More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

GST - Eligibility to Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017 - Waiver of interest and penalty on excess ITC claim - Relevant period and timing of availment - Appellant claimed excess Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B for December 2020 relating to debit notes and transactions of FY 2018-19 and sought waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A CGST Act applicable to period 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020 - Appellant contended excess ITC pertained to 2018-19 transactions though declared and paid in December 2020 and that liability should be treated as relating to eligible period - Whether Section 128A benefi... [Read more]

GST - Eligibility to Amnesty scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017 - Waiver of interest and penalty on excess ITC claim - Relevant period and timing of availment - Appellant claimed excess Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B for December 2020 relating to debit notes and transactions of FY 2018-19 and sought waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A CGST Act applicable to period 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020 - Appellant contended excess ITC pertained to 2018-19 transactions though declared and paid in December 2020 and that liability should be treated as relating to eligible period - Whether Section 128A benefit available when excess ITC availed for first time in December 2020 though underlying transaction belonged to FY 2018-19 - HELD - Section 128A provides statutory waiver of interest and penalty only for demands pertaining to period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2020. The decisive and material factor is the point of time at which disputed ITC was actually availed and became subject matter of Section 73 proceedings not merely the financial year in which debit notes were originally issued - Records show excess ITC forming subject matter of demand was claimed in GSTR-3B for December 2020 and was not ITC availed in FY 2018-19 carried forward through subsequent monthly returns. The demand confirmed pertains to ITC claim made in December 2020 and does not constitute demand pertaining to period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2020 for purposes of Section 128A – The fact that underlying liability traced to debit note of earlier period cannot enlarge statutory temporal scope of Section 128A. Legislature expressly prescribed limited period for Amnesty scheme and scope cannot be enlarged by adjudicating or appellate authority beyond period expressly prescribed – Further, the CBIC Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST does not dispense with statutory requirement that demand must pertain to prescribed period - Appellant failed to establish that the disputed demand of excess ITC, as confirmed under Section 73(9) of the Act, pertains to the period 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020. The demand arose from the ITC claim made in December 2020 and, therefore, falls outside the temporal scope of Section 128A of the CGST Act. Consequently, the Appellant is not entitled to waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the Act – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Valuation of imported wallpaper - Transaction value of similar goods - Appellant imported wallpaper at declared value of USD 2.2 per kg which was enhanced by Faceless Assessment Group to USD 3.5 per kg based on NIDB data from port showing identical goods assessed at higher value - Appellant contended that declared value was supported by proforma invoice and contemporaneous imports at same value and enhancement was not in accordance with Customs Valuation Rules - Whether value enhancement based on Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules using comparable data of similar goods is sustainable when higher value has been fou... [Read more]

Customs - Valuation of imported wallpaper - Transaction value of similar goods - Appellant imported wallpaper at declared value of USD 2.2 per kg which was enhanced by Faceless Assessment Group to USD 3.5 per kg based on NIDB data from port showing identical goods assessed at higher value - Appellant contended that declared value was supported by proforma invoice and contemporaneous imports at same value and enhancement was not in accordance with Customs Valuation Rules - Whether value enhancement based on Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules using comparable data of similar goods is sustainable when higher value has been found in contemporaneous imports - HELD - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules empowers proper customs officer to reject declared transaction value and re-determine value if there is reasonable doubt regarding truth or accuracy of declared value. Availability of higher import values of identical goods as per NIDB provides sufficient reason for assessing officer to reject value. Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules provides that value shall be transaction value of similar goods sold for export and imported at or about same time. In exercise of this Rule assessing officer found that transaction value of similar goods at same commercial level same quantity same country of origin was available - Contemporary import vide Bill of Entry for same goods at USD 3.5 per kg was properly considered by assessing officer. The description of goods as wallpaper only without specifications regarding size thickness or patterns does not mean goods imported are not identical for comparison purposes. Out of contemporaneous imports assessing officer took lowest value amongst imports which is in accord with statutory requirement to apply lowest transaction value. The contemporary Bill of Entry relied upon by appellant pertains to 01.11.2020 which is earlier than subject Bill of Entry dated 04.01.2021 and hence not truly contemporaneous - The value enhancement at USD 3.5 per kg based on Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules is sustainable – The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Arrest on suspicion without recording reasons to believe - Compliance with Section 69 CGST Act - Petitioner arrested for offences under Section 132 CGST Act including issuance of invoices without actual supply and fraudulent availment of input tax credit - Petitioner contended arrest authorization contained no specific reasons to believe and were based merely on suspicion in violation of Section 69 requirements - Whether arrest can be valid without recording specific reasons to believe and satisfaction of necessity conditions under Section 69 CGST Act - HELD - Section 69 of CGST Act mandates that Commissioner can aut... [Read more]

GST - Arrest on suspicion without recording reasons to believe - Compliance with Section 69 CGST Act - Petitioner arrested for offences under Section 132 CGST Act including issuance of invoices without actual supply and fraudulent availment of input tax credit - Petitioner contended arrest authorization contained no specific reasons to believe and were based merely on suspicion in violation of Section 69 requirements - Whether arrest can be valid without recording specific reasons to believe and satisfaction of necessity conditions under Section 69 CGST Act - HELD - Section 69 of CGST Act mandates that Commissioner can authorize arrest only where he has reason to believe that person has committed specified offences under Section 132(1) which are punishable under designated clauses. The authorization order and arrest memo must record specific reasons to believe tax evasion or conditions specified in Section 132 with corresponding monetary thresholds - Arrest based merely on suspicion without recording concrete reasons to believe requirements specified in Section 69 is invalid. Authorization memo failed to mention monetary limits specified in Section 132 regarding period of conviction based on tax evasion amount indicating arrest was merely on suspicion without factual foundation - Reliance placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI establishing that arrest is discretionary and optional and arrest without adequate reasons breaches arrest principles. Substantial questions remain on whether material circumstances justify arrest particularly given unexamined allegations based on statements of co-accused without cross examination. Court inclined to enlarge petitioner on bail. Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond and sureties as specified - The petitioner is granted regular bail and the petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Inclusion of notional value of drawings and designs in assessable value of excisable goods - Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 - Appellant is OEM supplying automobile components to motor vehicle manufacturer who provided specifications and drawings free of cost - Department sought to load notional value of drawings and proportionate royalty paid by buyer to third party into assessable value of goods manufactured by Appellant - Whether specifications and designs supplied by buyer at tender stage constitute additional consideration under Rule 6 - HELD - Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1994... [Read more]

Central Excise - Inclusion of notional value of drawings and designs in assessable value of excisable goods - Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 - Appellant is OEM supplying automobile components to motor vehicle manufacturer who provided specifications and drawings free of cost - Department sought to load notional value of drawings and proportionate royalty paid by buyer to third party into assessable value of goods manufactured by Appellant - Whether specifications and designs supplied by buyer at tender stage constitute additional consideration under Rule 6 - HELD - Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 permits inclusion of additional consideration only when buyer supplies goods and services for use in connection with production and sale of goods and only to extent value has not been included in price actually paid. Rule 6 specifically provides that value of drawings blueprints technical maps and charts used in production and value of design work necessary for production can be treated as additional consideration - Specification drawings supplied at tender stage for vendor selection and shortlisting are merely indicative requirements to enable prospective vendors to quote prices and constitute buyers assist not assistance to manufacturer. The specification drawings neither constitute goods used in production nor are they necessary for production as appellant had to prepare detailed drawings and designs using technical support from parent company for which running royalty was paid - Distinction exists between mere specifications and layouts which inform manufacturer of buyers requirements and detailed engineering drawings which contain information necessary for actual manufacture. Specification drawings cannot be said to be drawings used in production or necessary for production – No additional consideration has flowed from buyer to appellant over and above transaction price. Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules is not attracted - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Eligibility to Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit when the delay is attributable to assessee in submitting refund request - Appellant's delay in applying for refund - Appellant made pre-deposit of disputed service tax liability on 12.11.2014 and after losing appeal before Tribunal succeeded before High Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2018 - Appellant sent letter requesting refund of pre-deposit only on 1.4.2024 i.e. more than five years after High Court judgment - Department refunded pre-deposit with interest only from date of pre-deposit till date of High Court judgment and not for intervening perio... [Read more]

Service Tax – Eligibility to Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit when the delay is attributable to assessee in submitting refund request - Appellant's delay in applying for refund - Appellant made pre-deposit of disputed service tax liability on 12.11.2014 and after losing appeal before Tribunal succeeded before High Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2018 - Appellant sent letter requesting refund of pre-deposit only on 1.4.2024 i.e. more than five years after High Court judgment - Department refunded pre-deposit with interest only from date of pre-deposit till date of High Court judgment and not for intervening period of over five years - Whether Appellant entitled to interest under Section 35FF for entire period from pre-deposit till refund despite Appellant's own delay in requesting refund - HELD - Section 35FF of Excise Act provides that interest shall be paid on amount deposited as pre-deposit from date of payment till date of refund. The language is mandatory and unconditional and provides for interest regardless of whether delay in refund was caused by department or assessee or for any other reason - Interest is time value of money and statutory provisions must be applied as they exist without regard to fairness equity or hardship caused. Although Appellant caused delay of over five years through neglect by not promptly submitting letter with copy of High Court judgment to department the statutory obligation to pay interest is independent of culpability or delay on either side - The central principle is that once pre-deposit is made Section 35FF requires interest from date of deposit till date of refund as matter of law. The delay attributable to assessee in submitting refund request cannot deprive it of statutory right to interest. Legal provisions must be applied regardless of inequity or gain to assessee – The appellant is entitled to interest for entire period from 12.11.2014 till date of refund including over five years of delay caused by Appellant's own inaction - The impugned order is modified to grant full interest for entire period – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax on adda-fee collected by management contractor - Appellant was engaged as management contractor for operation and maintenance of bus terminals by Government of Punjab under concession arrangement - Appellant collected adda-fee from bus operators at statutory rates fixed by Government - SCN proposed demand of service tax under Business Support Services - Whether collection of adda-fee under State concession agreement without direct contractual relationship with bus operators constitutes BSS - HELD - Service tax is a contract-based levy and presupposes existence of service provider service recipient and contractu... [Read more]

