More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

Central Excise – Applicable rate of interest on Refund of Pre-deposit - Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and made a pre-deposit as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944, and following the Tribunal's Final Order, claimed refund of the pre-deposit amount along with interest thereon - Authorities below granted refund of the pre-deposit but denied interest and thereafter granted interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum pursuant to a subsequent Tribunal order - Whether the appellant is entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum on the refunded pre-deposit amount or whether the statutory r... [Read more]

Central Excise – Applicable rate of interest on Refund of Pre-deposit - Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and made a pre-deposit as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944, and following the Tribunal's Final Order, claimed refund of the pre-deposit amount along with interest thereon - Authorities below granted refund of the pre-deposit but denied interest and thereafter granted interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum pursuant to a subsequent Tribunal order - Whether the appellant is entitled to interest at 12 percent per annum on the refunded pre-deposit amount or whether the statutory rate of 6 percent per annum prescribed under Notification is the applicable rate – HELD - The refund of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 and its interest are governed by the statutory notification. Notification No. 24/2014-C.E.(N.T.) dated 12.08.2014 specifically prescribes the rate of interest at 6 percent per annum for the purpose of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act 1944. The CBIC vide Circular No. 984/8/2014-CX dated 16.09.2014 clarified that Section 35FF provides for payment of refund along with interest at the prescribed rate on the amount pre-deposited from the date of payment till the date of refund with the specified rate of interest being 6 percent. The statutory notification categorically provides for interest rate of 6 percent in respect of refund of pre-deposits and does not provide for any other rate. There is no merit in the appellant's claim for 12 percent interest as the statutory mechanism does not contemplate such a rate for pre-deposits under Section 35F - The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected [Read less]

Central Excise - Finalisation of provisional assessment, Refund of Excise Duty - Bar of Unjust Enrichment - Appellant filed refund claims seeking refund of excess duty paid on account of finalization of provisional assessment and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims on the sole ground that the same were hit by bar of unjust enrichment which was upheld by the Commissioner in Appeal - Whether the rejection of refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment is sustainable when the appellant has duly supported its refund claim with a Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying that excess duty paid upon cle... [Read more]

Central Excise - Finalisation of provisional assessment, Refund of Excise Duty - Bar of Unjust Enrichment - Appellant filed refund claims seeking refund of excess duty paid on account of finalization of provisional assessment and the Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims on the sole ground that the same were hit by bar of unjust enrichment which was upheld by the Commissioner in Appeal - Whether the rejection of refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment is sustainable when the appellant has duly supported its refund claim with a Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying that excess duty paid upon clearing of goods was not being recovered and passed on to the customers by way of sale price charges – HELD - The refund claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. A quasi-judicial Authority is required to consider the applicability and relevancy of documents placed before it before rejecting or accepting the same. A responsible Chartered Accountant's certificate when placed on record and certifying that no part of duty was being passed on to customers must be given effect to and cannot be simply ignored. The Authority's failure to consider such documented evidence and requirement for de-novo proceedings after final assessment orders had already verified all material documents including invoices was not justified. Decisions of various judicial Fora support that unjust enrichment bar does not apply when the burden of tax has not been passed on to the customers - The impugned order rejecting the refund claims is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Status of Co-owners as Association of Persons - Appellants, who are co-owners of a commercial complex let out to various tenants from whom monthly rentals were being collected, were issued a Show Cause Notice proposing demand of service tax for the period from 2007 to 2012 on the basis that renting of immovable property fell under the definition of Renting of Immovable Property Service and treating them as an association of persons for assessment purposes - Whether co-owners of a property who individually collect rents and claim exemption within the threshold limit can ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Renting of Immovable Property Service - Status of Co-owners as Association of Persons - Appellants, who are co-owners of a commercial complex let out to various tenants from whom monthly rentals were being collected, were issued a Show Cause Notice proposing demand of service tax for the period from 2007 to 2012 on the basis that renting of immovable property fell under the definition of Renting of Immovable Property Service and treating them as an association of persons for assessment purposes - Whether co-owners of a property who individually collect rents and claim exemption within the threshold limit can be treated as an association of persons for Service Tax purposes and assessed jointly on the aggregate rental income received from the entire property – HELD - Co-owners cannot be regarded as an association of persons for joint assessment of their total rental income under Service Tax. Formation of an association of persons requires a meeting of the minds with shared objective and a conscious and consensual agreement among individuals. Mere co-ownership by operation of law through inheritance or under a common sale deed without any agreement to have a common or joint venture with joint management does not constitute an association of persons - The essential element required is volition and voluntary association with collective intent among the parties to manage the property for economic gain. Co-ownership arising from automatic or incidental circumstances does not satisfy this requirement. Separation of rental receipts paid directly to each co-owner and their distinct and identifiable ownership shares demonstrate absence of volition required for association formation. Each co-owner owns the property on his own strength and is entitled to individual assessment respecting their respective shares of rental income and may avail the applicable threshold exemption on an individual basis - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Customs - Refund of Duty Paid on Imported Goods not cleared for Home Consumption - Appellant imported goods and provisionally paid customs duty but the goods were never cleared for home consumption and were warehoused and thereafter re-exported - Appellant filed a refund claim initially under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 and subsequently changed the basis of the claim to Section 26A - Dept rejected the refund claim invoking the second proviso to Section 26A on the ground that an offence appeared to have been committed - Whether Section 26A applies to refund claims in cases where goods have been paid duty but never cl... [Read more]

Customs - Refund of Duty Paid on Imported Goods not cleared for Home Consumption - Appellant imported goods and provisionally paid customs duty but the goods were never cleared for home consumption and were warehoused and thereafter re-exported - Appellant filed a refund claim initially under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 and subsequently changed the basis of the claim to Section 26A - Dept rejected the refund claim invoking the second proviso to Section 26A on the ground that an offence appeared to have been committed - Whether Section 26A applies to refund claims in cases where goods have been paid duty but never cleared for home consumption and remained under the control of Customs authorities and were re-exported and whether the second proviso to Section 26A can be invoked to deny the refund – HELD – The Section 26A applies only where duty has been paid on clearance of goods for home consumption and the opening words of sub-section 1 require that goods be cleared for home consumption as a sine qua non for the applicability of the section. In the present case the goods were never cleared for home consumption and remained warehoused under the control of Customs authorities and were re-exported and therefore Section 26A is wholly inapplicable. Since Section 26A itself does not apply a proviso which merely carves out an exception from the substantive right cannot equally apply as a proviso cannot have an existence independent of or wider than the main provision to which it is attached - The impugned order by invoking the second proviso to a section that does not govern the claim at all has proceeded on a fundamental error of law. Since the appellant had raised the plea of considering the refund claim under Section 27 before the Commissioner in Appeal but this was not recorded or addressed in the impugned order and further the appellant had changed the stand before the Adjudicating authority creating confusion - The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to verify whether the plea under Section 27 was actually raised and if substantiated to consider the refund claim on merits under Section 27 or otherwise pass the order under Section 26A only - The appeal stands disposed of by way of remand [Read less]

