More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

GST - Export of Services vs. Intermediary Services, Refund of IGST paid on export of services – Petitioner provided education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities and claimed refund of IGST paid on export of services. The respondents rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 – HELD - Where an Indian entity renders educational consultancy/marketing services to foreign universities, raises invoices upon such foreign universities, and receives consideration from them, such services would not constit... [Read more]

GST - Export of Services vs. Intermediary Services, Refund of IGST paid on export of services – Petitioner provided education consultancy, marketing and recruitment support services to foreign universities and claimed refund of IGST paid on export of services. The respondents rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017 – HELD - Where an Indian entity renders educational consultancy/marketing services to foreign universities, raises invoices upon such foreign universities, and receives consideration from them, such services would not constitute intermediary services merely because students in India are incidentally assisted in the process. The determinative factor is the contractual recipient of the service, the person liable to pay consideration, and the nature of the service supplied, not the place where the incidental beneficiary may be located. In the present case, the petitioner does not charge students for its services, has no authority to bind the foreign university, cannot guarantee admission, and receives consideration from the foreign university - The issue is no longer res integra and stands covered by the judgments in Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited and the Bombay High Court in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim by treating the petitioner as an intermediary cannot be sustained and set aside - The refund shall be processed and granted to the petitioner along with applicable statutory interest – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Amalgamation of companies, Proceedings against non-existent entity – Challenge to proceedings against subsidiary company Capital First Limited (CFL), which had previously amalgamated with the petitioner pursuant to an order of the NCLT. The Respondents initiated various proceedings including audit, show cause notices, and demand orders against CFL, despite the fact that CFL had ceased to exist after the amalgamation - Whether the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the Respondents against the non-existent entity CFL are valid in law - HELD - The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited case held that whe... [Read more]

GST - Amalgamation of companies, Proceedings against non-existent entity – Challenge to proceedings against subsidiary company Capital First Limited (CFL), which had previously amalgamated with the petitioner pursuant to an order of the NCLT. The Respondents initiated various proceedings including audit, show cause notices, and demand orders against CFL, despite the fact that CFL had ceased to exist after the amalgamation - Whether the proceedings initiated and orders passed by the Respondents against the non-existent entity CFL are valid in law - HELD - The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Limited case held that when a company is amalgamated pursuant to an NCLT order, the amalgamating company ceases to exist. Accordingly, any proceedings initiated against the non-existent entity are void ab initio - The respondents were fully aware that the CFL was no longer in existence, however, completely discarding the said position on a misplaced reliance on the provisions of Section 87 of the CGST Act - The Respondents' reliance on Section 87 of the CGST Act, which provides for treatment of transactions between merging companies, is applicable to facts of the case. The Section 87 is only applicable for the intervening period between the effective date of merger and the date of the merger order, and does not empower the authorities to initiate proceedings against a non-existent entity post-merger - The impugned orders passed against the non-existent entity are quashed and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Place of Removal and Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Outward Transportation - The respondent, engaged in manufacturing industrial cables, cleared goods on ex-factory basis as well as on FOR destination basis, including freight and insurance charges in the transaction value and discharging Central Excise Duty on such value. The Department denied CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid on GTA Services used for outward transportation, contending that the place of removal was the factory gate – HELD - Where the goods were sold on FOR destination basis, freight and insurance were included in the assessable valu... [Read more]

Central Excise - Place of Removal and Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Outward Transportation - The respondent, engaged in manufacturing industrial cables, cleared goods on ex-factory basis as well as on FOR destination basis, including freight and insurance charges in the transaction value and discharging Central Excise Duty on such value. The Department denied CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid on GTA Services used for outward transportation, contending that the place of removal was the factory gate – HELD - Where the goods were sold on FOR destination basis, freight and insurance were included in the assessable value on which Central Excise Duty was paid, and the risk/title remained with the respondent till delivery at the buyer's premises, the buyer's premises would constitute the "place of removal" for the purpose of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the Service Tax paid on GTA Services used for outward transportation up to the buyer's premises is an admissible CENVAT Credit. The Department's denial of credit was not legally sustainable as it would amount to adopting inconsistent positions - one for valuation and another for credit - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the CENVAT Credit on outward transportation is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise - Admissibility of CENVAT credit on outward transportation service, outward courier service, and insurance service – HELD - The issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. The Ramco Cements Limited - In a case where the clearances of goods are on a FOR (Free on Road) contract basis, the place of removal needs to be ascertained by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco Ltd. and Roofit Industries Ltd., the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., and the CBEC Circular dated 08.06.2018. If the buyer's premise... [Read more]

Central Excise - Admissibility of CENVAT credit on outward transportation service, outward courier service, and insurance service – HELD - The issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. The Ramco Cements Limited - In a case where the clearances of goods are on a FOR (Free on Road) contract basis, the place of removal needs to be ascertained by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco Ltd. and Roofit Industries Ltd., the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., and the CBEC Circular dated 08.06.2018. If the buyer's premises is found to be the place of removal, the appellant would be eligible for CENVAT credit on the outward transportation service - The CENVAT credit on outward courier service is also admissible, as it is an input service used by the appellant directly or indirectly in the manufacture of the goods - The appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on the outward transportation service, outward courier service, and insurance service, as the buyer's premises is the place of removal - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Taxability of Corporate Guarantee, Validity of amendment to Rule 28(2) of CGST Rules, 2017, Valuation of supply of corporate guarantee - Petitioner executed corporate guarantees for securing loans taken by its subsidiary companies from banks, without receiving any consideration for the same - Authorities initiated proceedings against the Petitioner for non-payment of GST on the corporate guarantees - Whether the activity of providing corporate guarantee to a group company without any consideration is a taxable supply under the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD – While a bank guarantee is given by a bank on behalf of the cust... [Read more]