Service Tax on adda-fee collected by management contractor - Appellant was engaged as management contractor for operation and maintenance of bus terminals by Government of Punjab under concession arrangement - Appellant collected adda-fee from bus operators at statutory rates fixed by Government - SCN proposed demand of service tax under Business Support Services - Whether collection of adda-fee under State concession agreement without direct contractual relationship with bus operators constitutes BSS - HELD - Service tax is a contract-based levy and presupposes existence of service provider service recipient and contractual nexus between them. The relevant decision of Tribunal in case of Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable. In that case it was held that collection of adda-fee under State concession agreement in absence of direct contractual relationship with bus operators does not constitute Business Support Service - It is admitted fact that Appellant has contract with State of Punjab and no contract exists with individual bus operators. At time of entering into contract with State of Punjab Appellant could not have agreed to provide support services to unknown bus operators. Bus terminals are created as public utility service and not as support services for bus operators. The adda-fees are collected as per Government mandate as statutory levy and not as privately negotiated commercial consideration. The essential ingredients of BSS i.e. contractual relationship between service provider and recipient and specific agreement to render support service are absent. The services if at all rendered are to State of Punjab and not to bus operators - Demand for service tax under BSS is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund claim for service tax on export services - Relevant date for determining limitation - Appellant filed refund claims for service tax and cess paid on input services used in providing services exported under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules - Refund claims pertained to period July 2012 to September 2013 and were filed on 21.01.2014 and 02.04.2014 - Revenue rejected refund claims as time-barred contending that Notification 14/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016 providing clarification on relevant date has only prospective effect and not retrospective - Whether relevant date for claiming refund in case of export services... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund claim for service tax on export services - Relevant date for determining limitation - Appellant filed refund claims for service tax and cess paid on input services used in providing services exported under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules - Refund claims pertained to period July 2012 to September 2013 and were filed on 21.01.2014 and 02.04.2014 - Revenue rejected refund claims as time-barred contending that Notification 14/2016-CE dated 01.03.2016 providing clarification on relevant date has only prospective effect and not retrospective - Whether relevant date for claiming refund in case of export services is date of receipt of foreign exchange and whether refund claims filed were within prescribed time limit - HELD - For refund of service tax on input services used in export services the relevant date is the date of receipt of foreign exchange as quoted by FIRC and not the date of issue of invoice. This position has been held by Tribunal in cases of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. and Scionspire Consulting Services - Rule 6(3A) of Service Tax Rules stipulates that export is completed only on date of receipt of foreign exchange. The Notification 14/2016-CE is clarificatory in nature stating what is apparent to remove doubts and does not represent a change in substantive law but merely clarifies pre-existing legal position. The refund claims filed within period from relevant date i.e. date of receipt of FIRC are within prescribed time limit under Section 11B read with Notification 39/2012-ST - Since refund claims are filed within time limit from relevant date they are not barred by limitation - The impugned order is upheld and appeal of Revenue is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax – Payment of differential service tax along with interest before adjudication order, exemption from levy of penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant was engaged in construction of residential and commercial projects. During FY 2011-12 there were various projects under construction. Certain projects had construction commenced before 01.06.2007 and were on-going - Appellant continued to pay tax on on-going projects as per new the Composition Scheme. Department disallowed benefit of new scheme for on-going projects and raised demand for differential service tax. Appellant paid diff... [Read more]

Service Tax – Payment of differential service tax along with interest before adjudication order, exemption from levy of penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Appellant was engaged in construction of residential and commercial projects. During FY 2011-12 there were various projects under construction. Certain projects had construction commenced before 01.06.2007 and were on-going - Appellant continued to pay tax on on-going projects as per new the Composition Scheme. Department disallowed benefit of new scheme for on-going projects and raised demand for differential service tax. Appellant paid differential service tax along with applicable interest and reversed Cenvat credit prior to passing of Order-in-Original - Whether penalties under Sections 76 and 77 can be imposed when entire differential service tax along with interest was paid by Appellant before adjudication order - HELD - The issue involved interpretation and applicability of valuation scheme which attained final clarity only after pronouncement of judgment by Supreme Court in Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Union of India. Under such circumstances there was reasonable cause on part of Appellant for initial non-payment of differential tax - Appellant held bona fide belief that it was entitled to benefit of Composition Scheme even in respect of on-going projects. After pronouncement of judgment by Apex Court when legal position became clear, Appellant immediately paid differential amount of service tax along with applicable interest and also reversed Cenvat credit. Appellant is fully entitled to benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994 which statutorily provides that no penalty under Section 76 or Section 77 shall be imposed if appellant proves that there was reasonable cause for said failure - The penalties imposed upon appellant under Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act 1994 are not sustainable in law and accordingly set aside - The appeal is allowed - Service Tax - Revenue contended that learned Adjudicating Authority did not properly examine entire case and arrived at conclusion solely on basis of Chartered Accountant certificate placed on record by Appellant. Revenue alleged that learned Commissioner did not examine nature of income from activities other than construction and did not examine project-wise computations - Whether learned Adjudicating Authority properly examined entire case and verified computations project-wise or improperly relied solely on CA certificate without cross-examination - HELD - The ld. Commissioner has thoroughly examined records and recorded proper findings on all grounds raised by Revenue. The ld. Commissioner properly considered CENVAT Register, GAR-7 challans and reversal of CENVAT credit and reconciliation charts submitted by Appellant along with CA certificate - The learned Commissioner has categorically observed in order that he has carefully gone through facts, merits and circumstances of case on record. In order to clear any remaining doubts, appellant filed another CA certificate which clearly explained precise nature of said income. No infirmity found in order passed by learned Commissioner - The order of learned Commissioner is upheld and Revenue's appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax – 100% EOU – Vague SCN, Demand under Business Auxiliary Service - Appellant engaged in providing Transcription Service to Doctors in USA - Show Cause Notice invoking extended period of limitation - Appellant contended demand is wholly barred by limitation - On merits Appellant argued activity was telecommunication service which is taxable only when provided by person licensed under Indian Telegraph Act and foreign entity Ecostentel is not licensed. - Whether demand is wholly barred by limitation and whether demand for service tax on Business Auxiliary Service is sustainable on merits - HELD - Burden to prov... [Read more]

Service Tax – 100% EOU – Vague SCN, Demand under Business Auxiliary Service - Appellant engaged in providing Transcription Service to Doctors in USA - Show Cause Notice invoking extended period of limitation - Appellant contended demand is wholly barred by limitation - On merits Appellant argued activity was telecommunication service which is taxable only when provided by person licensed under Indian Telegraph Act and foreign entity Ecostentel is not licensed. - Whether demand is wholly barred by limitation and whether demand for service tax on Business Auxiliary Service is sustainable on merits - HELD - Burden to prove allegation of fraud collusion or suppression lies very heavily upon Revenue. SCN alleges Ecostentel rendered Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(105)(zzb) but does not put appellant to notice of statutory definition of Business Auxiliary Service as provided in Section 65(19) or under which limb of definition Appellant falls - SCN does not rely on any inculpatory statement or agreement bringing out relationship or nature of service as falling under Business Auxiliary Service. SCN has not let in any evidence of any positive act of fraud suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty. Revenue has failed to adduce any evidence establishing that Appellant engaged in wilful or deliberate suppression of material facts. Nothing on record suggests Appellant acted with any intention to mislead authorities or evade payment of service tax. SCN is bereft of reasons justifying invocation of extended period of limitation - Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Customs House Agent Service – Taxability of Reimbursable Expenses - Whether reimbursable expenses recovered by Customs House Agent are includible in taxable value of CHA service under Section 67 of Finance Act 1994 read with Rule 5 of Service Tax Determination of Value Rules 2006 for period prior to 14.05.2015 - HELD - During relevant period Section 67 of Finance Act 1994 provided that where service tax was chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, such value shall be gross amount charged by service provider for such service. The controversy is whether Rule 5 could enlarge charging prov... [Read more]