Central Excise - Eligibility for exemption from central excise duty on manufactured goods supplied through intermediary - Interpretation of condition requiring proof to satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise that goods are cleared for intended use - Appellant, a job worker, manufactured Aluminium Baxter Flyer without payment of central excise duty, claiming exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 superseded by Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - The principal manufacturer supplied the goods for the intended use after subjecting them to further processing - Dep... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility for exemption from central excise duty on manufactured goods supplied through intermediary - Interpretation of condition requiring proof to satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise that goods are cleared for intended use - Appellant, a job worker, manufactured Aluminium Baxter Flyer without payment of central excise duty, claiming exemption under Notification 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 superseded by Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - The principal manufacturer supplied the goods for the intended use after subjecting them to further processing - Department issued Notice to demand duty along with interest and equal penalty contending that the appellant had not fulfilled condition 2 of the exemption notification - Whether goods manufactured by a job worker can be eligible for exemption under the notification even when the goods are further processed and subsequently supplied to the ultimate user by the principal manufacturer and whether non-intimation to the jurisdictional officer regarding clearance without payment of duty results in denial of the exemption benefit - HELD - Baxter Flyer is a crucial component used exclusively in the jute industry as a part of jute spinning frames and can only be used in a jute mill for making jute textile and cannot be used elsewhere - The condition 2 of the exemption notification requires that the goods be cleared for the intended use specified in the notification, which is goods required by a jute mill for making jute textiles - The expression intended for use is sufficiently wide to cover situations where goods manufactured by the appellant are ultimately used in a jute mill after undergoing some process of further treatment at the hands of the principal manufacturer - The Appellant has fulfilled the condition by ensuring that the goods were ultimately used only in jute mills for making jute textiles as evidenced by the invoices submitted by the Appellant showing that the principal cleared the goods to jute mills and the department has not produced any evidence to the contrary - The exemption notification does not prescribe any condition requiring prior or post intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise officer regarding clearance of the goods without payment of duty and non-intimation to the jurisdictional officer can at the maximum be considered only as a procedural breach and the same cannot result in denial of the exemption benefit as procedural law is always subservient to and in aid to justice - The Department has wrongly interpreted the condition by importing a requirement of prior permission from the jurisdictional officer which is not prescribed in the notification itself - The demand of central excise duty is not sustainable and set aside - The questions of demanding interest or imposing penalty do not arise as the duty demanded is not sustainable - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Exemption for Captively Consumed Capital Goods - Demand for excise duty by denying the benefit of exemption granted under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for specified capital goods manufactured and captively consumed, in respect of items including trolley, lifting tackle, trailer and cabinet work bench, rack and table - Whether the goods in question namely shop floor equipment qualify for exemption under Notification No. 67/95 as specified capital goods and inputs manufactured in the factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of final products – HELD - The identic... [Read more]

Central Excise - Exemption for Captively Consumed Capital Goods - Demand for excise duty by denying the benefit of exemption granted under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for specified capital goods manufactured and captively consumed, in respect of items including trolley, lifting tackle, trailer and cabinet work bench, rack and table - Whether the goods in question namely shop floor equipment qualify for exemption under Notification No. 67/95 as specified capital goods and inputs manufactured in the factory and used within the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of final products – HELD - The identical issue has been squarely covered in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal in its earlier decision where it was held that the goods in question are classifiable under Chapter 94 of the Tariff which is not disputed by the Revenue and this Chapter is not excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 - The goods are shop floor equipment which are tailor made products facilitating shop floor operations including tool cabinets, pigeon hole cabinets, different types of racks, die racks, workbench and tables made of steel and are used only for captive consumption. These items qualify as capital goods under the definition which includes plant, machine or machinery used in or in relation to manufacture and their parts, accessories and components. Being used in the factory of production in or in relation to the manufacture of final products they qualify for exemption under the Notification. The issue has reached finality - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Scope of Business Auxiliary Service - Agency versus Sale of Goods – Appellant-Dept sought to recover service tax from Respondents-assessee for providing outlets and services for sale of CNG manufactured and supplied by Mahanagar Gas Limited (MGL) - Respondents contested the demand claiming they were purchasing CNG from MGL and reselling it on principal to principal basis and therefore no service tax was payable - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand treating the arrangement as one of agency. The CESTAT allowed the assessees appeals and set aside the demand - Whether the arrangement between MGL and ... [Read more]

Service Tax – Scope of Business Auxiliary Service - Agency versus Sale of Goods – Appellant-Dept sought to recover service tax from Respondents-assessee for providing outlets and services for sale of CNG manufactured and supplied by Mahanagar Gas Limited (MGL) - Respondents contested the demand claiming they were purchasing CNG from MGL and reselling it on principal to principal basis and therefore no service tax was payable - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand treating the arrangement as one of agency. The CESTAT allowed the assessees appeals and set aside the demand - Whether the arrangement between MGL and Respondents for supply and sale of CNG through retail outlets owned by Respondents constitutes a contract of sale on principal to principal basis or a contract of agency whereby Respondents act as agents of MGL for rendering Business Auxiliary Service – HELD - The arrangement between the parties constitutes a principal-agent relationship and not a sale transaction. The essential test to determine the true nature of arrangement is the passing of property or ownership in goods from one party to another. When property does not pass, the arrangement is one of agency even though goods are delivered. All terms and conditions of the Agreements taken together establish that ownership of CNG remained with MGL at all times. MGL retained control over supply, fixed and revised prices which Respondents were bound to follow, MGL maintained all equipment and inspected operations, MGL was sole regulator of supply quantities, risk never transferred from MGL to Respondents, and upon termination all unsold CNG was to be returned to MGL – The Respondents were obliged to provide site, construct infrastructure, supply electricity and water, provide trained staff and promote sale on behalf of MGL. Clause 8.4 of Agreements expressly stipulated payment of commission to Respondents which is indicative of agent status not buyer status. Commission was payable only on actual quantity sold and was dependent on Government directives confirming it was remuneration for services not profit on purchase - The Respondents were facilitators acting as commission agents under Section 65(19) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act 1994 and were rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service of promotion and marketing of goods belonging to MGL. No buying and selling occurred between the parties. Respondents were recipients of goods for sale on behalf of MGL not buyers for resale - The decision of CESTAT based on erroneous reasoning is set aside and the Adjudicating Authority's findings upholding the demand for service tax under BAS are confirmed - The appeals are allowed and the Orders-in-Original confirming the service tax demand against Respondents are restored – The Revenue’s appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxable value of turnover/transaction charges - Appellant, a registered forward contract services provider, collected turnover or transaction charges and deposited with exchanges but paid service tax only on brokerage received during the relevant period while failing to include such turnover charges in the taxable value and a demand for service tax was raised with allegation of short payment and suppression of material facts invoking extended period of limitation - Whether turnover or transaction charges collected by the stockbroker are includable in the taxable value for service tax purposes – HELD - The t... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxable value of turnover/transaction charges - Appellant, a registered forward contract services provider, collected turnover or transaction charges and deposited with exchanges but paid service tax only on brokerage received during the relevant period while failing to include such turnover charges in the taxable value and a demand for service tax was raised with allegation of short payment and suppression of material facts invoking extended period of limitation - Whether turnover or transaction charges collected by the stockbroker are includable in the taxable value for service tax purposes – HELD - The turnover or transaction charges are includable in the taxable value for service tax purposes as clarified through Departmental Circular dated 17.09.2010 and amendment dated 16.05.2008. The appellant was not acting as a pure agent and the charges represent liability of the service provider which must be included in taxable value. No bonafide confusion existed about the taxability as clarification on the matter was already issued prior to the relevant period through circular dated 19.04.2006 - The appellant having sought clarification from the department which was denied subsequently failed to include the charges in returns amounts to wilful suppression of material facts with clear intention of evasion. The extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked in cases where the assessee deliberately conceals tax liability despite being aware of the obligation to pay tax - The order confirming the demand and upholding invocation of extended period of limitation is upheld - The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise - Eligibility for declaration under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme - Scope of SVLDR Scheme under Finance Act 2019 – The Order-in-Original directed confiscation of MS Ingots and granted option to redeem goods on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Petitioner also imposed penalty - During pendency of second appeal before CESTAT, SVLDRS, 2019 was introduced - Petitioner filed declaration under SVLDR Scheme seeking settlement of arrears - Designated Committee rejected declaration on ground that redemption fine does not fall within scope of SVLDR Scheme rendering petitioner ineli... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility for declaration under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme - Scope of SVLDR Scheme under Finance Act 2019 – The Order-in-Original directed confiscation of MS Ingots and granted option to redeem goods on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Petitioner also imposed penalty - During pendency of second appeal before CESTAT, SVLDRS, 2019 was introduced - Petitioner filed declaration under SVLDR Scheme seeking settlement of arrears - Designated Committee rejected declaration on ground that redemption fine does not fall within scope of SVLDR Scheme rendering petitioner ineligible - Whether redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of goods is covered under SVLDR, 2019 - HELD - Section 125 of Finance Act 2019 enumerates categories of persons excluded from filing declaration and cases involving confiscation of goods or redemption fine are not excluded from filing declaration under SVLDR Scheme - Persons who have been asked to pay redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods cannot be treated as ineligible to file declaration under Scheme solely on that ground - The levy of a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods forms part of the amount of duty which is recoverable under the indirect tax enactment, and the same cannot be segregated from the demand of duty for the purposes of the SVLDRS, 2019. The CBIC's letter dated 20.12.2019 seeking to exclude redemption fine from ambit of Scheme is contrary to provisions of Finance Act 2019 and does not merit acceptance - The impugned order rejecting petitioner's declaration is set aside – Respondent-Department is directed to treat declaration in Form SVLDR-1 as eligible declaration and consider same on merits in accordance with SVLDR Scheme 2019 and rules made thereunder – The writ petitions are allowed [Read less]