GST - Taxability of Corporate Guarantee, Validity of amendment to Rule 28(2) of CGST Rules, 2017, Valuation of supply of corporate guarantee - Petitioner executed corporate guarantees for securing loans taken by its subsidiary companies from banks, without receiving any consideration for the same - Authorities initiated proceedings against the Petitioner for non-payment of GST on the corporate guarantees - Whether the activity of providing corporate guarantee to a group company without any consideration is a taxable supply under the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD – While a bank guarantee is given by a bank on behalf of the customer to the beneficiary bank guaranteeing the payment in case of default by customer, the Corporate Guarantee is a guarantee given by the corporate to cover their own exposure or exposure of some other related entity to their bank, and is in the nature of a contingent contract which becomes enforceable only at the instance of the bank/financial institution in the event of a default - The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise vs. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. is squarely applicable, wherein it was held that issuance of corporate guarantee to group companies without consideration would not be a taxable service - For an activity to be taxable under the GST Act, there must be a 'provider' and a flow of 'consideration' for the rendering of the service. In the absence of either of these elements, the activity cannot be treated as a taxable supply - In the present case, the corporate guarantees were executed by the petitioner without receiving any consideration, and therefore, the same cannot be considered as a taxable supply of service. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner is in the business of corporate guarantee on a regular basis - The show cause notice and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are quashed and set aside. However, the prayer challenging the Constitutional validity of the amendment to Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules is rejected – The writ petition is partly allowed [Read less]

GST - Parallel Proceedings – Challenge to the action of Central GST authorities in issuing a Show Cause Notice contending that the State GST Authority had already initiated inquiry in respect of the same subject matter – Whether the Show Cause Notice are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr., laid down binding directions regarding the scope of 'initiation of proceedings', 'subject-matter', and the 'inter-relationship between Central and State GST Authorities' - Once one authority (Central or State) has ini... [Read more]

GST - Parallel Proceedings – Challenge to the action of Central GST authorities in issuing a Show Cause Notice contending that the State GST Authority had already initiated inquiry in respect of the same subject matter – Whether the Show Cause Notice are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East & Anr., laid down binding directions regarding the scope of 'initiation of proceedings', 'subject-matter', and the 'inter-relationship between Central and State GST Authorities' - Once one authority (Central or State) has initiated proceedings first in point of time, the other authority is barred from commencing parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. However, legitimate investigative steps by either authority may continue so long as they do not result in parallel adjudication - Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Central Authority, file the response to the Show Cause Notice, and raise the contentions in terms of the Armour Security judgment. The State Authority is directed to communicate with the Central Authority to verify the claim of the assessee, and both authorities were directed to coordinate to ensure that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise - Valuation of excisable goods manufactured by job worker - Whether the value of the excisable goods has to be determined in accordance with Rule 10A(iii) read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 – HELD – The Rule 8 will not apply in the present case as the finished products manufactured by the Appellant on job work basis were sent back to the principal-manufacturer and consumed by the principal-manufacturer for further manufacture of the final product. The lis regarding the nature of the particular transaction and its exigibility to excise ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Valuation of excisable goods manufactured by job worker - Whether the value of the excisable goods has to be determined in accordance with Rule 10A(iii) read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 – HELD – The Rule 8 will not apply in the present case as the finished products manufactured by the Appellant on job work basis were sent back to the principal-manufacturer and consumed by the principal-manufacturer for further manufacture of the final product. The lis regarding the nature of the particular transaction and its exigibility to excise duty had attained finality between the parties and there is no allegation or evidence that the present transactions were of a different nature - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Non-reversal of Cenvat credit on SAD component during transfer of inputs 'as such' from one unit to another - Appellant cleared certain imported inputs 'as such' from one of its factory units to another. While making such transfers, the appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit taken on CVD and education cess but not on the SAD component -Department issued notices invoking Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1994, for recovery of the duty along with interest and penalty - Whether the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4) for demanding the Cenvat credit taken on the SAD component was j... [Read more]

Central Excise - Non-reversal of Cenvat credit on SAD component during transfer of inputs 'as such' from one unit to another - Appellant cleared certain imported inputs 'as such' from one of its factory units to another. While making such transfers, the appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit taken on CVD and education cess but not on the SAD component -Department issued notices invoking Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1994, for recovery of the duty along with interest and penalty - Whether the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4) for demanding the Cenvat credit taken on the SAD component was justified, and whether the revenue neutrality argument put forth by the appellant was applicable in the instant case - HELD - The appellant had admitted that the reversal of the Cenvat credit on the SAD component was required, but due to the inadequate knowledge of its staff, it was not done. However, when the matter was brought to the appellant's notice during the Special Audit, the appellant refused to make the reversal, citing the lapse of the normal period of limitation under Section 11A(1) - The revenue neutrality argument put forth by the appellant was not applicable in the instant case, as the appellant had chosen not to make the payment or reversal after the normal period, which would have precluded it from availing the Cenvat credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CCR, 2004. The failure to acknowledge the transfer in the ER-1 return and the appellant's refusal to make the reversal after being pointed out by the department, along with the lapse of time, were indicative of the appellant's intention to evade the payment of duty, thus justifying the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4) - The orders of the lower authorities, confirming the demand along with interest and penalty is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise – Invoking of extended period of Limitation in classification dispute - Appellant cleared goods without payment of duty by wrongly classifying them and not declaring the manufacture and clearance in ER-1 returns - Department issued show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation - Whether the demand is barred by limitation – HELD - The Appellant had expressed its bonafide belief on the classification of the goods and the non-declaration in ER-1 returns cannot be considered as a conscious or deliberate withholding of information with an intent to evade payment of duty. Mere non-payment or non-dec... [Read more]