Service Tax - Customs House Agent Service – Taxability of Reimbursable Expenses - Whether reimbursable expenses recovered by Customs House Agent are includible in taxable value of CHA service under Section 67 of Finance Act 1994 read with Rule 5 of Service Tax Determination of Value Rules 2006 for period prior to 14.05.2015 - HELD - During relevant period Section 67 of Finance Act 1994 provided that where service tax was chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, such value shall be gross amount charged by service provider for such service. The controversy is whether Rule 5 could enlarge charging provision contained in Section 67 so as to include reimbursable expenditure - The judgment of Delhi High Court in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats case held that Rule 5 insofar as it sought to include expenditure or costs incurred by service provider, travelled beyond Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act 1994 and delegated legislation cannot enlarge charging provision. This judgment was affirmed by Supreme Court in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that prior to amendment of Section 67 effective 14.05.2015, expenditure or costs incurred in providing taxable service could not be included in taxable value by virtue of Rule 5 one. The amended provision came into effect only from 14.05.2015 and has no application to period involved in present appeal - For period prior to 14.05.2015, genuine reimbursable expenses incurred on behalf of clients cannot be included in taxable value under Section 67. Mere recovery of such amounts from clients cannot make them taxable consideration - The impugned inclusion of reimbursable expenses in taxable value is unsustainable. Demand of service tax together with interest and penalties is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Commission on DTH Recharge Voucher Distribution – Demand under Business Auxiliary Services - Appellant engaged in distribution of recharge vouchers of DTH operator, receiving commission on each voucher sold. The recharge vouchers carried a predetermined maximum retail price which included the commission payable to Appellant and all taxes, on which the DTH operator was discharging service tax. The Department took the view that appellant was required to discharge service tax on the commission as it amounted to consideration for service of distributing activation and recharge vouchers - Whether Appellant was l... [Read more]

Service Tax - Commission on DTH Recharge Voucher Distribution – Demand under Business Auxiliary Services - Appellant engaged in distribution of recharge vouchers of DTH operator, receiving commission on each voucher sold. The recharge vouchers carried a predetermined maximum retail price which included the commission payable to Appellant and all taxes, on which the DTH operator was discharging service tax. The Department took the view that appellant was required to discharge service tax on the commission as it amounted to consideration for service of distributing activation and recharge vouchers - Whether Appellant was liable to discharge service tax on commission received from DTH operators and whether penalty imposed was sustainable - HELD - Where service tax has been paid on the MRP by the main operator, the commission agent or distributor need not pay service tax on commission received by him because commission forms part of M.R.P. on which service tax has already been discharged. Levying service tax on commission separately would amount to double taxation. The issue is settled in Appellant's favour following the ratio of decisions in Kumar's Electronics and other similar cases. The issue is no longer res integra - The impugned order to the extent it upholds the demand imposed on Appellant under BAS along with interest and equivalent penalty is not sustainable and is set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of goods declared as 'Lead Concentrate'- Lead Concentrate Vs Lead Scrap/Waste - Appellant imported lead-bearing powder material declaring the same as Lead Concentrate under CTH 2607. Department contended that the imported goods should have been classified as Lead Waste and Scrap under CTH 7802 based on ground that goods originated from used lead acid batteries and lacked silver and gold traces - Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand for differential customs duty, interest and penalties including confiscation and redemption fine under Section 111 of Customs Act - Whether imported goods are classif... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of goods declared as 'Lead Concentrate'- Lead Concentrate Vs Lead Scrap/Waste - Appellant imported lead-bearing powder material declaring the same as Lead Concentrate under CTH 2607. Department contended that the imported goods should have been classified as Lead Waste and Scrap under CTH 7802 based on ground that goods originated from used lead acid batteries and lacked silver and gold traces - Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand for differential customs duty, interest and penalties including confiscation and redemption fine under Section 111 of Customs Act - Whether imported goods are classifiable as Lead Concentrate under CTH 2607 00 00 or as Lead Waste and Scrap under CTH 7802 00 90 - HELD - Tariff classification is determined by the nature and characteristics of goods as imported, not by the identity of importer, the furnaces he operates, or metallurgical processes he is licensed to perform. Multiple test reports from Government laboratories show that lead in samples was predominantly in form of lead oxide and lead sulphate compounds with metallic lead present only in very small quantities in fine particle form - The composition ranging from 60.2 to 68.66 percent lead is consistent with specification of lead concentrate. One test report from Customs Laboratory JNCH Nhava Sheva explicitly described samples as having composition of lead concentrate - Lead oxide is classifiable under Chapter heading 2824 and sulphates of metals are classifiable under heading 2833. Only lead in primary metallic form falls under Chapter 78. Since lead in samples was not in primary metallic form but in oxide and sulphate form comprising approximately 87 to 92 percent of material, classification under Chapter 78 is not sustainable - Conflicting laboratory reports must be analyzed on basis of which report provides detailed scientific analysis and composition data - Kandla Laboratory reports and JNCH reports described goods as having characteristics of lead concentrate. While CRCL opined samples were washed and dried electrode paste, it did not actually report them as lead scrap. Absence of silver cannot be deciding factor and absence of gold or silver cannot preclude classification as concentrate - Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificates themselves describe goods as lead concentrate in description column despite heading referring to metallic scrap. These certificates were issued to certify absence of hazardous materials, not to determine tariff classification. Load Port Customs export documents represent declarations by foreign exporters in foreign nomenclature for foreign regulatory purposes and are not binding on Indian Customs authorities – The burden of proof to establish classification rests on Revenue when customs authorities seek to classify goods differently from assessee's declared classification. In self-assessment regime applicable to imports, classification submitted by assessee must be accepted unless revenue discharges burden of proof through conclusive scientific evidence - When all scientific reports are analyzed, majority and more detailed reports favor classification as lead concentrate, classification under CTH 7802 has absolutely no merit. Confiscation is not sustainable as goods have been cleared for home consumption and do not remain imported goods as defined under Section 2(25) of Customs Act - The impugned order classifying goods under Chapter 78 is set aside. The goods are classifiable as Lead Concentrate under CTH 2607 00 00 - The appeals are allowed [Read less]

Customs – Refund of Redemption Fine - Interest on Delayed Refund - Appellant filed refund claim for redemption fine on 23.08.2023. Respondent sanctioned refund but rejected claim for interest under Section 27A of Customs Act on ground that interest is not payable as matter was sub-judice before Commissioner (Appeals) and refund was sanctioned within three months from date of application - Whether Appellant is entitled to interest on refund of redemption fine deposited during adjudication proceedings even though matter was pending appeal and refund was sanctioned within three months from refund application date - HELD - A... [Read more]

Customs – Refund of Redemption Fine - Interest on Delayed Refund - Appellant filed refund claim for redemption fine on 23.08.2023. Respondent sanctioned refund but rejected claim for interest under Section 27A of Customs Act on ground that interest is not payable as matter was sub-judice before Commissioner (Appeals) and refund was sanctioned within three months from date of application - Whether Appellant is entitled to interest on refund of redemption fine deposited during adjudication proceedings even though matter was pending appeal and refund was sanctioned within three months from refund application date - HELD - After decision of CESTAT, neither confiscation was sustainable nor any fine was payable and whatever amount was paid was never legally due. Provisions of Section 11B of CEA, 1944 and Section 27A of Customs Act 1962 are pari materia. When amount has been refunded which was never legally payable, interest is compensatory in nature and Department is liable to pay interest for period during which Department retained amount of Appellant - The decision relied in impugned order pertains to grant of interest under Section 27A of Customs Act 1962, whereas in present appeals it is revenue deposit which Appellant was compelled to pay in order to redeem goods. Following Division Bench of CESTAT Allahabad in M/s Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. upheld by Allahabad High Court and M/s Riba Textiles Ltd., the grant of interest at 12 percent per annum is appropriate - Interest is granted at rate of 12 percent per annum on refund of amount deposited during investigation and adjudication from date of deposit till date of actual payment - Appellant is entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum from date of revenue deposit till date of actual payment – The appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Demand beyond scope of Show Cause Notice and trial balance figures - Materiality of facts versus particulars - Appellant engaged in providing Japanese language training management consultancy and renting of premises and seminar hall - Department issued multiple SCN and SOD proposing various service tax demands including on activities not disclosed in the SCN itself - Whether adjudicating authority can adjudicate on activities and receipts not covered by material facts in SCN - HELD - A distinction must be maintained between material facts and particulars. Material facts are those primary facts which constitut... [Read more]