GST - Denial of ITC on the ground of cancellation of registration of the supplier - Whether the proceedings for denial ITC claimed by the petitioner can be justified in the absence of any findings of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax – HC held that once actual movement of goods as well as payment of tax have been proved by the purchasing dealer, proceedings under Section 74 is not justified – Revenue in appeal against the impugned order – SC HELD – There is no good ground to entertain this petition, the special leave petition is dismissed.

GST - Service of notice on portal, Clean hand Doctrine, Ex-parte order - Demand for excess claim of Input Tax Credit - Petitioner challenge Show Cause Notice and summary of orders on ground of being ex-parte order and non-compliance with requirement of Section 169 of CGST Act as the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on GST portal under heading ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab which is not proper compliance - HELD – The petitioner is silent on merit on allegations that petitioner had availed huge amount of excess Input Tax Credit - Show Cause Notice in GST Form DRC-01 clearly states ITC as per GSTR-2A whereas ITC clai... [Read more]

GST - Service of notice on portal, Clean hand Doctrine, Ex-parte order - Demand for excess claim of Input Tax Credit - Petitioner challenge Show Cause Notice and summary of orders on ground of being ex-parte order and non-compliance with requirement of Section 169 of CGST Act as the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on GST portal under heading ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab which is not proper compliance - HELD – The petitioner is silent on merit on allegations that petitioner had availed huge amount of excess Input Tax Credit - Show Cause Notice in GST Form DRC-01 clearly states ITC as per GSTR-2A whereas ITC claimed in GSTR-3B was significantly higher – The Writ application is also silent on ground stated in Notice which talks of excess claim of Input Tax Credit and suppression of turnover - Despite clear assertion in summary of order that last reminder was sent on registered mail, petitioner has not made specific and categorical statement that no email was received by petitioner on registered email ID - Since petitioner is seeking quashing of SCN and summary of order, it was incumbent upon petitioner to state on fact actual accrual of ITC present in GSTR-2A – Further, the statement of petitioner that petitioner got information about bank attachment much later when he visited jurisdictional office of respondents and copies of notices and orders were obtained at even later date upon perusal of portal subsequent to signing of alleged undertaking letter is nothing but an afterthought - This writ application has been filed after three months from date of execution of undertaking and submission of three post-dated cheques - There is nothing on record to take view that for more than three months after execution of undertaking and submission of post-dated cheques, petitioner could not have raised any protest or preferred appeal against impugned SCN and impugned summary of order. This is not bonafide writ application. Writ remedy is meant for those who come clean before this Court - In facts of this case, plenary and discretionary jurisdiction of issuance of extraordinary writ is not fit to be exercised - Conduct of petitioner is such that it requires dismissal of writ application with cost - Writ application is dismissed with cost [Read less]

GST - Anti-profiteering – Relevant date for reckoning of Project completion date – Whether, for the purposes of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, project completion should be reckoned from the date of actual issuance of Occupancy Certificate or from the date of filing of application seeking such certificate – HELD - A project is deemed to be completed only upon actual grant of Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority and not upon mere filing of an application therefor - The submission that construction was completed on filing of application for Occupancy Certificate is devoid of merit - In the present case... [Read more]