Central Excise – Invoking of extended period of Limitation in classification dispute - Appellant cleared goods without payment of duty by wrongly classifying them and not declaring the manufacture and clearance in ER-1 returns - Department issued show cause notice invoking extended period of limitation - Whether the demand is barred by limitation – HELD - The Appellant had expressed its bonafide belief on the classification of the goods and the non-declaration in ER-1 returns cannot be considered as a conscious or deliberate withholding of information with an intent to evade payment of duty. Mere non-payment or non-declaration does not amount to suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, required for invoking the extended period of limitation – Further, since audit of the appellant's records was conducted and the department had knowledge of the non-payment, the demand is barred by limitation even under the normal period of 1 year. The impugned order is set aside on this ground alone, without going into the merits of the classification dispute – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported goods - Appellant imported consignments of computer cabinet cases that were found to be old, used, and incomplete systems. The Customs authorities rejected the declared description and value, and re-determined the assessable value based on a Chartered engineer's report - Whether the authorities were justified in re-determining the value and description of the imported goods – HELD - The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the re-determination of the value. The Chartered Engineer's report did not have adequate supporting evidence to substan... [Read more]

Customs - Mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported goods - Appellant imported consignments of computer cabinet cases that were found to be old, used, and incomplete systems. The Customs authorities rejected the declared description and value, and re-determined the assessable value based on a Chartered engineer's report - Whether the authorities were justified in re-determining the value and description of the imported goods – HELD - The authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the re-determination of the value. The Chartered Engineer's report did not have adequate supporting evidence to substantiate the higher value of USD 25 per piece adopted by the authorities. Additionally, the imported goods, consisting of only a computer cabinet case with a motherboard and fan, cannot be classified as an incomplete or unfinished computer system, as they lacked the essential component of a Central Processing Unit (CPU). In the absence of any technical opinion placed on record by the revenue, the importer's declaration could not be brushed aside - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Classification of imported goods as incomplete computer systems - The customs authorities classified the imported goods as incomplete or unfinished computer systems, based on the Chartered Engineer's report - Whether the imported goods, consisting of computer cabinet cases with motherboard and fan, can be classified as incomplete or unfinished computer systems – HELD - The authorities did not record any reasons for concluding that the imported goods were incomplete or unfinished computer systems. The Chartered Engineer had used the terms "computer cabinet cases" and "bare bone systems" interchangeably, without any clear technical opinion. The computer cabinet case with just a motherboard and a fan cannot be considered an unfinished or incomplete system, as it lacks the essential component of a Central Processing Unit (CPU). Without any technical evidence placed on record by the revenue, the importer's declaration of the goods could not be rejected. [Read less]

Customs - Reassessment of Customs duty, Refund claim - The appellant imported gold jewellery, self-assessed the duty, and subsequently realized that the goods were eligible for exemption from CVD under a notification. The appellant sought reassessment and filed a refund claim, which were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that reassessment was not permissible without modification of the assessment order in appeal - Whether the appellant is entitled to reassessment and refund in the absence of a formal assessment order being modified in appeal – HELD - The appellant has shown due diligence and good faith in p... [Read more]

Customs - Reassessment of Customs duty, Refund claim - The appellant imported gold jewellery, self-assessed the duty, and subsequently realized that the goods were eligible for exemption from CVD under a notification. The appellant sought reassessment and filed a refund claim, which were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that reassessment was not permissible without modification of the assessment order in appeal - Whether the appellant is entitled to reassessment and refund in the absence of a formal assessment order being modified in appeal – HELD - The appellant has shown due diligence and good faith in pursuing his grievance, though the department did not find the procedure adopted to be as per law - The impugned order is set aside and the authorities are directed to treat the appellant's request for reassessment as an application for amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authorities should avoid taking a hyper-technical view and act as a trade facilitator. The excess duty paid by the appellant cannot be retained by the department, and the appellant is entitled to the consequential relief - The matter is remanded to the original authority for re-assessment and consideration of the refund claim in accordance with the law - The appeal is allowed by remand [Read less]

Service Tax liability for services received from goods transport operators – Appellant received services from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998 - Department issued a notice proposing to demand service tax on the value of these taxable services. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that there was no requirement to file returns or pay tax during the relevant time period. Consequent to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2003, the appellant filed a return and paid the service tax under protest. The Department then issued another SCN demanding the service tax and interest/pen... [Read more]

Service Tax liability for services received from goods transport operators – Appellant received services from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998 - Department issued a notice proposing to demand service tax on the value of these taxable services. The appellant contested the demand, arguing that there was no requirement to file returns or pay tax during the relevant time period. Consequent to the amendments made by the Finance Act 2003, the appellant filed a return and paid the service tax under protest. The Department then issued another SCN demanding the service tax and interest/penalties - Whether the confirmation of the service tax demand along with interest and penalties on the appellant is legally tenable – HELD - The demand of service tax is legally valid as the Supreme Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Cements case had upheld the amendments made by the Finance Act 2000 and 2003 which retrospectively made the service recipients liable to pay service tax on the services received from goods transport operators during the period from 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998 – Further, since the Service Tax was payable along with the return on or before 13- 11-2003, therefore, the period of one year from the relevant date was from 13-11-2003 to 12-11-2004, and thus the second SCN Notice itself was within the normal period of limitation - However, there is merit in the appellant's contention that interest should not be levied as the return was filed within the 6-month period prescribed under Rule 7A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the levy of interest is set aside - The appeal is partly allowed, with the demand of service tax upheld but the levy of interest set aside [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of visa facilitation service - The appellant provided visa facilitation services to travelers to Saudi Arabia by interacting directly with the intending travelers and facilitating the procurement of visas from the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Mumbai. The department viewed this as a taxable commission agent service under Business Auxiliary Services - Whether the visa facilitation service provided by the appellant is taxable under service tax - HELD - The visa facilitation service provided by the appellant directly to the individuals is not taxable under service tax. The CBEC Circular No. 137/6/2011-S.... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of visa facilitation service - The appellant provided visa facilitation services to travelers to Saudi Arabia by interacting directly with the intending travelers and facilitating the procurement of visas from the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Mumbai. The department viewed this as a taxable commission agent service under Business Auxiliary Services - Whether the visa facilitation service provided by the appellant is taxable under service tax - HELD - The visa facilitation service provided by the appellant directly to the individuals is not taxable under service tax. The CBEC Circular No. 137/6/2011-S.T. dated 20-4-2011 clarified that assistance provided by a visa facilitator to individuals directly for obtaining visa does not fall under any taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity undertaken by the Appellant is not taxable under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Further, coordinate bench decisions in Green Channel Travel Services P. Ltd v. Commr. of ST, Ahmedabad and Globe Forex & Travels Ltd v. CCE, Jaipur, held that such visa facilitation services are not taxable - The extended period of limitation invoked by the department is untenable as the department was aware of the appellant's activities through various show cause notices and correspondence - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Captively Consumed Sugar Syrup in Biscuit Manufacturing - Whether Sugar Syrup is an Excisable Goods and Classifiable under Tariff Heading 17029090 – HELD - The sugar syrup manufactured by the appellant and consumed captively within the factory premises for the manufacture of biscuits is not an excisable goods and is not classifiable under tariff heading 17029090.The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the Rishi Bakers case, wherein it was held that for classification under tariff heading 17029090, the sugar syrup must contain 50% or more fructose by weight in the dry stage, which was not establishe... [Read more]