Service Tax - Demand beyond scope of Show Cause Notice and trial balance figures - Materiality of facts versus particulars - Appellant engaged in providing Japanese language training management consultancy and renting of premises and seminar hall - Department issued multiple SCN and SOD proposing various service tax demands including on activities not disclosed in the SCN itself - Whether adjudicating authority can adjudicate on activities and receipts not covered by material facts in SCN - HELD - A distinction must be maintained between material facts and particulars. Material facts are those primary facts which constitute the foundation of cause of action or defence. Particulars are the details by which such facts are elaborated or established. Different consequences follow from omission of material facts and material particulars - Failure to plead material fact renders case incomplete as it omits essential element of cause of action and is liable to be set aside. Test is not whether every piece of evidence or particular ultimately relied upon was expressly set out in SCN but whether SCN disclosed essential factual and legal foundation of charge and material facts necessary to enable assessee to meet that charge - While particulars and supporting evidence may be developed during adjudication material fact which constitutes foundation of proposed liability cannot be introduced for first time in adjudication order. Relief cannot be founded or demand confirmed on case which assessee was never called upon to answer. Core test therefore is whether assessee was put on notice of essential factual foundation and legal basis of particular demand such that it could reasonably defend itself. If not adjudicating authority cannot cure defect by supplying missing material facts in Order - Demands on activities such as programme coordination fees secretarial support fees awards trophy income workshops and other receipts were introduced for first time during adjudication without corresponding allegation or factual foundation in SCN and adjudicating and appellate authorities travelled beyond scope of SCN by examining nature and taxability of receipts without allegation or factual foundation. Such fundamental defect cannot be cured by remanding matter. Demands on these counts are unsustainable and set aside - Classification of 5S Management training - Appellant contended that activity was undertaken for its own organisational objectives involving training and supply of related books and posters without promoting business of or acting on behalf of any third party - SCN classified activity under Management Consultant Service but Order-in-Original classified it under Business Auxiliary Service for first time - Whether classification under Business Auxiliary Service can be sustained when SCN proposed different classification - HELD - Show Cause Notice is conspicuously brief and does not set out factual foundation necessary to sustain demand. Department proposed classification under Management or Business Consultancy Service but adjudicating authority instead classified activity under BAS apparently relying upon two lines from appellant's reply. Such course amounts to introducing new taxable category and new factual basis for demand at stage of adjudication without affording appellant opportunity to meet that case in SCN - Further OIO rejected appellant's claim for sale proceeds merely on ground that supporting documents had not been produced without discussion of nature of receipts based on evidence available on record or statutory basis for treating them as consideration for taxable service. Even assuming appellant failed to furnish requisite documents adverse inference could have been drawn only upon proper examination of issue including material available on record efforts made by Department and where relevant whether alleged non disclosure was deliberate – The cryptic nature of SCN change in classification at adjudication stage and absence of reasoned examination of disputed receipts demonstrate that demand was not adjudicated on case put to appellant. Impugned order travels beyond scope of SCN on this issue and being unsupported by proper examination of facts and applicable statutory provisions cannot be sustained – The demand on 5S management training is unsustainable and set aside - Invocation of extended period - Hall hire rental and receipts - Classification dispute and scope of SCN - Appellant alleged receipts were taxable under different category than classified by Department - Whether dispute on classification alone justifies invocation of extended period when transactions stood disclosed - HELD - Dispute is essentially one of classification and consequent taxability. Receipts were duly accounted for and Revenue's case is that services ought to have been classified under different taxable category. Mere dispute as to classification where transactions and receipts stand disclosed in records cannot by itself justify invocation of extended period - In facts of case suppression wilful misstatement or intent to evade payment of tax is not established. SCN does not set out material facts and legal basis necessary to sustain proposed change in classification. In absence of such particulars noticee is deprived of reasonable opportunity to meet and defend case sought to be made against it. Adjudication order cannot travel beyond allegations in SCN or cure foundational defect therein. Consequently demand founded on inadequately pleaded charge cannot be sustained - The demand in respect of hall hire rental receipts is unsustainable and set aside - Japanese language training exemption – Demand under “Commercial Training or Coaching Service” from 27.02.2010 - Period of Applicability of amended Notification - Appellant claimed exemption under Notification 24/2004-ST for Japanese language training - Department alleged amendment by Notification 03/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 made exemption unavailable unless affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training - Whether amended notification applies from date of notification or publication - HELD - Appellant by referring to Gazette of India was able to demonstrate that Notification 03/2010 though dated 27.02.2010 was published only on 22.01.2011 and in terms of paragraph 2 thereof came into force from date of publication. Revenue was unable to rebut submission. The amendment cannot be applied from 27.02.2010. Demand covered by SCN dated 21.10.2011 relating to period from 2005-06 to December 2010 is therefore unsustainable – Further, Board's Circular 59/8/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 recognised foreign language institutes and hobby classes within exempted category. Amending Notification 03/2010-ST narrowed definition of vocational training institute by prescribing NCVT affiliation and designated trades but did not amend independent definition of recreational training institute under clause two of Explanation to Notification 24/2004-ST. Consequently NCVT affiliation was not condition for availing exemption under recreational limb. SCN proceeds solely on vocational character of courses and neither considers nor establishes that training was not undertaken for recreational or hobby purposes - Demand cannot be sustained by examining only vocational limb of exemption while disregarding independent exemption available to recreational training institute. Appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification 24/2004-ST as amended - Translation interpretation services - Scope of SCN - Appellant engaged in providing translation and interpretation services - Show Cause Notice merely stated that translation interpretation services were taxable under Business Support Service from 01.05.2006 without setting out nature of alleged taxable activity or basis for classification - Whether demand can be sustained on bald statement without material facts - HELD - Show Cause Notice merely stated classification without setting out material facts. Bald [Read less]

Service Tax – Cenvat Credit on Outward transportation credit - Place of removal in FOR contracts - Eligibility of credit on goods transported to buyers premises - Appellant is battery manufacturer and Input Service Distributor who transported batteries from depot to dealers on FOR basis bearing freight cost and availed CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency services - Whether CENVAT credit on outward transportation up to place of removal is legally admissible - HELD - The Board vide Circular 08.06.2018 clarified that eligibility of CENVAT credit on GTA services depends on whether buyers premises qualify as place of remo... [Read more]

Service Tax – Cenvat Credit on Outward transportation credit - Place of removal in FOR contracts - Eligibility of credit on goods transported to buyers premises - Appellant is battery manufacturer and Input Service Distributor who transported batteries from depot to dealers on FOR basis bearing freight cost and availed CENVAT credit on Goods Transport Agency services - Whether CENVAT credit on outward transportation up to place of removal is legally admissible - HELD - The Board vide Circular 08.06.2018 clarified that eligibility of CENVAT credit on GTA services depends on whether buyers premises qualify as place of removal and this has to be decided on specific facts including terms of sale, transfer of risk and ownership during transit. In FOR destination contracts where freight forms part of invoice value, risk of loss during transit remains with seller, and property in goods passes only at buyers premises, the retailers premises constitutes the place of removal – The FOR destination terms, inclusion of freight in invoice value, retention of risk by Appellant during transit and transfer of property only upon delivery at retailers premises support that retailers premises constituted the place of removal. Payment of duty or VAT at depot cannot be treated as conclusive for determining place of removal under CENVAT Credit Rules. GTA service used for transportation up to such place is input service within meaning of Rule 2(l) and Appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit thereon – The credit on outward transportation is admissible - Credit on manpower supply and depot rent services - Input service definition - Nexus with manufacturing activity - Appellant procured manpower at Chennai office and deployed to various factories while godowns were used for storage of finished products - Whether credit on manpower supply and godown depot rent is legally admissible - HELD - The Revenue's contention that services related to post manufacture and post sale activities at customers premises is factually misplaced since the place of removal has been held to be premises of retailers dealers and therefore contention that services are post sale activities cannot be sustained - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 does not restrict input service credit merely because activity is undertaken after sale of goods except where service relates to trading in goods. Activities such as advertising, sales promotion, market research, accounting, auditing though having post sale component may continue to qualify as input services provided requisite nexus with output service or use in manufacture of goods is established. Manpower supply services used for production, packing, maintenance, storage and allied manufacturing activities and godown depot rent used for storage of finished products have requisite nexus with Appellants manufacturing activity - Denial of CENVAT credit on manpower supply and godown depot rent is unsustainable and is set aside - Service Tax - Demand under Rule 14 of the CCR against ISD - The controversy regarding demand under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules against the ISD became academic since the Appellant was found eligible for CENVAT credit on outward transportation and manpower supply/depot rent services - Short payment of Service Tax on reverse charge - Limitation period - Invocation of extended period - Appellant received batteries at Chennai depot and paid Service Tax under reverse charge on GTA services and distributed credit through ISD mechanism - Show Cause Notice issued beyond normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 - Whether demand is barred by limitation when extended period is not validly invoked - HELD - The normal period for respective periods from January 2010 to March 2013 expired between 25.04.2011 and 25.04.2013 and for subsequent periods expired on 25.04.2014 and 25.10.2014 respectively. SCN dated 30.03.2015 was therefore issued beyond normal period and can survive only if extended period under proviso to Section 73(1) is validly invoked - The mere fact that alleged short payment was noticed during audit cannot by itself justify invocation of extended period. Department is required to establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade Service Tax. Appellants contend that relevant particulars were duly disclosed in ST-3 returns and there was no suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade payment. Mere non payment of duty or failure to obtain registration absent of fraud suppression or willful misstatement is insufficient to attract extended limitation period - The case for invoking extended period is not made out and demand is barred by limitation. [Read less]

GST – Validity of invoking different provisions in Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original - Rule 27 And Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Procedural Defect - Show Cause Notice issued invoking Rule 28(a) of CGST Rules for determination of value of excavated soil and seeking to recover tax along with interest and penalty - Adjudicating authority admitted that Rule 28(a) of CGST Rules as mentioned in Show Cause Notice was incorrectly invoked. However simultaneously authority invoked Rule 27(c) of CGST Rules and confirmed demand by resorting to different valuation for determination of value of services - Petitioner was neve... [Read more]