GST - Anti-profiteering – Relevant date for reckoning of Project completion date – Whether, for the purposes of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, project completion should be reckoned from the date of actual issuance of Occupancy Certificate or from the date of filing of application seeking such certificate – HELD - A project is deemed to be completed only upon actual grant of Occupancy Certificate from the competent authority and not upon mere filing of an application therefor - The submission that construction was completed on filing of application for Occupancy Certificate is devoid of merit - In the present case Occupancy Certificate was granted during the post-GST period and the Respondent continued to avail Input Tax Credit during the relevant period which clearly establishes that the project was ongoing in the post-GST period - The contention is rejected - Period of investigation for Anti-profiteering matter - Methodology for Computation of profiteered amount - Whether the DGAP correctly restricted the period of investigation to the period from introduction of GST till issuance of Occupancy Certificate and whether the methodology adopted for computation of profiteered amount is legally sustainable as per Section 171 – HELD – The Schedule III and Section 17 of CGST Act make it evident that sale of units after issuance of Occupancy Certificate is treated as exempt supply and falls outside purview of taxable supply and ITC attributable to such supplies is not available and is liable to be reversed - Since anti-profiteering provisions operate only where benefit of input tax credit accrues to supplier and is required to be passed on to recipients, no profiteering can arise in respect of units sold after issuance of Occupancy Certificate as no admissible input tax credit benefit survives in relation to such units - Investigation must be confined to period up to date of issuance of Occupancy Certificate - The DGAP correctly restricted the period of investigation to the relevant period representing duration during which project was ongoing and supplier was availing input tax credit under GST regime – The buyers had booked units and made payments during pre-GST period and became entitled to benefit of additional Input Tax Credit accruing to Respondent in post-GST period - DGAP correctly computed additional ITC benefit by comparing ratio of ITC to purchase value in pre-GST and post-GST periods. The methodology is in conformity with Section 171 of CGST Act and consistent with principles enunciated by Delhi High Court - No infirmity can be found in methodology or in quantification of profiteered amount - Identifiability of recipients - Rule 133(3)(b) and Rule 133(3)(c) – HELD - Rule 133(3)(c) is residuary provision attracted only in those cases where eligible recipients are genuinely unidentified. Expression “recipient is not identifiable” cannot be interpreted to mean recipient has not filed complaint, is not presently available or that computation has not initially been made buyer-wise - Test under Rule 133(3)(c) is one of objective impossibility of identification - Where supplier's books of account, allotment letters, agreements for sale, demand notices, payment schedules and statutory records disclose identity of purchasers, recipients remain identifiable notwithstanding that they may not have participated in proceedings or may presently be untraceable or may have resold their flats - In present case Respondent is real estate developer engaged in sale of residential flats and nature of such transactions necessitates maintenance of exhaustive records of each homebuyer. Respondent itself relied upon buyer-specific data and categorised purchasers according to stage and timing of payments received. Such stand itself demolishes contention that recipients are unidentifiable - Factual matrix falls squarely within ambit and scope of clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 133 of CGST Rules - Respondent having collected excess consideration from homebuyers in contravention of Section 171 cannot be permitted to retain same - Respondent is directed to refund profiteered amount to respective homebuyers individually along with interest at rate of eighteen per cent per annum calculated from date of collection of excess amount from each homebuyer until date of actual restitution - Penalty under Section 171(3A) of CGST Act - Whether Respondent is liable to pay penalty under Section 171(3A) – HELD - Since period of investigation in present case has been restricted to period from introduction of GST till issuance of Occupancy Certificate which is prior to coming into force of Section 171(3A), penalty provision is not attracted for period of investigation - It is well-settled principle of law that penal provisions cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated - Section 171(3A) was inserted with effect from specified date and does not contain any provision for retrospective application - For period prior to coming into force of Section 171(3A), Respondent cannot be held liable for penalty under said provision - Respondent is not liable to pay penalty under Section 171(3A) of CGST Act. [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on services received by Special Economic Zone unit for authorized operations - Appellant, an SEZ unit engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, claimed refund of service tax paid on various services including payroll processing, insurance brokerage, legal consultancy, professional and consultancy charges, and construction services received during the period - Whether services used for authorized operations of SEZ unit but not wholly consumed within the SEZ are eligible for refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2011-Service Tax - HELD - Services received by an SEZ unit for... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on services received by Special Economic Zone unit for authorized operations - Appellant, an SEZ unit engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, claimed refund of service tax paid on various services including payroll processing, insurance brokerage, legal consultancy, professional and consultancy charges, and construction services received during the period - Whether services used for authorized operations of SEZ unit but not wholly consumed within the SEZ are eligible for refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2011-Service Tax - HELD - Services received by an SEZ unit for authorized operations are eligible for exemption and refund under Notification No. 17/2011-ST and Section 26(1)(e) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, provided such services are used in authorized operations of the SEZ unit. The requirement of being wholly consumed within SEZ applies only to specific services as enumerated in the Explanation to the notification and does not apply to all services for which refund is claimed - The notification provides a refund mechanism for services used in authorized operations and does not impose an artificial demarcation of wholly consumed within SEZ as a condition for all services - The exemption under SEZ Act has overriding effect over the Finance Act provisions and procedural irregularities in compliance with notification requirements cannot be pressed into service to deny substantial benefits - The revenue had not contended that the impugned services were not used in authorized operations and the appellant had clearly demonstrated utilization of services in authorized operations – The refund of service tax claimed for the rejected amount is granted, the order of lower authorities denying refund on the ground of non-consumption within SEZ is set aside - The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Validity of Arrest under Health Security Se National Security Act, 2025 - Petitioner was arrested by Excise authorities for alleged clandestine manufacture of tobacco and pan masala products in undeclared packing machines and for alleged evasion of tax, and the petitioner challenges the legality of his arrest and detention in a habeas corpus petition - Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner is in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 when the authorization for arrest was issued subsequent to the arrest and various procedural requireme... [Read more]

Central Excise - Validity of Arrest under Health Security Se National Security Act, 2025 - Petitioner was arrested by Excise authorities for alleged clandestine manufacture of tobacco and pan masala products in undeclared packing machines and for alleged evasion of tax, and the petitioner challenges the legality of his arrest and detention in a habeas corpus petition - Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner is in accordance with law and the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 when the authorization for arrest was issued subsequent to the arrest and various procedural requirements were not complied with – HELD - The arrest, remand and detention of petitioner do not appear to be in accordance with law. The authorization for arrest under Section 21(1) was issued by the Commissioner on 23.05.2026 only, whereas the petitioner was actually arrested on the intervening night of 22/23.05.2026, making the authorization subsequent to the arrest. The arrest memo does not indicate that a copy thereof was supplied to any relative or nominee of the petitioner as required under the B.N.S.S. procedures - All witnesses mentioned in the arrest memo appear to be strangers to the petitioner. The arrest memo does not contain any recital indicating that the petitioner was informed of his right to avail legal assistance from an advocate of his choice. Though the authorization for search was issued on 22.05.2026, the time of arrest has been recorded as 1:30 p.m. on 23.05.2026 in the arrest memo despite the actual arrest being on 22.05.2026 creating a discrepancy in records. Further, the basis of alleged evasion figure is not based on any audit and assessment under the Act. Relying on the principles laid down in Satender Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., the arrest is not justified as the maximum punishment under the Act extends to five years only and the procedural requirements have not been complied with - The arrest, remand and detention are set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith - The habeas corpus writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025 - Computation of Cess on Basis of Operational Machines - Petitioners engaged in manufacturing of pan masala challenge the order regarding cess computation under the Cess Act and contend that machines installed after 20.03.2026 should not be included in the computation of cess liability for the month of March as such machines were installed at the end of the month and therefore should be excluded from the total number of operational machines used for manufacturing - Whether Rule 12(4) of the Health Security Se National Security Cess Rules, 2026 requires in... [Read more]