Central Excise - Captively Consumed Sugar Syrup in Biscuit Manufacturing - Whether Sugar Syrup is an Excisable Goods and Classifiable under Tariff Heading 17029090 – HELD - The sugar syrup manufactured by the appellant and consumed captively within the factory premises for the manufacture of biscuits is not an excisable goods and is not classifiable under tariff heading 17029090.The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the Rishi Bakers case, wherein it was held that for classification under tariff heading 17029090, the sugar syrup must contain 50% or more fructose by weight in the dry stage, which was not established in the present case - The marketability of the product has to be established in the condition in which it emerges, and the mere fact that invert sugar syrup is sold in the market does not mean that the sugar syrup manufactured by the appellant is also marketable, as the two products may not be identical – Further, the test report submitted by the appellant showed that the fructose content in the sugar syrup was only 31%, which is less than the required 50% for classification under 17029090. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Vague Show Cause Notice - liability on commercial coaching and training services in computer graphics and animation – HELD - The show cause notices issued were vague and lacked details of the statutory provisions invoked to bring the activities of the appellant within the alleged taxable services rendered. Unless it is demonstrably shown referring to the specific provisions that the appellant has performed activities that fall under the particular statutory definition of the service and attracts the levy of tax, an assessment of the liability itself cannot be made - The appellant's contention that under t... [Read more]

Service Tax – Vague Show Cause Notice - liability on commercial coaching and training services in computer graphics and animation – HELD - The show cause notices issued were vague and lacked details of the statutory provisions invoked to bring the activities of the appellant within the alleged taxable services rendered. Unless it is demonstrably shown referring to the specific provisions that the appellant has performed activities that fall under the particular statutory definition of the service and attracts the levy of tax, an assessment of the liability itself cannot be made - The appellant's contention that under the business model as per the agreement entered into with MAAC, the appellant has provided infrastructural support for which it is being paid, and the fees are collected by way of direct deposit in the account of MAAC on which MAAC discharges the service tax liability, remained uncontroverted. Service tax cannot be charged twice on the same service transaction - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Limitation period for issuance of demand notice under Finance Act, 1994 - Execution of works contract claiming exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification - Petitioner contended that the issuance of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice is ex facie barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The prescription of limitation under Section 73(1) is not a matter of procedural convenience but a substantive fetter on jurisdiction. Once the statutory period expires, the authority stands divested of the power to initiate proceedings. The distinction between the normal peri... [Read more]

Service Tax - Limitation period for issuance of demand notice under Finance Act, 1994 - Execution of works contract claiming exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification - Petitioner contended that the issuance of the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice is ex facie barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The prescription of limitation under Section 73(1) is not a matter of procedural convenience but a substantive fetter on jurisdiction. Once the statutory period expires, the authority stands divested of the power to initiate proceedings. The distinction between the normal period and the extended period is also not cosmetic, as the extended period can be invoked only upon satisfaction of stringent jurisdictional facts, namely fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax - In the present case, the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2022 pertained to the FY 2016–2017, and even assuming the applicability of the extended period, the notice was issued beyond the statutorily permissible period. Consequently, the very initiation of proceedings was vitiated in law, and Adjudicating Authority, lacking the foundational jurisdiction to proceed, could not have passed the impugned order - The impugned adjudicating order is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of GST registration, Validity of Show Cause Notice - Petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent appellate order – HELD - The show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is bereft of any shortcomings or contraventions alleged against the petitioner, which is in violation of the requirements under Rules 21 and 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both the Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules specifically prescribe the mode, procedure, and the manner in which the show cause notice to be issued and final orders are to be passed, and both these provisions specifically p... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of GST registration, Validity of Show Cause Notice - Petitioner challenged the cancellation of GST registration and the subsequent appellate order – HELD - The show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is bereft of any shortcomings or contraventions alleged against the petitioner, which is in violation of the requirements under Rules 21 and 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Both the Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the CGST Rules specifically prescribe the mode, procedure, and the manner in which the show cause notice to be issued and final orders are to be passed, and both these provisions specifically provide for the issuance of a detailed show cause notice in respect of the contraventions and the shortcomings said to have been violated by the petitioner. In the absence of which, the show cause notice and the consequential order of cancellation are unsustainable in the eyes of law - The respondent to issue a fresh notice, if they so desire, and proceed further in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner is directed not to avail the benefits of Input Tax Credit until the proceedings are finalized - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Import of Ammonium Nitrate – Determination of Country of Origin – Levy of Anti-dumping Duty - Appellant imported ammonium nitrate declaring the country of origin as Uzbekistan and claimed exemption from Anti-dumping duty (ADD) under Notification No.44/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 12.09.2017. However, the customs authorities rejected the declared country of origin, treated it as Iran, and demanded ADD - Whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption from ADD based on the declared country of origin of the imported goods – HELD - The appellant had submitted the Country of Origin Certificate issued by the Duba... [Read more]