GST – Validity of invoking different provisions in Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original - Rule 27 And Rule 28 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Procedural Defect - Show Cause Notice issued invoking Rule 28(a) of CGST Rules for determination of value of excavated soil and seeking to recover tax along with interest and penalty - Adjudicating authority admitted that Rule 28(a) of CGST Rules as mentioned in Show Cause Notice was incorrectly invoked. However simultaneously authority invoked Rule 27(c) of CGST Rules and confirmed demand by resorting to different valuation for determination of value of services - Petitioner was never offered any opportunity to meet determination of value under Rule 27(c) of CGST Rules which was invoked and relied upon by adjudicating authority - Whether Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original can proceed on different and contradictory legal grounds without affording opportunity of hearing to assessee on new ground of valuation - HELD - Invocation of different provision in Show Cause Notice as well as in impugned order is admitted factual position not in dispute. Show Cause Notice failed to allege or even indicate that alleged supply of soil was to any related persons so Rule 28(a) was incorrectly invoked - Adjudicating authority admitted that Rule 28(a) was incorrectly invoked in Show Cause Notice. However simultaneously authority invoked Rule 27(c) of CGST Rules and confirmed demand by resorting to different valuation for determination of value of services. Petitioner was never offered any opportunity to meet with determination of value under Rule 27(c) which was invoked and relied upon by adjudicating authority - Impugned order does not approve Rule 28(a) which was invoked in SCN but invokes Rule 27(c) at adjudication stage without affording hearing to assessee. This causes grave prejudice to Petitioner as it was unable to meet the new grounds raised for first time in adjudication order – The impugned order and Show Cause Notice are quashed and set aside. It is open for Revenue to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing fresh SCN to Petitioner on proper legal grounds with opportunity of hearing - The petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Reliance on AI-Generated Case Laws - Procedural Defect – Respondent-State Tax Officer passed order cancelling Petitioner's GST registration by relying upon AI-generated case laws which were non-existent or irrelevant – Permissibility of use of AI is in issuing adjudication orders – HELD – The order passed by State Tax Officer by placing reliance exclusively on AI generated case laws citing non-existent and irrelevant judgments is fundamentally defective and suffers from procedural defect. Use of Artificial Intelligence to generate and cite case laws without independent verification and human oversight is impe... [Read more]

GST - Reliance on AI-Generated Case Laws - Procedural Defect – Respondent-State Tax Officer passed order cancelling Petitioner's GST registration by relying upon AI-generated case laws which were non-existent or irrelevant – Permissibility of use of AI is in issuing adjudication orders – HELD – The order passed by State Tax Officer by placing reliance exclusively on AI generated case laws citing non-existent and irrelevant judgments is fundamentally defective and suffers from procedural defect. Use of Artificial Intelligence to generate and cite case laws without independent verification and human oversight is impermissible and renders order unsustainable - Additional Commissioner of State Tax issued administrative instructions to all Joint Commissioners of State Tax prescribing procedure for use of Artificial Intelligence tools. Such instructions shall be scrupulously followed, and any violation of the instructions would amount to contempt of this Court – The Show Cause Notice, Order of cancellation, Order rejecting revocation application and the Appellate Order are quashed and set aside. Respondent authority shall issue fresh notice to petitioner and the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the proceedings – The petition stands disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund claim of excess excise duty paid - Appellant claims the assessable value used in the ER-1 return was higher than the correct amount, resulting in overpayment. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim as the Appellant failed to produce proper documentary evidence (invoice-wise Assessable Value statement) – HELD - The Appellant has not produced any proper documentary evidence towards their claim that they have adopted higher Assessable Value in the ER-1 which has resulted in higher payment of Excise Duty - Since the Appellant happens to be a Public Sector Undertaking, in the interest of justi... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund claim of excess excise duty paid - Appellant claims the assessable value used in the ER-1 return was higher than the correct amount, resulting in overpayment. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim as the Appellant failed to produce proper documentary evidence (invoice-wise Assessable Value statement) – HELD - The Appellant has not produced any proper documentary evidence towards their claim that they have adopted higher Assessable Value in the ER-1 which has resulted in higher payment of Excise Duty - Since the Appellant happens to be a Public Sector Undertaking, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to the Appellant to make a proper presentation of the documentary evidence before the Adjudicating authority - The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with directions for the appellant to submit detailed documentary evidence and the Authority to pass orders following the principles of natural justice – The appeal is disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax – Larger Bench Order - Rule 3 Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 - Works Contract Service, Composition Scheme - Point of Taxation - Appellant provided works contract services to Ministry of Defence, Govt of India and exercised option to pay service tax under the Works Contract Composition Scheme at the rate prevailing at the commencement of contract. When the rate was subsequently revised upward, Appellant continued discharging service tax liability at the original rate for ongoing contracts - Department demanded service tax at the enhanced rate for invoices raised afte... [Read more]

Service Tax – Larger Bench Order - Rule 3 Works Contract (Composition Scheme for payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 - Works Contract Service, Composition Scheme - Point of Taxation - Appellant provided works contract services to Ministry of Defence, Govt of India and exercised option to pay service tax under the Works Contract Composition Scheme at the rate prevailing at the commencement of contract. When the rate was subsequently revised upward, Appellant continued discharging service tax liability at the original rate for ongoing contracts - Department demanded service tax at the enhanced rate for invoices raised after the rate revision - Whether when opting for Works Contract Composition Scheme, an assessee continues to pay at the same rate applicable at time of opting for scheme till completion of contract, or whether revised rate applies to invoices raised after rate revision - HELD – The Rule 3(1) of Composition Scheme provides that the option to avail composition scheme shall be applicable for entire works contract and shall not be withdrawn until completion of said works contract, however the rule does not stipulate that tax rate prevailing at time of opting into scheme will continue until completion of same works contract whether under composition scheme or otherwise. The Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 answer the question by providing that point of taxation shall be the time when invoice for service provided or agreed to be provided is issued or when payment is received, whichever is earlier, and in cases where there is a change in effective rate of tax, the point of taxation shall be determined in the manner specified in Rule 4 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 - The rate of tax shall be the rate as on the point of taxation and not the rate prevailing at the time of exercising the option - The Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 were not brought to attention of Calcutta High Court either before Single Bench or Division Bench in the case of L&T and hence those decisions did not consider these Rules. Before Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, service tax was to be paid as applicable when taxable event, viz., rendition of service had taken place, and after these Rules were notified, the earliest of the three events- rendering service, issuing invoice or receiving advance is the point of taxation and rate of tax prevalent at that point would apply - The referred question is answered affirming that rate of tax shall be determined in accordance with Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 and the rate applicable at point of taxation shall be the rate for paying service tax under Works Contract Composition Scheme – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Service Tax – Removal of Overburden, Disposal by Way of Sale - Characterization as Service Vs Sale - Mining lessee authorized appellant to dispose of accumulated overburden from mining lease area on payment of applicable royalty and short term permit fee. Appellant admitted that overburden was provided free of cost - Appellant subsequently sold boulder collected from overburden to third parties and charged consideration. Department contended that removal and disposal of overburden by Appellant constituted rendering of taxable service to JSL classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service for which no amount was paid by JSL di... [Read more]

Service Tax – Removal of Overburden, Disposal by Way of Sale - Characterization as Service Vs Sale - Mining lessee authorized appellant to dispose of accumulated overburden from mining lease area on payment of applicable royalty and short term permit fee. Appellant admitted that overburden was provided free of cost - Appellant subsequently sold boulder collected from overburden to third parties and charged consideration. Department contended that removal and disposal of overburden by Appellant constituted rendering of taxable service to JSL classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service for which no amount was paid by JSL directly but consideration was amount received by Appellant from its customers on sale of boulders - Whether transaction of removing overburden constitutes sale or rendering of service, whether royalty and permit fees were subject to service tax, and whether extended period of limitation was validly invoked - HELD - Mere allocation of export quotas does not create vested rights. Transaction between JSL and Appellant is not one of sale as no consideration or price exists for sale of overburden. Invoices are accounting jugglery and camouflage to hide activity of service. Lifting and disposal of overburden by Appellant is rendering of service to JSL for which no amount was paid directly but consideration received by Appellant from its customers on sale of boulders represents amount which Appellant should have received from JSL for providing service - Under mining laws JSL was responsible for removal of overburden and if JSL had hired Appellant to do so, JSL would have paid service charges. There is no justification why Appellant would lift and remove overburden without charging any amount. This reflects understanding between parties to evade liability of service tax. No quarrel with proposition that to be classified as service there must be activity carried out by one person for another for consideration - Revenue correctly treats amount received by Appellant from its customers for further sale to them as consideration received by Appellant for rendering service to JSL for disposal of overburden. Amount charged by Appellant from its customers is actually amount which Appellant should have received from JSL for providing service and same should form gross amount as per Section 67 of Act - Service tax on royalty and permit fees for removal of overburden is payable as periodic charges made by business entities to Government are not exempted though assignment of right to use natural resources prior to 01.04.2016 are exempt from one time charges only - Appellant suppressed true nature of relationship and transaction between it and JSL. Invoices are nothing but camouflage. Ingredients specified under proviso to Section 73(1) are fully satisfied and extended period of limitation has been validly invoked – The appellant is liable to pay service tax on amount received against sale of overburden and service tax on royalty and permit fees paid to Government – The appeals are dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax – Refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit - Appellant is 100% export unit engaged in providing Business Support Services and Information Technology Software Services to overseas entities - Appellant availed Cenvat credit in respect of General Insurance Services, Works Contract Services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Lower authority partially rejected refund claims on ground of lack of nexus with exported output services - Whether refund of Cenvat credit can be denied when availment of credit was not challenged by Department under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, and whether General Insurance S... [Read more]