Central Excise - Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025 - Computation of Cess on Basis of Operational Machines - Petitioners engaged in manufacturing of pan masala challenge the order regarding cess computation under the Cess Act and contend that machines installed after 20.03.2026 should not be included in the computation of cess liability for the month of March as such machines were installed at the end of the month and therefore should be excluded from the total number of operational machines used for manufacturing - Whether Rule 12(4) of the Health Security Se National Security Cess Rules, 2026 requires inclusion of machines installed at the end of the month in the cess computation when such machines are actually operational and used in production of goods listed in Schedule-II of the Cess Act and whether the statutory exception under Section 5(7) for proportionate abatement applies to machines installed at the end of a month – HELD - The Rule 12(4) mandates that the total number of operational machines used for manufacturing goods listed in Schedule-II must be treated as the maximum number of installed machines for Cess computation in a given month - When machines are installed towards the end of the month and are actively used to produce or package goods in pouches or containers they must be included in the cess calculation. The sole statutory exception to cess liability under Section 5(7) provides for proportionate abatement only if a machine remains inoperative for a continuous period of 15 days or more. The meaning of the word inoperative cannot be extended to operational machines installed at the end of the month nor can it be extended to newly registered taxable persons who install machines at any time during the month - The word inoperative applies only to machines that have remained in such status for a period of 15 days or more after installation before becoming operational and not to machines installed later in the month and made operational. Rule 12(4) does not violate the enabling provisions of the Cess Act nor does it convey manifest arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The statutory scheme charges cess on production based on installed and operational machines in a given month and the petitioners have misread the provisions - The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding service tax on suppression of facts - Appellant engaged in providing work contract services and received amounts from clients during financial years but failed to file ST-3 returns and pay service tax - Revenue made demand invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of suppression of facts - Appellant contended that demand is barred by limitation and relied upon decisions distinguishing between services covered under negative list and those where appellant failed to file prescribed return... [Read more]

Service Tax - Invocation of extended period of limitation for demanding service tax on suppression of facts - Appellant engaged in providing work contract services and received amounts from clients during financial years but failed to file ST-3 returns and pay service tax - Revenue made demand invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of suppression of facts - Appellant contended that demand is barred by limitation and relied upon decisions distinguishing between services covered under negative list and those where appellant failed to file prescribed returns despite being registered - Whether extended period of limitation is invocable when a service provider who is statutorily registered with the Department deliberately suppresses gross amounts received from clients by not filing ST-3 returns in the prescribed manner - HELD - When a statute prescribes a manner for performance of an act, it must be performed in that manner only, the appellant was required to file ST-3 return declaring gross amount received for taxable services and claim deductions in prescribed format, by not filing returns in the prescribed manner the appellant deliberately and knowingly suppressed the gross amounts received with intention to evade payment of service tax - The suppression of facts constitutes willful concealment bringing the case within the purview of extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1), appellant cannot claim benefit of his own wrong as per the maxim commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet - The penalty under Section 78 is justified as the extended period of limitation has been validly invoked, the appellant's non-response to summons and failure to produce requisite documents further supports invocation of extended period - Extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked for making demand, appeal is dismissed, penalty under Section 78 imposed by adjudicating authority is upheld. The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax – Benefit of reduced penalty on payment of tax within stipulated time-frame - Appellant submitted that due to non-receipt of communication regarding personal hearing in time, they were unable to make payment within prescribed 30-day period but subsequently paid the tax amount and also claimed to have paid the reduced penalty - Whether appellant has produced evidence to establish payment of reduced penalty of 25% of tax amount within the prescribed time-frame for availing the benefit of penalty reduction - HELD - The appellant could not produce any evidence to establish that reduced penalty of 25% of tax amoun... [Read more]

Service Tax – Benefit of reduced penalty on payment of tax within stipulated time-frame - Appellant submitted that due to non-receipt of communication regarding personal hearing in time, they were unable to make payment within prescribed 30-day period but subsequently paid the tax amount and also claimed to have paid the reduced penalty - Whether appellant has produced evidence to establish payment of reduced penalty of 25% of tax amount within the prescribed time-frame for availing the benefit of penalty reduction - HELD - The appellant could not produce any evidence to establish that reduced penalty of 25% of tax amount had been paid within the 30-day period prescribed in the order-in-original - The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of the claim made by appellant towards payment of reduced penalty of 25% of the tax amount within 30 days from the date of communication of the order for the limited purpose of ascertaining eligibility for the benefit of reduction of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, appeal is disposed of by way of remand [Read less]

GST - Limitation of Appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 - Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to Appeals filed beyond Prescribed Period – Power to condone delay in filing appeal Beyond 3 Months and extended period of one Month under Section 107 of CGST Act - Whether Appellate Authority can entertain appeal filed beyond prescribed period by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act - HELD – The CGST/SGST Act are special statutes which prescribe not only a specific period of limitation for preferring an appeal but also a maximum period upto which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. B... [Read more]

GST - Limitation of Appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017 - Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 to Appeals filed beyond Prescribed Period – Power to condone delay in filing appeal Beyond 3 Months and extended period of one Month under Section 107 of CGST Act - Whether Appellate Authority can entertain appeal filed beyond prescribed period by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act - HELD – The CGST/SGST Act are special statutes which prescribe not only a specific period of limitation for preferring an appeal but also a maximum period upto which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. By virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands impliedly excluded - The legislative scheme underlying Section 107 manifests an implied exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the period expressly provided under Section 107(4) of the Act. Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The Appellate Authority, being a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by the statute - The limitation prescribed under Section 107 forms an integral part of the appellate remedy itself and cannot be enlarged by resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act in absence of any statutory indication permitting such enlargement. The Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4), and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded by necessary implication - The individual writ petitions are directed to be listed for consideration of factual matrix of each case to examine whether writ jurisdiction should be invoked to examine the validity of the original order, although, the appeals have been dismissed on ground of limitation – Ordered accordingly - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – HELD - The principle emerging from the authoritative decisions is that the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be determined by adopting any universal formula and the answer necessarily depends upon the language employed by the Legislature, the scheme of the special enactment, the nature of the remedy created and the legislative intent which can be gathered therefrom. The CGST Act stands on an entirely different footing from beneficial legislation and the limitation prescribed under Section 107 forms an integral part of the statutory framework intended to ensure certainty, finality and expeditious adjudication of tax disputes. A statute involving financial implications stands on a totally different footing and the nature, object and legislative scheme of the GST Act are materially different from those of beneficial enactments. Absent any statutory indication permitting such enlargement, the limitation prescribed under Section 107 cannot be enlarged by resort to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The mere absence of an express exclusion is not conclusive, equally, the mere prescription of a period of limitation coupled with a limited power of condonation does not conclude the enquiry. The Court must ascertain whether upon a holistic reading of the statute the Legislature intended to exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. [Read less]

GST – Application for Anticipatory bail - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit - Necessity of Custodial Interrogation - Petitioners were partners of partnership firm engaged in business of supplying stainless steel products and ferrous scrap - DGGI initiated investigation alleging wrongful availment of ITC and estimated at approximately Rs. 94.96 crores by claiming credit on invoices without actual receipt of goods and from fake or non-existent suppliers - Petitioners apprehending arrest and seeking anticipatory bail - Whether arrest can be effected as matter of course in economic offences involving large-scale GST e... [Read more]