Customs - Import of Ammonium Nitrate – Determination of Country of Origin – Levy of Anti-dumping Duty - Appellant imported ammonium nitrate declaring the country of origin as Uzbekistan and claimed exemption from Anti-dumping duty (ADD) under Notification No.44/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 12.09.2017. However, the customs authorities rejected the declared country of origin, treated it as Iran, and demanded ADD - Whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption from ADD based on the declared country of origin of the imported goods – HELD - The appellant had submitted the Country of Origin Certificate issued by the Dubai Chamber, which clearly showed the origin of the goods as Uzbekistan. The statements recorded by the authorities and the electronic evidence relied upon were not supported by credible documentary evidence and did not establish any misrepresentation of the country of origin - The authorities failed to verify the authenticity of the Country of Origin Certificate submitted by the appellant, as required by law. The authorities had passed a contradictory order in a similar matter, which amounted to discrimination. The appellant is entitled to the exemption from ADD based on the declared country of origin of the imported goods – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Mandatory Pre-deposit under GST Act for Appeal, Procedural glitch in making pre-deposit payment, Failure to debit Cash Ledger - The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing its appeal against the Order-in-Original on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - While the petitioner did make efforts to make the pre-deposit, there appeared to be a procedural glitch. However, the Appellate Authority should have provided the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, rather than dismissing th... [Read more]

GST - Mandatory Pre-deposit under GST Act for Appeal, Procedural glitch in making pre-deposit payment, Failure to debit Cash Ledger - The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing its appeal against the Order-in-Original on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - While the petitioner did make efforts to make the pre-deposit, there appeared to be a procedural glitch. However, the Appellate Authority should have provided the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, rather than dismissing the appeal on technical grounds – The right to appeal is a valuable right, and principles of natural justice and fair play require that the petitioner be given a chance to address any deficiencies - The Appellate Authority cannot deprive the petitioner of the right to appeal on purely procedural grounds, and must consider the substance of the matter - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its own merits, after the petitioner cures the defect and secures the pre-deposit amount - The petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Failure to provide personal hearing before passing adverse order - Violation of principles of natural justice – HELD - Before any adverse decision is even contemplated against an assessee under the 2017 Act, the respondent-revenue is under a statutory obligation to provide to the assessee an opportunity of hearing which, admittedly, in the case in hand, has not been done. The submission of Revenue that since to the show cause notice, the petitioner did not file a written response, no opportunity of hearing was required to be granted to the petitioner is rejected in view of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Furt... [Read more]

GST - Failure to provide personal hearing before passing adverse order - Violation of principles of natural justice – HELD - Before any adverse decision is even contemplated against an assessee under the 2017 Act, the respondent-revenue is under a statutory obligation to provide to the assessee an opportunity of hearing which, admittedly, in the case in hand, has not been done. The submission of Revenue that since to the show cause notice, the petitioner did not file a written response, no opportunity of hearing was required to be granted to the petitioner is rejected in view of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Further, in the absence of a written response, if the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of hearing, it could, at the time of such hearing, produce its original record in the form of account books, ledgers etc. and/or file written arguments in defence and make an attempt to satisfy the Assessing Officer to withdraw the show cause notice served upon him - The adjudication order is set aside on the ground that the respondent-authorities failed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the adverse order, which violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act - The impugned adjudication order is set aside granting liberty to respondent-revenue to proceed against the petitioner but only after following the provisions of law including Section 75(4) of the Act – The petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Consolidation of Show Cause Notices for multiple financial years – Challenge to issuance of consolidated show cause notices and orders for multiple financial years, contending that it was not permissible under the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The High Court in its previous judgments in Ambika Traders and Vallabh Textiles, had held that the consolidation of SCNs and orders for multiple financial years is permissible under the CGST Act. The language of the relevant provisions, i.e., Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, does not prohibit such consolidation - Since this Court has consistently taken a view that conso... [Read more]

GST - Consolidation of Show Cause Notices for multiple financial years – Challenge to issuance of consolidated show cause notices and orders for multiple financial years, contending that it was not permissible under the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The High Court in its previous judgments in Ambika Traders and Vallabh Textiles, had held that the consolidation of SCNs and orders for multiple financial years is permissible under the CGST Act. The language of the relevant provisions, i.e., Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, does not prohibit such consolidation - Since this Court has consistently taken a view that consolidation of the notices for various financial years is very much permitted, there is no reason to take a different view than the view which is already consistently expressed by this Court - Merely, because the other High Courts i.e., Madras High Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh have taken a different view that would not persuade us to deviate from the view which has already been expressed in the said judgment – The writ petitions stand dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise - Fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit - The investigation revealed that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the basis of fake invoices - Whether the appellant was entitled to cross-examination of material witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue to make out a case against the appellant – HELD - The appellant had the right to cross-examine the material witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue to make out a case against the appellant. The adjudicating authority had rejected the request for cross-examination without giving any sufficient grounds, which was a violat... [Read more]