Service Tax – Refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit - Appellant is 100% export unit engaged in providing Business Support Services and Information Technology Software Services to overseas entities - Appellant availed Cenvat credit in respect of General Insurance Services, Works Contract Services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - Lower authority partially rejected refund claims on ground of lack of nexus with exported output services - Whether refund of Cenvat credit can be denied when availment of credit was not challenged by Department under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, and whether General Insurance Services, Works Contract Services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services are eligible input services - HELD - It is settled principle of law that availment of Cenvat credit, its utilisation and its refund are different aspects provided under Credit Rules. It is nowhere provided under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 that eligibility of Cenvat credit can be determined by Department at time of seeking refund by assessee. When availment of Cenvat credit was not challenged by Department in first place under Rule 14 of Credit Rules, refund of same cannot be denied to appellant now under Rule 5 of Credit Rules. Each of the input services on which refund has been denied falls under definition of input service and each has been held to be input service by many decisions of Tribunal and Courts. The denial of refund on ground of lack of nexus is not sustainable - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Inflation of the FOB value and availment of excess DEPB benefits - Recovery of excess DEPB benefit under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Deduction of Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF) and Currency Adjustment Factor (CAF) - Appellants are manufacturers and exporters of viscose yarn and cotton blends who availed export incentives under DEPB Scheme - During scrutiny Department found that freight actually paid to liners was higher than freight declared in shipping bills resulting in inflation of FOB value and consequential availment of excess DEPB benefits - Department alleged that Currency Adjustment Factor and B... [Read more]

Customs - Inflation of the FOB value and availment of excess DEPB benefits - Recovery of excess DEPB benefit under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Deduction of Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF) and Currency Adjustment Factor (CAF) - Appellants are manufacturers and exporters of viscose yarn and cotton blends who availed export incentives under DEPB Scheme - During scrutiny Department found that freight actually paid to liners was higher than freight declared in shipping bills resulting in inflation of FOB value and consequential availment of excess DEPB benefits - Department alleged that Currency Adjustment Factor and Bunker Adjustment Factor are required to be deducted from CIF value and recovery was sought under Section 28 of Customs Act 1962 - Whether recovery of alleged excess DEPB benefit under Section 28 is permissible - HELD - The Revenue proceeded on the premise that BAF and CAF, being charges recovered by the shipping lines towards variations in fuel costs and foreign exchange rates respectively, necessarily form part of freight and, therefore, have to be deducted from the CIF value along with insurance for determining the FOB value for DEPB purposes - The controversy is directly covered by decision of this Tribunal in Cheran Spinners Ltd. wherein on identical issue concerning deduction of CAF and BAF for determination of FOB value and recovery of alleged excess DEPB benefit under Section 28 it was held that recovery under Section 28 was not permissible - Customs Authorities do not have jurisdiction to reduce excess credit taken as DGFT authorities have proper jurisdiction. DEPB credit is not duty and same cannot be realised under Section 28. Power to recover DEPB credit wrongly availed by exporter is vested in DGFT - The demand in question arises from allegation that exporter obtained DEPB credit in excess of entitlement on account of incorrect determination of FOB value and nature of alleged liability cannot be altered by describing DEPB as customs duty exemption. The nature of the alleged liability cannot be altered merely by describing DEPB as a customs duty exemption - Once basis of demand under Section 28 fails, consequential demand of interest and penalties cannot survive – The impugned orders confirming recovery are set aside – The appeals are allowed [Read less]

Customs/DGFT - Retrospective withdrawal of Service Exports from India Scheme benefits - Vested rights and retrospective amendments - Petitioner engaged in providing maritime support services including towing covered under Foreign Trade Policy derived benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme under Public Notice 3/2015-20 - Petitioner made exports and earned foreign exchange during financial year 2019-20 believing scheme would continue - By Notification dated 31.03.2020 FTP 2015-20 was extended till 31.03.2021 with service categories and reward rates for FY 2019-20 to be notified in Appendix 3X - By Notification date... [Read more]

Customs/DGFT - Retrospective withdrawal of Service Exports from India Scheme benefits - Vested rights and retrospective amendments - Petitioner engaged in providing maritime support services including towing covered under Foreign Trade Policy derived benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme under Public Notice 3/2015-20 - Petitioner made exports and earned foreign exchange during financial year 2019-20 believing scheme would continue - By Notification dated 31.03.2020 FTP 2015-20 was extended till 31.03.2021 with service categories and reward rates for FY 2019-20 to be notified in Appendix 3X - By Notification dated 23.09.2021 issued after one and half years Appendix 3X was notified with reduced rates and denial of benefits under Appendix 3E for FY 2019-20 - Whether impugned Notifications dated 31.03.2020 and 23.09.2021 can be given retrospective effect to deny or withdraw SEIS benefits already accrued for financial year 2019-20 when services were rendered and foreign exchange earned prior to notifications - HELD - Although Government has power to withdraw scheme under Section 5 of Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act question is whether same could have been done retrospectively – The Section 5 of Act does not empower Government to make amendments with retrospective effect thereby taking away rights already accrued in favour of exporters under scheme. Once scheme remained in operation and was amended from time to time giving rise to claims of beneficiary vested rights cannot be taken away retrospectively - Where vested right has accrued in favour of beneficiaries who achieved target stipulated in scheme and thereby became eligible for grant of duty credit entitlement that cannot be snatched from such persons by making amendment retrospectively – Where all exports were made during FY 2019-20 and foreign exchange was earned during same period beneficiary has vested right to claim accrued benefits under scheme as it existed at time of export. Petitioner prevented from filing applications for SEIS benefits for FY 2019-20 because department applied Notification dated 23.09.2021 retrospectively. Insertion of Para 3.08 and 3.08(c) in Appendix 3E resulted in retrospective denial of accrued SEIS benefits for services rendered during FY 2019-2020 - The impugned Notifications dated 23.09.2021 and 31.03.2020 shall become effective from date they were issued and their retrospective effect is quashed. Respondents directed to process applications filed for SEIS benefits and pay all benefits accruing till issuance of impugned notifications – The petition is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme - Rejection of declaration - Pending investigation - Appellant filed declaration in Form VCES-1 on 04.10.2013 declaring tax dues for period December 2008 to December 2012 and remitted entire Service Tax dues – Rejection of declaration on ground that inquiry investigation was initiated and pending as on 01.03.2013 in response to summons dated 18.09.2012 - Whether rejection of VCES declaration by Designated Authority is correct in law where time limit prescribed by Board for rejecting declaration has lapsed - HELD - Section 106(2) of Finance Act 2013 provides that whe... [Read more]

Service Tax - Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme - Rejection of declaration - Pending investigation - Appellant filed declaration in Form VCES-1 on 04.10.2013 declaring tax dues for period December 2008 to December 2012 and remitted entire Service Tax dues – Rejection of declaration on ground that inquiry investigation was initiated and pending as on 01.03.2013 in response to summons dated 18.09.2012 - Whether rejection of VCES declaration by Designated Authority is correct in law where time limit prescribed by Board for rejecting declaration has lapsed - HELD - Section 106(2) of Finance Act 2013 provides that where declaration is made by person against whom inquiry or investigation in respect of Service Tax has been initiated and such inquiry investigation or audit is pending as on first day of March 2013 then designated authority shall by order reject such declaration - CBEC Circular 08.08.2013 stipulated that notice proposing to reject declaration must be served within 30 days of date of filing declaration. The summons dated 18.09.2012 was issued in routine manner and could aptly be termed as roving in nature and could never partake character of investigation within meaning of Section 106(2) - When special statutory enactment prescribes time limit same is applicable to Department. If law specifies exactly how and when officer must act, they cannot create their own alternative timelines. Even Section 111 of Finance Act 2013 mandates that where Commissioner has reason to believe declaration was substantially false, he must serve notice within period of one year from date of declaration which has not been done. Moreover, even Section 111 is not case of Revenue that any such notice has been issued – The rejection is unjustified and set aside with direction to Designated Authority to issue Discharge Certificate as mandated in Form VCES-3 – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Fraud and Suppression of Facts - Allegation must be in Notice – Show Cause Notice under Section 74 alleging fraud or concealment of facts but SCN contains only bland statement without specifying how fraud was inferred or how concealment was detected – While the extended period of limitation fell on 28.02.2025, SCN issued on 13.06.2025 - Whether Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 alleging fraud or suppression of facts without detailed specifications in notice itself is valid when notice is barred by limitation under Section 73, and whether allegations of fraud and concealm... [Read more]

GST - Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Fraud and Suppression of Facts - Allegation must be in Notice – Show Cause Notice under Section 74 alleging fraud or concealment of facts but SCN contains only bland statement without specifying how fraud was inferred or how concealment was detected – While the extended period of limitation fell on 28.02.2025, SCN issued on 13.06.2025 - Whether Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 alleging fraud or suppression of facts without detailed specifications in notice itself is valid when notice is barred by limitation under Section 73, and whether allegations of fraud and concealment must be contained in notice or can be supplemented by counter affidavit - HELD - When authority issues notice or order, requirements to make notice or order valid should be contained in such notice or order and cannot be supplanted by counter affidavit in Court where notice or order is alleged to be invalid for reason of non-application of mind. SCN is beyond the time of three years provided under Section 73 for determination of tax short paid for any reason other than fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts - Notice can only be issued under Section 74 when there is fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts alleged and allegation has to come out from notice itself. Bare reading of notice indicates that but for bland statement of fraud or concealment of facts, nothing is stated as to how fraud was inferred or concealment of facts was detected - What is required for extended time to be applied are allegations which lead to inference of fraud or concealment as attempted by assessee resulting in suppression of facts, should emanate from notice itself. It cannot be mechanical use of words fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts without listing out aspects which persuades assessing officer to conclude that there has been employed either of these surreptitious devices by assessee - Extended period of limitation under Section 74 cannot be initiated without specific, detailed and clear allegations of fraud or suppression of facts in notice itself – The Show Cause Notice and the impugned order of High Court is set aside. Respondent-State is directed to desist from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of SCN. No further proceedings can be initiated as SCN is barred by limitation under Section 73 and the requirements to invoke Section 74 are not satisfied – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Petition challenging adjudication order on ground that order is unreasoned and replies filed during assessment proceedings were not considered. Petitioner alleged mismatches in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and discrepancies in GSTR-9 without adequate reconciliation – HELD - The adjudicating authority had applied mind to dispute examined issues within scope of show cause notice afforded hearing and recorded reason that reconciliation had not been made. No hard and fast rule can determine what constitutes sufficient reasons and individual facts variable responses and expressions used by adjudicator determine extent of reasoni... [Read more]