GST – Application for Anticipatory bail - Fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit - Necessity of Custodial Interrogation - Petitioners were partners of partnership firm engaged in business of supplying stainless steel products and ferrous scrap - DGGI initiated investigation alleging wrongful availment of ITC and estimated at approximately Rs. 94.96 crores by claiming credit on invoices without actual receipt of goods and from fake or non-existent suppliers - Petitioners apprehending arrest and seeking anticipatory bail - Whether arrest can be effected as matter of course in economic offences involving large-scale GST evasion or whether necessity of custodial interrogation must be independently established by investigating agency - HELD – The power of arrest under Section 69 of CGST Act is neither mechanical nor automatic and can be exercised only where Commissioner has reasons to believe person has committed specified offence and expression reasons to believe embodies substantive statutory safeguard requiring objective satisfaction founded on tangible material and not mere suspicion or allegations - Arrest is investigative measure and not punitive one and mere existence of power to arrest does not justify its exercise. Arrest must be shown to be necessary for purposes of investigation such as preventing abscondence, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or obstructing course of justice - Gravity of allegation by itself cannot justify curtailment of personal liberty. While economic offences constitute distinct class warranting fair thorough and effective investigation, constitutional safeguards protecting personal liberty cannot be ignored - In present case investigation substantially centres around documentary financial and electronic records already in custody of authorities and petitioners being permanent residents with known identities and addresses have expressed willingness to cooperate and undertaken to appear before investigating authority whenever required - Custodial interrogation not indispensable at this stage where investigation can effectively proceed without depriving accused of personal liberty – The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions - The Criminal Petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Cancellation of registration without service of notice in modes prescribed in Section 169 and without passing speaking order - Whether mere uploading of notice on GST portal constitutes complete compliance with requirement of Section 169 – HELD - This Court has taken consistent view that notice should be communicated through registered post under acknowledgment. Despite presence of two judgments on record with petitioner, the Dept has not made any statement regarding those decisions - The respondents are not showing bonafide approach by merely reiterating ... [Read more]

GST - Service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Cancellation of registration without service of notice in modes prescribed in Section 169 and without passing speaking order - Whether mere uploading of notice on GST portal constitutes complete compliance with requirement of Section 169 – HELD - This Court has taken consistent view that notice should be communicated through registered post under acknowledgment. Despite presence of two judgments on record with petitioner, the Dept has not made any statement regarding those decisions - The respondents are not showing bonafide approach by merely reiterating same and one stand which has already been rejected by ld. co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The conduct of respondents is bordering on face of contempt – Revenue cannot reiterate same response half-heartedly by taking same and one stand which has already been dealt with by this Court in several judgments. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that department has taken judgment of this Court to Hon'ble Supreme Court - This being an admitted position that notice has not been served upon petitioner either by way of e-mail or registered post, the action of respondents would fall within teeth of judgments – The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be served with fresh SCN in accordance with law giving sufficient time to file response whereafter if competent authority contemplates passing adverse order, he shall give personal hearing to petitioner and thereafter shall pass reasoned order in accordance with law – The writ application is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Classification of imported aluminium formwork structures - Appellant imported consignments of aluminium formwork structure with accessories and classified the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. 76109010 claiming exemption benefit under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs as amended by Notification No. 66/2016-Customs - Department challenged the classification contending that the imported goods should be classified under Tariff 84806000 and eligible for duty exemption under different serial numbers as the goods function as moulds for mineral materials - Whether imported aluminium formwork structures used for suppor... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of imported aluminium formwork structures - Appellant imported consignments of aluminium formwork structure with accessories and classified the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. 76109010 claiming exemption benefit under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs as amended by Notification No. 66/2016-Customs - Department challenged the classification contending that the imported goods should be classified under Tariff 84806000 and eligible for duty exemption under different serial numbers as the goods function as moulds for mineral materials - Whether imported aluminium formwork structures used for supporting and shaping concrete during construction and subsequently removed for reuse should be classified as structures under Tariff Heading 7610 or as moulds under Tariff Heading 8480 - HELD - Aluminium formwork structures operate as support for setting concrete and support structures in situ where concrete gets set to form immovable buildings, and are not moulds in the sense of shaping mineral materials into finished products, the goods are composed predominantly of aluminium consisting of aluminium plates and panels which are custom designed and assembled at site for construction purposes - When the product itself is not a mould, the exclusion from heading 7610 does not apply and the goods fall under heading 7610 which covers aluminium structures and parts of structures prepared for use in structures - The Explanatory Notes to heading 76.10 apply mutatis mutandis to equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, propping or pit-propping, and similar goods are classifiable under heading 7610 - The revenue's reclassification under Tariff 84806000 is not sustainable and the goods are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 76109010, consequently the goods are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 152/2009 as amended – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Valuation of goods cleared to sister concern/Related party – Application of Rule 8 or Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 when goods are cleared for captive consumption to sister unit - Appellant engaged in manufacture of Bromine cleared a major part of production to independent buyers at higher rates and balance quantity to sister unit at lower value for captive consumption and manufacture of further products – Demand of differential duty on clearances to related party - Whether goods cleared partly to independent buyers and partly to sister unit for captive consumption should be valu... [Read more]

Central Excise – Valuation of goods cleared to sister concern/Related party – Application of Rule 8 or Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 when goods are cleared for captive consumption to sister unit - Appellant engaged in manufacture of Bromine cleared a major part of production to independent buyers at higher rates and balance quantity to sister unit at lower value for captive consumption and manufacture of further products – Demand of differential duty on clearances to related party - Whether goods cleared partly to independent buyers and partly to sister unit for captive consumption should be valued under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules at cost of production or under Rule 4 at the sale price charged to independent buyers - HELD - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules applies only when the entire quantity of excisable goods produced is consumed captively and not sold. A bare reading of Rule 8 which applies when excisable goods are not sold but are used for consumption shows that it is applicable to cases where entire production is consumed captively without any sale - When part of production is sold to independent buyers and the balance is transferred to related party for captive consumption, Rule 4 shall apply for determination of assessable value. The provision of Rule 4 stating that value shall be based on goods sold by the assessee for delivery at time nearest to removal of goods is applicable. Sale price to independent buyers shall be adopted for valuation of goods cleared for captive consumption as such transaction value is readily available and comparable to goods of similar specification and quality. The Board Circular dated 25.11.2013 regarding amended Rule 8, though clarificatory in nature, does not change the fundamental principle that Rule 8 applies only when entire quantity is consumed captively - The valuation under Rule 4 based on sale price to independent buyers for determining value of goods transferred to sister unit is correct. Demand for differential duty based on such valuation is upheld and the appeal is rejected - Extended Period of Limitation – Appellant did not separately disclose in ER-1 returns the quantity and value of goods cleared to sister unit and showed combined clearance quantity and clearance value without breakup between independent buyers and related party clearances. Whether extended period of limitation for demanding additional central excise duty can be invoked when the assessee has not separately disclosed related party sales in returns and whether such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of facts justifying invocation of extended period - HELD - The show cause notice clearly alleged that Appellant declared total quantity of goods cleared without providing breakup of quantity and value of clearances to related party which amounts to suppression of full and correct details of clearances in the prescribed format of returns. The Appellant has not disclosed full facts in excise returns and suppressed vital information regarding the fact that goods were cleared to sister unit at lower value compared to sales to independent buyers, with intent to evade payment of duty. Extended period of limitation can be invoked when there is suppression of facts or failure to provide accurate information regarding sales - The invocation of extended period of limitation is correctly upheld. The demand for differential duty for the larger period is sustainable. Interest is imposed as the Appellant did not provide accurate information to revenue. Penalty equal to duty amount is imposed. [Read less]

Service Tax - Refund Claim - Limitation Under Section 11B - Appellant a government housing board deposited service tax under bonafide mistake in respect of construction services for period prior to 01.07.2010 when construction services by builder to prospective buyers before completion were not treated as taxable as per CBEC Circular, but after amendment with effect from 01.07.2010, such services were made taxable - Whether the refund claim filed beyond one year from relevant date is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - Section 11B prescribes period of limitation as one yea... [Read more]