Central Excise - Fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit - The investigation revealed that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the basis of fake invoices - Whether the appellant was entitled to cross-examination of material witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue to make out a case against the appellant – HELD - The appellant had the right to cross-examine the material witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue to make out a case against the appellant. The adjudicating authority had rejected the request for cross-examination without giving any sufficient grounds, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice - The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority who was directed to comply with the requirement of Section 9D and afford an opportunity of cross-examination and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law – The appeals are disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Pre-deposit requirement for filing appeals under Customs Act - The petitioners were prevented from filing their appeals on the ground that they had not made the pre-deposit or submitted proof of the same - Whether the appeals could be entertained without the pre-deposit or proof of pre-deposit being submitted at the time of filing the appeal - HELD - The word 'entertained' in the context of Section 129E of the Customs Act does not mean the mere filing or registration of the appeal, but rather the stage when the appellate authority considers the appeal on its merits - The pre-deposit requirement is not a condition... [Read more]

Customs - Pre-deposit requirement for filing appeals under Customs Act - The petitioners were prevented from filing their appeals on the ground that they had not made the pre-deposit or submitted proof of the same - Whether the appeals could be entertained without the pre-deposit or proof of pre-deposit being submitted at the time of filing the appeal - HELD - The word 'entertained' in the context of Section 129E of the Customs Act does not mean the mere filing or registration of the appeal, but rather the stage when the appellate authority considers the appeal on its merits - The pre-deposit requirement is not a condition precedent for the filing or registration of the appeal, but rather a requirement to be satisfied before the appeal is taken up for consideration on the merits. The revenue authorities cannot refuse to accept the appeals merely on the ground that the pre-deposit or proof of pre-deposit has not been submitted - At the stage of filing/registration, the authority has to accept the appeal even if it is defective due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The issue of whether the appeal should be "entertained" can be considered by the appellate authority at the later stage when the matter is placed before it - The proceedings being presented by the petitioners before the Commissioner (Appeals) must be allowed to be filed and registered, even if defective for the reason of non-payment of pre-deposit or lack of proof of pre-deposit. The issue of whether the appeal is to be 'entertained' can be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) when the matter is placed before it for consideration on the merits - the writ petitions stand disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax liability under Reverse charge on hiring of vessels/dredgers from foreign owners under "supply of tangible goods service" - The Department sought to levy service tax on the appellant under reverse charge mechanism on the ground that the activity was classifiable as "supply of tangible goods service" under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The Bareboat Charter Agreements entailed a transfer of right of possession and effective control of the vessels/dredgers to the appellant, and hence fell under the exclusionary clause of the "supply of tangible goods service" entry and was outside the ... [Read more]

Service Tax liability under Reverse charge on hiring of vessels/dredgers from foreign owners under "supply of tangible goods service" - The Department sought to levy service tax on the appellant under reverse charge mechanism on the ground that the activity was classifiable as "supply of tangible goods service" under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The Bareboat Charter Agreements entailed a transfer of right of possession and effective control of the vessels/dredgers to the appellant, and hence fell under the exclusionary clause of the "supply of tangible goods service" entry and was outside the purview of service tax. The terms of the charter agreements clearly established the transfer of possession and control to the appellant, and mere restrictions on use or sub-leasing by the owner did not negate this – Further, the issue was already settled in the appellant's favour in its earlier decision, which had attained finality, and the Department was bound by the same. The demand of service tax, interest and penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Duty Demand and Penalty on 100% EOU - Imported marble blocks allegedly diverted to domestic market instead of export - Whether demand of duty on the full quantity of imported marble blocks can be sustained and whether penalties can be imposed under sections 114A and 114AA – HELD - Demand of duty cannot be sustained on marble blocks that are admittedly in stock, as this stock was lying in the factory of the 100% EOU and was not diverted. For the remaining marble blocks which alleged to have been diverted, the demand cannot be sustained as there is no clinching evidence to prove that the imported marble blocks we... [Read more]

Customs - Duty Demand and Penalty on 100% EOU - Imported marble blocks allegedly diverted to domestic market instead of export - Whether demand of duty on the full quantity of imported marble blocks can be sustained and whether penalties can be imposed under sections 114A and 114AA – HELD - Demand of duty cannot be sustained on marble blocks that are admittedly in stock, as this stock was lying in the factory of the 100% EOU and was not diverted. For the remaining marble blocks which alleged to have been diverted, the demand cannot be sustained as there is no clinching evidence to prove that the imported marble blocks were diverted and sold in the domestic market, instead of being exported as final products - The statements relied upon by the Department to show that the exported marble slabs were of Indian origin cannot be admitted as evidence as the requirements of section 138B of the Customs Act were not complied with. Further, the Department's inference that the 'Harmony Brown' marble is available only in India and hence the exported marble slabs could not have been manufactured from the imported marble blocks is not supported by any reliable evidence - The penalty under section 114A also cannot be sustained as there is no evidence of any collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts at the time of import. Similarly, the penalties imposed under section 114AA on the other appellants are also not justified as there is no mis-declaration, let alone a knowing or intentional declaration, in any document - The impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Customs - Challenge to final findings dated 29.09.2022 of the designated authority to the extent it recommends nil rate of anti-dumping duty on the product under consideration, namely, semi-finished ophthalmics lenses on participating importers and also seeking to exclude lenses of Refractive Index above 1.6 - Violation of principles of natural justice in determining Non-Injurious Price (NIP) - Appellant claimed that the designated authority violated the principles of natural justice by not providing detailed calculations of the NIP along with the Disclosure Statement, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity to proper... [Read more]