GST - Petition challenging adjudication order on ground that order is unreasoned and replies filed during assessment proceedings were not considered. Petitioner alleged mismatches in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and discrepancies in GSTR-9 without adequate reconciliation – HELD - The adjudicating authority had applied mind to dispute examined issues within scope of show cause notice afforded hearing and recorded reason that reconciliation had not been made. No hard and fast rule can determine what constitutes sufficient reasons and individual facts variable responses and expressions used by adjudicator determine extent of reasoning - on a plain reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Adjudication Authority had applied its mind to the dispute in issue, and it has examined within the scope of show cause notice, the reply furnished by the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that the order is completely non-speaking - the assessee was required to show cause on specific issues of difference in GSTR -2A and GSTR- 3B, as also discrepancy noticed in GSTR- 9. Therefore, the burden was on the petitioner to explain those discrepancies by not only filing a reconciliation chart but also explaining facts to establish that the entries in the statutory forms considered by the Adjudicating Authority did not indicate such discrepancy. Unless, that burden was discharged by the assessee, the Adjudicating Authority may not have been burdened to offer any other consideration - The writ petition is disposed of with observation that petitioner's appeal against impugned order may be entertained on own merits [Read less]

GST – Insolvent Supplier, Applicability of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. case - Eligibility to Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Insolvency Proceedings - Petitioner availed Input Tax Credit on basis that supplier had already paid tax. Supplier subsequently became insolvent and insolvency proceedings were initiated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Department failed to claim tax against supplier in insolvency proceedings and since tax liability remained unpaid, demand was imposed on Petitioner under Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 - Whether Petitioner can be held liable for ... [Read more]

GST – Insolvent Supplier, Applicability of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. case - Eligibility to Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Insolvency Proceedings - Petitioner availed Input Tax Credit on basis that supplier had already paid tax. Supplier subsequently became insolvent and insolvency proceedings were initiated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Department failed to claim tax against supplier in insolvency proceedings and since tax liability remained unpaid, demand was imposed on Petitioner under Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 - Whether Petitioner can be held liable for tax unpaid by defaulting supplier - HELD – The Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act is mandatory condition subject to Section 41 requiring that tax charged in respect of supply be actually paid to Government and unless same is paid, availing of ITC is prohibited – The purchasing dealer cannot be held entitled to claim Input Tax Credit unless all conditions up to clause (c) are satisfied. Burden lies on dealer to establish entitlement up to clause (c) as per Section 155 of CGST Act. Purchaser without ascertaining whether supplier paid tax should not have availed ITC and recovery of same becomes permissible once availed without supplier payment – The judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd., relied upon by learned counsel, deals with the consequences flowing from an approved resolution plan under the IBC and does not dispense with the statutory condition governing the entitlement to Input Tax Credit of purchasing dealer under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act – The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Fraudulent claim of Certificate of Origin and denial of duty exemption benefit - Origin of goods imported under preferential trade agreement - Appellant imported Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils and claimed exemption under Notification 46/2011-CUS based on Certificate of Origin purportedly issued by Malaysian supplier - Department found through inquiry with Malaysian Ministry that supplier company was not registered in their ePCO system and had never received CoO application from supplier - Whether exemption benefit can be denied based on non-verification of CoO from issuing authority and retracted statements - ... [Read more]

Customs - Fraudulent claim of Certificate of Origin and denial of duty exemption benefit - Origin of goods imported under preferential trade agreement - Appellant imported Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils and claimed exemption under Notification 46/2011-CUS based on Certificate of Origin purportedly issued by Malaysian supplier - Department found through inquiry with Malaysian Ministry that supplier company was not registered in their ePCO system and had never received CoO application from supplier - Whether exemption benefit can be denied based on non-verification of CoO from issuing authority and retracted statements - HELD - While the statutory framework under AIFTA and Customs Tariff Rules requires retroactive checks to be done in time bound manner with reasons, the Department must conduct specific verification of CoO with issuing authority from exporting country rather than making assumptions based on general emails regarding other certificates or general statements about supplier's business activities. The testimonial evidence comprising retracted statements of proprietor made two years after initial statement requires proper examination-in-chief and cross-examination as mandated by statute and established judicial precedent before being relied upon. Where statements are recorded during investigation but provided only with Show Cause Notice then retraction within reasonable time of communication of such statements is valid. The requisite verification of specific CoO for goods imported by appellant has not been conducted or completed as per prescribed procedures - Documentary evidence of CoO issued by Government Authority must be preferred over presumptions and assumptions regarding capacity or business activities of exporting country or supplier. When documentary evidence in form of valid CoO certified by Government authorities is produced importer is entitled to preferential treatment and burden cannot be placed on importer to prove circumstances under which certificate was issued - The Department failed to follow prescribed statutory verification procedure before making allegations of fraudulent CoO and consequent denial of exemption benefit. General email pertaining to check of other 87 CoOs cannot be generalized to assume that appellant's three specific CoOs are also non-authentic. Without statutory verification specific to appellant's certificates benefit of Notification cannot be denied – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax liability on interchange fees earned by issuing banks in Credit card services transaction - Appellant is issuing bank earning interchange fees from credit card transactions - Appellant contended that interchange fee is not liable to service tax as no service is rendered to merchant establishment or acquiring bank in respect of such fee and essential ingredients of service provider recipient relationship and contractual nexus are absent - Department alleged that interchange fee is consideration for credit card services provided to cardholders and is liable to service tax under Section 65(33a) and 65(105)(zzzw) o... [Read more]

Service Tax liability on interchange fees earned by issuing banks in Credit card services transaction - Appellant is issuing bank earning interchange fees from credit card transactions - Appellant contended that interchange fee is not liable to service tax as no service is rendered to merchant establishment or acquiring bank in respect of such fee and essential ingredients of service provider recipient relationship and contractual nexus are absent - Department alleged that interchange fee is consideration for credit card services provided to cardholders and is liable to service tax under Section 65(33a) and 65(105)(zzzw) of Finance Act 1994 - Whether interchange fee earned by issuing bank constitutes taxable service under credit card services entry - HELD - The issue has been conclusively decided by the Tribunal in case of ABN Amro Bank wherein it was held that amount received by issuing bank does not qualify as credit card services - The definition of credit card services under Section 65(33a) clause three requires service to be in relation to settlement of any amount transacted through card. Admittedly the issuing bank is not engaged in settlement of amount as settlement is done by acquiring bank - Issuing bank is not the settlement agency and acts only as issuing bank verifying and facilitating transaction with cardholder. Acquiring bank is liable to pay service tax on entire Merchant Discount Rate. Where acquiring bank has discharged service tax liability on amount in question no service tax is payable by issuing bank. When service tax has already been paid by one party on transaction no double taxation can result from similar levy on another party - The Tribunal's decision in case of Citi Bank N.A. has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on identical issue. Interchange fee amount does not fall within definition of taxable service under credit card services entry as issuing bank does not undertake settlement function. Demand for service tax on interchange fees is not sustainable - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

GST – Appeal – Exclusion of time spent in pursuing Rectification Application - Period of Limitation for Filing Appeal - Appellate Authority rejected appeal by impugned order solely on ground of limitation. Appellate Authority computed limitation period from date of original order instead of from date of rectification order - Whether period of limitation for filing appeal against order rejecting refund claim must be computed from date of original adjudication order or from date of order deciding rectification application filed within statutory period - HELD - When rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST ... [Read more]

GST – Appeal – Exclusion of time spent in pursuing Rectification Application - Period of Limitation for Filing Appeal - Appellate Authority rejected appeal by impugned order solely on ground of limitation. Appellate Authority computed limitation period from date of original order instead of from date of rectification order - Whether period of limitation for filing appeal against order rejecting refund claim must be computed from date of original adjudication order or from date of order deciding rectification application filed within statutory period - HELD - When rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 is filed within prescribed statutory period of 90 days, Appellate Authority was required to examine appeal and decide on merits instead of rejecting on ground of limitation by computing period from date of original order. Filing and disposal of rectification application was vital aspect which would directly impact calculation of limitation period provided under Section 107 of CGST Act - Where rectification application has been filed within prescribed period and has been duly considered and decided by Adjudicating Authority by reasoned order, appeal against such order must be filed within prescribed period calculated from date of rectification order not from original adjudication order. If appeal was found to be barred by limitation even when period computed from rectification order, the Appellate Authority would be entitled to reject on that ground. However, it is not permissible to reject appeal by computing period from original adjudication order when rectification application filed within prescribed period has been duly considered and decided. Appellate Authority was required to examine details filled in by petitioner in GST APL-01 form before rejecting appeal on ground of delay – The impugned orders passed by Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside. Matters are remanded to Appellate Authority which shall decide appeals afresh on merits and in accordance with law – The petitions are allowed [Read less]