Service Tax - Refund Claim - Limitation Under Section 11B - Appellant a government housing board deposited service tax under bonafide mistake in respect of construction services for period prior to 01.07.2010 when construction services by builder to prospective buyers before completion were not treated as taxable as per CBEC Circular, but after amendment with effect from 01.07.2010, such services were made taxable - Whether the refund claim filed beyond one year from relevant date is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - Section 11B prescribes period of limitation as one year from relevant date for claiming refund of any duty or tax. However, in present case the refund sought was of amount deposited under mistake of law, which cannot be termed as tax or duty as there was no law at relevant time which required service tax to be paid on construction services. The government had no authority to collect any tax and therefore even if appellant had deposited amount under head of service tax, the same cannot be termed as service tax. The appellant is entitled to recover amount deposited under mistake of law and it has been repeatedly held that refund claim cannot be rejected on ground of limitation under Section 11B - The refund application cannot be rejected on ground of being time barred as per Section 11B – The appeal is disposed of - Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment - Appellant collected service tax from customers and claimed refund asserting that amount should be returned to eligible allottees from whom it was collected under mistake - Whether the refund claim is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) - HELD - Section 11B requires an applicant to prove that incidence of duty or tax has not been passed on to any other person. However, appellant has admitted that service tax was recovered and collected directly from allottees and buyers. The admitted position is that burden of amount deposited by appellant as service tax has been borne by allottees and buyers. Since Government cannot collect any tax except by authority of law, it cannot retain said amount. It is just and logical that liberty is granted to eligible allottees and buyers to make refund claim and on verification the same should be disbursed to them along with interest in accordance with law - Following decision in Mafatlal Industries, the refund claims cannot be entertained except in accordance with statutory provisions of Section 11B. However, in circumstances where deposit was not a service tax as there was no law under which service tax was leviable on services, the amount deposited was a mere deposit which government had no authority to retain - The refund claim cannot be rejected on ground of unjust enrichment, but liberty is granted to eligible allottees and buyers to make refund claims, and appellant is required to provide necessary assistance so that allottees are able to make refund application. [Read less]

Central Excise - Interest payable on pre-deposit refund made pursuant to appellate authority order - Appellant made pre-deposit pursuant to direction of Hon'ble High Court and subsequently the Tribunal decided the case in appellant's favour confirming their eligibility for CENVAT credit, the original authority sanctioned refund of pre-deposit along with interest at the rate specified in Section 11BB under the erstwhile Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provided for interest after expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority – Pr. Commissioner reviewed and ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Interest payable on pre-deposit refund made pursuant to appellate authority order - Appellant made pre-deposit pursuant to direction of Hon'ble High Court and subsequently the Tribunal decided the case in appellant's favour confirming their eligibility for CENVAT credit, the original authority sanctioned refund of pre-deposit along with interest at the rate specified in Section 11BB under the erstwhile Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provided for interest after expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority – Pr. Commissioner reviewed and directed denial of interest on the ground that amended Section 35FF effective from 06.08.2014 is not applicable as the pre-deposit was made prior to such date - Whether interest is payable on pre-deposit made prior to 06.08.2014 and refunded after 06.08.2014 in terms of the erstwhile or amended Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The amended Section 35FF effective from 06.08.2014 providing for interest on pre-deposits from date of payment till date of refund was introduced to address mandatory pre-deposit requirement prescribed from that date, the proviso clause in amended Section 35FF clearly provides that pre-deposits made prior to 06.08.2014 shall be governed by the erstwhile provisions of Section 35FF as it stood before commencement of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 - The erstwhile provision required interest only if refund was not made within three months from date of communication of appellate order, in the present case the refund was sanctioned on 18.06.2015 which was within three months from the Tribunal order dated 16.04.2015 - Payment of interest does not arise since the refund was made within the stipulated period under the erstwhile Section 35FF - The impugned order upholding sanction of refund but denying payment of interest and ordering its repayment is sustained, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed [Read less]

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Jurisdiction and maintainability of application for Advance Ruling - Scope of Advance Ruling Authority under Section 95(a) and Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 - Appellant filed application before Appellate Authority seeking advance ruling on taxability of amounts received pursuant to settlement agreement based on arbitral awards for extra expenditure incurred during execution of hydro power plant construction contract - Whether application for advance ruling relating to completed transactions requiring factual examination and determination of tax position already adopted by the applicant could be en... [Read more]

GST – West Bengal AAAR - Jurisdiction and maintainability of application for Advance Ruling - Scope of Advance Ruling Authority under Section 95(a) and Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017 - Appellant filed application before Appellate Authority seeking advance ruling on taxability of amounts received pursuant to settlement agreement based on arbitral awards for extra expenditure incurred during execution of hydro power plant construction contract - Whether application for advance ruling relating to completed transactions requiring factual examination and determination of tax position already adopted by the applicant could be entertained under the scheme of Advance Ruling - HELD - The institution of Advance Ruling is a distinct statutory mechanism conceived to provide certainty regarding the tax implications of transactions before disputes arise and is intended to facilitate voluntary compliance by enabling an applicant to obtain clarity regarding the GST implications of a proposed transaction or a transaction in the course of being undertaken - Section 95(a) of the CGST Act defines Advance Ruling as a decision provided by the Authority in relation to a supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant and the jurisdiction of the Authority is intrinsically linked with transactions which are prospective or ongoing - In the present case, the contractual work stood completed prior to 01.07.2017, the disputes were referred to arbitration culminating in an arbitral award passed in 2023, the applicant received the awarded amounts and thereafter furnished the relevant statutory return consciously treating the receipts as non-taxable before invoking the jurisdiction of the AAR - The application was not seeking advance certainty regarding a proposed or ongoing transaction but one seeking affirmation of a tax position already adopted and implementation of such opinion through filing of statutory return. Such enquiry falls squarely within the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional proper officer and not within the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority - The impugned ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority cannot be sustained and the application ought not to have been entertained under the scheme of Chapter XVII of the CGST Act - No final opinion has been expressed on the taxability or otherwise of the amounts and it shall be open to the jurisdictional proper officer to examine the issue independently – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Service Tax - CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on Insurance Premium to Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation - Appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on insurance premium to Deposit Insurance Corporation. The lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit - Whether CENVAT credit can be availed on service tax paid on insurance premium for Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee scheme when the insurance service is treated as an input service - HELD - In order to render any output service under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services, it is necessary for a Bank to register... [Read more]

Service Tax - CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on Insurance Premium to Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation - Appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on insurance premium to Deposit Insurance Corporation. The lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit - Whether CENVAT credit can be availed on service tax paid on insurance premium for Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee scheme when the insurance service is treated as an input service - HELD - In order to render any output service under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services, it is necessary for a Bank to register itself with the Deposit Insurance Corporation and pay premium after registration. A Bank without obtaining registration and without payment of insurance premium on the deposits outstanding cannot render any output service of Banking and Other Financial Services. The insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the Banks is an input service and CENVAT credit of service tax paid for this service received by the Banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the Banks for rendering output services - The issue is squarely settled in favour of the Appellant by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Valuation - Appellant imported PVC profile and other goods from China at declared values. During investigation of alleged mis-declaration regarding freight charges, invoices reflecting higher values were recovered during search and the Director admitted to declaring lower values for certain consignments while actual invoices received from overseas suppliers showed higher prices - Whether rejection of transaction value declared by Appellant and demand for differential duty based on invoices recovered during investigation and statements recorded from the importer is sustainable - HELD - The evidence on record inclu... [Read more]