Customs - Challenge to final findings dated 29.09.2022 of the designated authority to the extent it recommends nil rate of anti-dumping duty on the product under consideration, namely, semi-finished ophthalmics lenses on participating importers and also seeking to exclude lenses of Refractive Index above 1.6 - Violation of principles of natural justice in determining Non-Injurious Price (NIP) - Appellant claimed that the designated authority violated the principles of natural justice by not providing detailed calculations of the NIP along with the Disclosure Statement, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity to properly respond to the Disclosure Statement - Whether the designated authority's failure to provide detailed NIP calculations to the appellant at the Disclosure Statement stage violated the principles of natural justice – HELD - The Designated authority's failure to provide the detailed NIP calculations to the appellant along with the Disclosure Statement was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The determination of NIP has a direct bearing on the determination of normal value and the consequent dumping margin. By not providing the detailed NIP calculations, the appellant was deprived of an opportunity to properly respond to the Disclosure Statement - The judgments of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Nirma Limited v. Union of India, have held that the designated authority must disclose the "essential facts" forming the basis of its decision, including the detailed NIP calculations. The final findings are set aside to the extent of nil anti-dumping duty on participating Chinese exporters and matter is remanded to the DA for fresh determination of NIP after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to submit its response - The appeal is partly allowed by remand - Exclusion of lenses with Refractive Index above 1.6 - The DA excluded from the scope of the product under consideration semi-finished ophthalmic lenses having a refractive index higher than 1.6. Legal - Whether the exclusion of lenses with refractive index above 1.6 from the product under consideration was justified – HELD - The exclusion of lenses with refractive index above 1.6 from the product under consideration is justified. The appellant was not manufacturing semi-finished ophthalmic lenses with refractive index above 1.6, and such lenses were not technically or commercially substitutable with the lenses manufactured by the domestic industry. When a product is not produced by the domestic industry, imports of the same cannot cause any injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal relied on the decision in M/s. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited v. Designated Authority, which held that mere competence to produce without actual production or sales may not be sufficient to include an item in the definition of the product under consideration - The exclusion of lenses with refractive index above 1.6 from the product under consideration is upheld. [Read less]

Customs - Classification of Food Seasoning Material - The appellant imported goods described as "Food Seasoning Material for Snack Foods" and classified them under Customs Tariff Item 3302 10 10 - Revenue sought to reclassify the goods under CTI 2103 90 40 - Whether the goods were correctly classified under CTI 3302 10 10 or should be reclassified under CTI 2103 90 40 – HELD - The impugned goods contain odoriferous substances like paprika, parsley and spearmint which are listed in the Explanatory Notes to Customs Tariff Heading 3302, and these substances give the goods their essential character. The Revenue's contention ... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of Food Seasoning Material - The appellant imported goods described as "Food Seasoning Material for Snack Foods" and classified them under Customs Tariff Item 3302 10 10 - Revenue sought to reclassify the goods under CTI 2103 90 40 - Whether the goods were correctly classified under CTI 3302 10 10 or should be reclassified under CTI 2103 90 40 – HELD - The impugned goods contain odoriferous substances like paprika, parsley and spearmint which are listed in the Explanatory Notes to Customs Tariff Heading 3302, and these substances give the goods their essential character. The Revenue's contention that the goods should be reclassified under CTI 2103 90 40 as the odoriferous substances are not predominant is incorrect, as the Explanatory Notes only require the presence of one or more odoriferous substances, not that they be predominant. Further, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held that synthetic odoriferous substances can also be covered under CTI 3302. Therefore, the impugned goods are correctly classified under CTI 3302 10 10 - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Validity of Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original by the same officer who had conducted Audit proceedings - The petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed by the same officer who had conducted the audit proceedings - The petitioner contended that this violated the principles of natural justice as the authority would be guided by the findings made in the Audit report – HELD - The issue of jurisdiction is often raised by assessees and it would be appropriate for the adjudicating authority to consider this aspect. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) t... [Read more]

GST - Validity of Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original by the same officer who had conducted Audit proceedings - The petitioner challenged the validity of the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original passed by the same officer who had conducted the audit proceedings - The petitioner contended that this violated the principles of natural justice as the authority would be guided by the findings made in the Audit report – HELD - The issue of jurisdiction is often raised by assessees and it would be appropriate for the adjudicating authority to consider this aspect. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) to record a finding on the aspect of jurisdiction after obtaining necessary orders from the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration). All the contentions of the petitioner regarding the aspect of jurisdiction, including those raised in the present petition, are kept open to be adjudicated - The Order-in-Original is set aside and the matter is remitted to be reconsidered – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty – Respondent-importer claimed refund of anti-dumping duty paid on imports of phenol from Korea RP, Taiwan and USA - DGAD had recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duty on phenol originating in or exported from these countries. However, in 2012, the DGAD found that the imports of phenol from Taiwan and USA were at lower dumping margins with no injury to the domestic industry, and recommended the withdrawal of the anti-dumping duty - The Ministry of Finance issued a notification revoking the anti-dumping duty, but with a caveat that it would not apply to "things done or omitted to... [Read more]

Customs - Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty – Respondent-importer claimed refund of anti-dumping duty paid on imports of phenol from Korea RP, Taiwan and USA - DGAD had recommended the imposition of anti-dumping duty on phenol originating in or exported from these countries. However, in 2012, the DGAD found that the imports of phenol from Taiwan and USA were at lower dumping margins with no injury to the domestic industry, and recommended the withdrawal of the anti-dumping duty - The Ministry of Finance issued a notification revoking the anti-dumping duty, but with a caveat that it would not apply to "things done or omitted to be done before such suppression" - The respondent's refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities, but the CESTAT allowed the refund – HELD - The DGAD's final findings had concluded that there was no adverse impact on the domestic industry and no justification for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on phenol imports from Taiwan and USA. Based on this recommendation, the Ministry of Finance issued the Notification dated 29.02.2012 rescinding the Notification dated 03.03.2008, with a clear stipulation that it would not have retrospective effect and would apply only to future imports - The payments made by the respondent prior to the 2012 notification rescinding the Anti-Dumping duty were "things done before rescission" and therefore, the respondent was entitled to the refund - The appeal by the Revenue is dismissed [Read less]