UP VAT Act, 2008 - Classification of mobile battery and charger - Applicability of concessional tax rate – Revisionist-assessee was engaged in trading of mobile phone accessories including mobile batteries chargers power banks and data cards during assessment year 2015-16 - Assessing Authority levied tax at 12% rate treating goods as unclassified items - Revisionist contended that mobile battery and charger are parts of mobile phone and fall under Entry No.28 of Schedule II-B of UP VAT Act 2008 and are liable to tax at rate of 5% - Whether mobile battery and charger sold individually without being sold as composite packa... [Read more]

UP VAT Act, 2008 - Classification of mobile battery and charger - Applicability of concessional tax rate – Revisionist-assessee was engaged in trading of mobile phone accessories including mobile batteries chargers power banks and data cards during assessment year 2015-16 - Assessing Authority levied tax at 12% rate treating goods as unclassified items - Revisionist contended that mobile battery and charger are parts of mobile phone and fall under Entry No.28 of Schedule II-B of UP VAT Act 2008 and are liable to tax at rate of 5% - Whether mobile battery and charger sold individually without being sold as composite package with mobile phone sets qualify for concessional tax rate under Schedule II-B Entry No.28 - HELD - The items sold by the revisionists were individual items, namely, data cards, mobile phone accessories, battery chargers, and power banks, and not mobile phones sold along with batteries and mobile chargers as a composite package - The benefit of concessional tax rate of 5% applicable to mobile phone sets sold along with batteries and chargers is available only when such goods are sold as composite package comprising mobile phone together with battery and charger and value of such sets does not exceed prescribed limit – The items sold by Revisionist are not covered under any specific entry of Schedule and are rightly treated as unclassified items attracting residuary tax rate. The judgment in Samsung Electronics case relied upon by Revisionist is of no assistance as goods in that case were sold as composite package containing mobile phone battery and charger whereas in present case Revisionist admitted that items were sold separately. No case has been made out by Revisionist to establish entitlement to concessional tax rate applicable only to composite packages – The revisions are dismissed [Read less]

Customs/DGFT - Validity of export prohibition notification for sugar - Vested Rights and Legitimate Expectation - Petitioners are merchant exporters who had entered into contracts with overseas buyers for export of sugar and received advance payments prior to issuance of Impugned Notification - DGFT issued Impugned Notification dated 13th May 2026 changing export policy of sugar from restricted to prohibited with immediate effect until 30th September 2026 except for certain specified exceptions. Petitioners challenged Notification contending that it violates their legitimate expectations and vested rights created by earlie... [Read more]

Customs/DGFT - Validity of export prohibition notification for sugar - Vested Rights and Legitimate Expectation - Petitioners are merchant exporters who had entered into contracts with overseas buyers for export of sugar and received advance payments prior to issuance of Impugned Notification - DGFT issued Impugned Notification dated 13th May 2026 changing export policy of sugar from restricted to prohibited with immediate effect until 30th September 2026 except for certain specified exceptions. Petitioners challenged Notification contending that it violates their legitimate expectations and vested rights created by earlier Notifications, violates Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution, causes irreparable prejudice and constitutes arbitrary action - Whether issuance of export prohibition notification in respect of sugar is valid and whether it violates legitimate expectations, vested rights or constitutional guarantees of Petitioners - HELD - Mere allocation of export quotas under earlier Notifications does not create any vested or accrued rights in favour of exporters. Policy decision to prohibit export was taken in larger public interest after due deliberation by Committee of Ministers considering that sugar is essential commodity and domestic production had declined significantly from estimated 343 lakh metric tonnes to actual 308 lakh metric tonnes with closing stock likely to fall below safe level of 40 lakh metric tonnes - Legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right more particularly in context of well-reasoned policy decision taken in public interest. Petitioners failed to comply with statutory requirements including holding Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit before issuance of Notification as mandated by paragraph 1.05(b) of Foreign Trade Policy 2023. Earlier relaxation granted in 2022-23 season cannot constitute binding precedent for subsequent seasons as each sugar season has different market conditions - Earlier Notifications dated 14th November 2025 and 13th February 2026 were issued under Essential Commodities Act for quota allocation whereas Impugned Notification was issued under Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act dealing with export policy and both operate under different statutes for distinct purposes. Impugned Notification does not operate retrospectively and contains prospective language – The exceptions in Notification for consignments already in physical export pipeline must be read in context of Section 51 of Customs Act requiring actual permission from proper officer for clearance and loading of goods for exportation and shipping bills filed. Petitioners have not fulfilled conditions required under Section 51 of Customs Act such as Let Export Order or evidence of shipment commencement before Notification - Doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot override policy decisions taken in accordance with law and in public interest unless policy is shown to be irrational, perverse or actuated by mala fides - Constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and permits reasonable restrictions in public interest. Protection of domestic sugar supply and pricing at relevant time appears to be need of hour – Petitioners remain at liberty to sell retained sugar quantities in domestic market subject to compliance with Sugar Control Orders and applicable laws - The writ petitions are dismissed [Read less]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Applicability of e-invoicing Notification No. 13/2020-Central Tax dated 31 March 2020 to coaching services through registered third party recipients - Determination of recipient and place of supply - Applicant is educational institution providing commercial coaching for competitive exams receiving fees from parents guardians or business enterprises some of whom are GST registered - Applicant seeks ruling on whether e-invoicing notification applies when registered third party furnishes GSTIN for coaching services rendered to student beneficiaries and whether supplier must verify recipient's ITC eligi... [Read more]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Applicability of e-invoicing Notification No. 13/2020-Central Tax dated 31 March 2020 to coaching services through registered third party recipients - Determination of recipient and place of supply - Applicant is educational institution providing commercial coaching for competitive exams receiving fees from parents guardians or business enterprises some of whom are GST registered - Applicant seeks ruling on whether e-invoicing notification applies when registered third party furnishes GSTIN for coaching services rendered to student beneficiaries and whether supplier must verify recipient's ITC eligibility - HELD - Notification No.13/2020 dated 21.03.2020 read with Rule 48(4) CGST Rules requires e-invoice generation for registered persons whose turnover exceeds prescribed threshold in respect of supplies to registered recipients. Applicability of notification is confined to genuine business-to-business supplies where recipient is person liable to pay consideration under contract of supply. Identity of recipient under Section 2(93)(a) CGST Act is determinative of place of supply and must be identified in relation to actual supply - Where coaching service is rendered to and consumed by student enrolled student integral to recipient identity and cannot be divorced therefrom. Liability to pay consideration must flow from being party to contract of supply not merely from being source of funds. Mere furnishing of GSTIN by third party does not transform substance of business-to-consumer educational supply into B2B supply - E-invoicing obligation attaches only to genuine B2B supplies made to registered recipient where person furnishing GSTIN is person liable to pay consideration under contract – The supplier's obligation under notification operates independently of recipient's credit eligibility. However applicant's own acknowledgement that coaching fees appear personal in nature engages bar under Section 17(5)(g) CGST Act. No finding warranted that endorses characterizing personal educational expenditure as B2B supply. Ruling confined to facts as pleaded – The e-invoicing applies to genuine B2B supplies where recipient is contractually liable person and determination of each transaction requires factual examination – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Demand against Deceased Taxpayer - Lack of Jurisdiction - Petitioner is legal heir (wife) of deceased taxpayer - Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) along with FORM DRC-01 was issued on deceased taxpayer seeking recovery of tax liability. Order along with FORM DRC-07 was passed confirming demands in absence of reply from deceased taxpayer - Whether notice and order can be issued and passed against deceased taxpayer and whether such proceedings are without jurisdiction and nullity in eye of law - HELD – The notice under Section 74(1) and order under Section 74(9) of GGST Act can be issued or passed against person ... [Read more]

GST - Demand against Deceased Taxpayer - Lack of Jurisdiction - Petitioner is legal heir (wife) of deceased taxpayer - Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) along with FORM DRC-01 was issued on deceased taxpayer seeking recovery of tax liability. Order along with FORM DRC-07 was passed confirming demands in absence of reply from deceased taxpayer - Whether notice and order can be issued and passed against deceased taxpayer and whether such proceedings are without jurisdiction and nullity in eye of law - HELD – The notice under Section 74(1) and order under Section 74(9) of GGST Act can be issued or passed against person chargeable with tax. Definition of person under Section 2(84) of GGST Act includes individual in case of proprietorship concern and not legal heirs of such individual. Proprietor taxpayer passed away on 29.07.2020 whereas impugned notice was issued only on 26.06.2025 and order was passed only on 04.12.2025. Nil dues were determined at time of cancellation of registration of deceased proprietor. In view thereof neither notice under Section 74(1) nor order under Section 74(9) can be issued or passed against deceased person – The impugned proceedings against deceased taxpayer are without jurisdiction and nullity in eye of law. Petitioner is housewife not connected with husband's business and GSTIN was cancelled in 2021 with nil demands. Authority issued notice and order to dead person being unaware about death of taxpayer. Impugned notice and order are passed against person who is no longer alive and hence cannot be served or heard – The impugned notice and impugned order are quashed and set aside. It is open for respondents to initiate proper proceedings in accordance with law against Petitioner (legal heir) for outstanding demand if any, following proper procedure – The petition is allowed [Read less]