substantial question of law arises from its order.
    Visit to Get Source

  • Excess duty refund denied due to unjust enrichment. Appellants failed to prove non-passing of excess duty to customers.

    Excess duty paid due to issuance of credit notes to dealers and stockists after clearance of goods was rejected on grounds of incidence being passed on and lack of evidence that it was not passed on to ultimate customers. Principles of unjust enrichment u/s 11B read with Section 12B of Central Excise Act were examined. Appellants failed to establish non-passing of excess duty to customers. Merely selling on MRP basis did not absolve them. Supreme Court's Addison and Co. Ltd. judgment applied, entitling refund on merits but not on unjust enrichment grounds. Section 12B's applicability was upheld based on CEGAT and Supreme Court judgments like Grasim Industries, Sangam Processors. Appellants hit by Section 12B for failure to prove non-passing of excess duty. Refund eligible on merits but cannot be disbursed; to be dealt with u/s 12D. Commissioner's non-entitlement on merits unsustainable, but order sustainable on unjust enrichment applicability.
    Visit to Get Source

    • VAT

  • Tribunal order quashed for violating natural justice. Delay grounds ignored. Rehearing ordered on lack of order communication.

    Impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, violation of principles of natural justice. Tribunal failed to consider grounds raised by petitioner for delay in filing rectification application. Coordinate Bench held Tribunal has jurisdiction to recall ex parte order, rehear matter. Petitioner claimed lack of communication regarding Tribunal's order, leading to delay. Impugned orders set aside, matter remitted to Tribunal to decide petitioner's application afresh in accordance with law. Revision allowed by way of remand.
    Visit to Get Source

Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1110
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1109
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1108
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1107
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1106
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1105
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1104
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1102
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1101
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1100
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1099
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1098
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1097
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1096

  • Income Tax

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1103
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1095
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1094
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1093
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1092
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1091
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1090
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1089
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1088
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1087
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1086
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1085
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1084
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1083
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1082

  • Customs

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1081
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1080
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1079
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1078

  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1077

  • Service Tax

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1076
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1075
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1074
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1067

  • Central Excise

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1073
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1072
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1071

  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1070

  • Indian Laws

  • 2024 (7) TMI 1069
  • 2024 (7) TMI 1068
 
← Older Newer →

Quick Updates:Latest Updates

What's New:
    Latest Case Laws
What's New:
    Latest Notifications
What's New:
    Latest Circulars
T: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During ...
F: Transfer of ITC without filing ITC-02
F: assessment order
F: INTERMEDIARY SERVICES OR EXPORT SERVICES
H: Revision: Hospital receipts verified, partial refunds & fees paid subs...
F: Stock damaged in recent floods
F: ITC Issue in case of Acqusition of Company in Insolvency
H: Goods matched documents like e-way bill and invoices; detention order ...
H: Goods Inspection Matches E-Way Bill, Lack of Tax Evasion Intent Quashe...
H: Income tax reassessment validity: AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 ins...
H: Reassessment Rules Interpretation: Taxpayer Wins Over Accommodation En...
H: Sale-purchase loss disallowed unreasonably by tax officer, commercial ...
H: Building sale value can't determine depreciation; actual consideration...
H: Loan to equity conversion attracts income tax on excess share premium ...
H: Property purchase: Joint owners pay via banking channels before regist...
H: Tax exemption limit for leave encashment: Local authorities' employees...
H: Tax assessments beyond 6-year limit quashed, satisfaction note lacked ...
H: Cash found in lockers linked to temple trust and educational foundatio...
H: Microphone Tech Classification: Functionality Over Technology.
H: Exemption from Social Welfare Surcharge on duty-free imports via scrips.
H: Claim for performance pay not an operational debt under IBC; Multiple ...
A: Director Identification Number
A: No GST is applicable for the services provided by the Director under p...
A: Income Tax Act Revamp (Comprehensive Review): Status and Suggestion on...
N: Inland Container Depots for loading and unloading of goods - Seeks to ...
A: NON-SUBMISSION OF FORM 15G/15H TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TDS UNDER SECTI...
A: UNDERSTANDING AMNESTY FOR WAIVER OF INTEREST / PENALTY U/S 128A OF GST...
A: Department cannot pass an order on the dated personal hearing
A: How to register a Company in India: A Step-by-Step Guide for 2024
C: Clarifications on the applicability of concessional duty under IGCR Ru...