MP VAT Act, 2002 - Maintainability of writ petition against ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders - Petitioner challenged the ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders, contending that the orders were antedated and passed without giving any opportunity of hearing - The petitioner had earlier filed applications to set aside the ex-parte orders, which were dismissed on the ground that no second application was maintainable under Section 34 of the MPVAT Act - Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present case, given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46 of the MP VAT... [Read more]

MP VAT Act, 2002 - Maintainability of writ petition against ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders - Petitioner challenged the ex-parte VAT and entry tax assessment orders, contending that the orders were antedated and passed without giving any opportunity of hearing - The petitioner had earlier filed applications to set aside the ex-parte orders, which were dismissed on the ground that no second application was maintainable under Section 34 of the MPVAT Act - Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the present case, given the availability of an alternate statutory remedy of appeal under Section 46 of the MP VAT Act – HELD - The petitioner had received notices after the remand of the matter by the Commissioner, and it was the duty of the petitioner to keep track of the proceedings. The allegations made by the petitioner regarding the antedated orders and the violation of principles of natural justice are baseless, as the order sheets did not reflect the presence of the petitioner or its counsel on the dates specified – Further, the petitioner had obtained an interim relief based on incorrect statements and also levelled malafide allegations against the respondent No.4 that she is in the habit of passing antedated orders - The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000, out of which Rs. 25,000 was to be deposited in the account of the CCD and Rs. 25,000 was to be paid to the respondent No. 4 by the petitioner – The petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The petitioner had shown bona fide by furnishing the fixed deposit and the authorities were already in possession of the relevant documents for investigation. Since the petitioner agreed to furnish a fixed deposit of Rs.1.5 crores in favor of the Registrar General of the Court, the provisional attachment order is quashed allowing the petitioner to operate its bank accounts - The authorities can continue their investigation and issue a show cause notice, and the fixed deposit can be adjusted against the petitioner's liability, if any... [Read more]

GST - Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - The petitioner had shown bona fide by furnishing the fixed deposit and the authorities were already in possession of the relevant documents for investigation. Since the petitioner agreed to furnish a fixed deposit of Rs.1.5 crores in favor of the Registrar General of the Court, the provisional attachment order is quashed allowing the petitioner to operate its bank accounts - The authorities can continue their investigation and issue a show cause notice, and the fixed deposit can be adjusted against the petitioner's liability, if any, once the show cause notice attains finality. However, the fixed deposit amount is based on rough calculations and the final liability may vary upon adjudication – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Summary assessment order, Bonafide of suppliers - Assessing authority had observed that the petitioner availed input tax credit from bogus suppliers, one of which had its GST registration cancelled - Whether the petitioner's additional documents, which demonstrate that the supplies were genuine, should be re-considered by the assessing authority – HELD - The additional documents produced by the petitioner, which purportedly establish the genuineness of the suppliers, should be examined by the authority. The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority and produce any other materials to substantiate its cla... [Read more]

GST - Summary assessment order, Bonafide of suppliers - Assessing authority had observed that the petitioner availed input tax credit from bogus suppliers, one of which had its GST registration cancelled - Whether the petitioner's additional documents, which demonstrate that the supplies were genuine, should be re-considered by the assessing authority – HELD - The additional documents produced by the petitioner, which purportedly establish the genuineness of the suppliers, should be examined by the authority. The petitioner is directed to appear before the authority and produce any other materials to substantiate its claim that the suppliers were genuine and the ITC availed was in order. The question of the genuineness of the documents produced is a matter for enquiry by the authority – The impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted for reconsideration of the application for withdrawal of summary assessment order – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Goa AAR - Classification of supply of Bakery Products and semi-finished foods items - Whether the sale of these pre-manufactured bakery products without any further cooking, preparation or processing at the outlets constitutes a supply of goods under GST – HELD - The sale of pre-manufactured bakery products at the outlets, without any cooking, preparation or processing, would constitute a supply of goods under GST. The CBIC Circular No. 164/20/2021-GST clarified that the sale of pre-manufactured food items without any cooking or preparation amounts to a supply of goods. The bakery products in the present case are... [Read more]

GST – Goa AAR - Classification of supply of Bakery Products and semi-finished foods items - Whether the sale of these pre-manufactured bakery products without any further cooking, preparation or processing at the outlets constitutes a supply of goods under GST – HELD - The sale of pre-manufactured bakery products at the outlets, without any cooking, preparation or processing, would constitute a supply of goods under GST. The CBIC Circular No. 164/20/2021-GST clarified that the sale of pre-manufactured food items without any cooking or preparation amounts to a supply of goods. The bakery products in the present case are movable properties and fall within the definition of "goods" under the CGST Act. Further, there is a transfer of title in these goods for consideration, and no service element is involved at the point of sale. Therefore, the sale of such pre-manufactured bakery products should be treated as a supply of goods, and the applicable GST rate would be as per the HSN classification of the particular goods - However, in respect of certain supplies like that of Pizza, pasta, salads, shakes, etc. which are cooked/prepared/made/blended at restaurant premises, same are to be treated as supply of ‘restaurant service’ irrespective of whether customer consumes them on restaurant premises or takes away – Ordered accordingly - Dual Treatment of Goods and Services - Whether applicant can charge such two separate GST rates at the same premises – HELD - The applicant is permitted under the GST law to charge GST as goods for items sold without preparation and charge GST as services for items involving preparation/cooking, subject to maintaining separate billing series and accounting records. There is no legal impediment under the GST law that prohibits a registered taxable person from carrying on the business of restaurant service and supply of goods as a trader from the same place of business. However, the applicant will be required to maintain separate series of tax invoices and clear separate records of the turnover of outward supplies on account of restaurant services and the turnover on account of supply of goods. This will pose a challenge for practical accounting purposes, and the best way to tackle it would be to maintain separate series of tax invoices for the two types of supplies. The onus to maintain clarity on this aspect rests with the applicant taxpayer. [Read less]