Customs - Valuation - Appellant imported PVC profile and other goods from China at declared values. During investigation of alleged mis-declaration regarding freight charges, invoices reflecting higher values were recovered during search and the Director admitted to declaring lower values for certain consignments while actual invoices received from overseas suppliers showed higher prices - Whether rejection of transaction value declared by Appellant and demand for differential duty based on invoices recovered during investigation and statements recorded from the importer is sustainable - HELD - The evidence on record including invoices recovered during investigation established higher values than those declared and the statement recorded from the Director confirmed that goods were intentionally undervalued. The declared transaction value was properly rejected as the invoices recovered during investigation reflected the true prices of goods at the time of removal and the assessable value based on the actual invoices recovered represents the true transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act. The rejection of declared value and determination of assessable value based on invoices recovered and admissions made by the importer is sustainable and in accordance with law - Demand for differential duty against undervalued imports is upheld and goods are liable for confiscation. Redemption fine is reduced to amount calculated at ten percent and penalty reduced to amount calculated at five percent of the enhanced value of goods cleared under the Bills of Entry – Ordered accordingly - Confiscation and Penalty in Provisional Assessment - Goods imported were provisionally assessed and provisionally released in April 2014. Subsequently show cause notice was issued under Section 28 of Customs Act for finalization of provisional assessments proposing confiscation and penalties alleged to be undervalued based on comparison with values of petroleum products imported during different periods and at different specifications - Whether confiscation and penalties can be imposed under Section 28 when goods are only provisionally assessed and assessment is not finalized - HELD - Allegations of mis-declaration, suppression of facts and non-payment or short payment of Customs Duty arise only after finalization of assessments and adjustment of duty paid or payable under Section 18(2) of Customs Act. Section 28 can be invoked only when duty has not been levied or has been short-levied following final assessment. There is no legal justification for issuance of show cause notice under Section 28 for finalization of provisional assessments as only the Proper Officers have jurisdiction to finalize provisional assessments - The comparison using prices of petroleum products from different periods for determining value is unsustainable as petroleum products have varying prices depending on international petroleum price fluctuations - The impugned order proposing demand, confiscation and penalties based on enhanced value in provisional assessment is set aside. The demand, confiscation and penalties imposed on Appellant and CEO are set aside. Jurisdictional Proper Officer is directed to expeditiously finalize the provisional assessments in accordance with law. [Read less]

GST - Cross-Empowerment of Officers under IGST Act, 2017 - Authorization without Central Government Notification - Statutory interpretation of Section 4 of IGST Act, 2017 regarding authorization of State officers as proper officers - Petitioner assailed confiscation order and summary order, contending that officers appointed under SGST Act are not authorized to exercise powers under the IGST Act without a specific notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4 of the IGST Act – Petitioner contends that though the Commissioner of State Tax had issued an order specifying proper officers under the State Act, ... [Read more]

GST - Cross-Empowerment of Officers under IGST Act, 2017 - Authorization without Central Government Notification - Statutory interpretation of Section 4 of IGST Act, 2017 regarding authorization of State officers as proper officers - Petitioner assailed confiscation order and summary order, contending that officers appointed under SGST Act are not authorized to exercise powers under the IGST Act without a specific notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4 of the IGST Act – Petitioner contends that though the Commissioner of State Tax had issued an order specifying proper officers under the State Act, the same would not empower such officers to pass orders unless there is a notification issued under Section 4 of the IGST Act empowering such officers to exercise their powers - Whether a Central Government notification is mandatory under Section 4 of the IGST Act to authorize State officers to exercise powers under IGST Act or whether the statutory language itself confers such authorization - HELD – From reading of Section 4 of the IGST Act it manifests that the officers appointed under the SGST are authorized to be the proper officers for the purpose of the IGST Act. The language of Section 4 of the IGST Act indubitably prescribes that the officers appointed under the SGST Act are authorized and empowered to carry out their powers or functions for the purpose of the IGST Act. The section does not in any manner mandate issuance of Notification by the Central Government suggesting or stipulating any division of powers by such proper officers but it is left on the discretion of the Proper Officer appointed by the State Government to further delegate the powers to other officers, which is already done through the order dated 23.06.2017 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax - The Court find merit in precedents from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, High Court of Calcutta and High Court of Madhya Pradesh, all of which held that no notification is required and officers appointed under State GST Act are authorized to exercise powers under IGST Act. On overall appreciation of the provisions of the Acts as well as the legal precedent set out by other High Courts, there are no merits in the submissions that Notification is required since Section 4 of the IGST Act already takes care of the state of affairs - The confiscation order and summary order are valid and the writ petition is dismissed - Appeal remedy and procedural propriety - Scope of Section 107 of CGST Act for filing appeal against orders passed by proper officers under IGST Act - Petitioner contended that since there is no provision in the CGST Act or under State GST Act governing filing of appeal against any order passed by any proper officer under the IGST Act - The petitioner further relied on Section 6(3) of SGST Act arguing that any order passed by State authority officers shall not lie before an officer appointed under the CGST Act and therefore the petitioner is left without any remedy - Whether an appeal can be filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act against orders passed by State officers exercising powers under IGST Act and if so what is the proper appellate authority - HELD - The Section 107 of the CGST Act provides for filing an appeal against an order passed under this Act or the SGST Act or the UTGST Act. Section 4 of the IGST Act creates a deeming fiction of passing an order by the proper officers under the SGST Tax Act and hence an appeal would lie before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act if the order is passed by the proper officer exercising powers under CGST Act. However since in the present case the orders have been passed by the proper officers of the State Government, the provision of Section 107 of the State Act gets attracted. – The provision of Section 6(3) of the SGST Act cannot be made an excuse of non-filing of an appeal since the appeal would only lie to the appellate authority of the State under the provision of Section 107 of the State Act. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal and therefore cannot resort to writ jurisdiction - The writ petition cannot be entertained and stands dismissed. [Read less]

Refund application cannot be rejected solely on the basis of title of certificate if it satisfies the requirements of BRC or FIRC. If the document confirms the genuineness of and the amounts involved in the transaction, the same should be accepted.

GST – Functioning of Appellate Tribunal, Priority Hearing before the Tribunal - Petitioner was aggrieved by an order of the High Court which did not interfere in the matter on the ground that the GSTAT had started functioning and the matter was required to be considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had not yet fully functioned as the cases had not even been registered or numbered on the portal – HELD - The GST Appellate Tribunal has specifically been constituted to lessen the load of the High Court in such matters and has become functional. The Court expect that the Tribunal wou... [Read more]

GST – Functioning of Appellate Tribunal, Priority Hearing before the Tribunal - Petitioner was aggrieved by an order of the High Court which did not interfere in the matter on the ground that the GSTAT had started functioning and the matter was required to be considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had not yet fully functioned as the cases had not even been registered or numbered on the portal – HELD - The GST Appellate Tribunal has specifically been constituted to lessen the load of the High Court in such matters and has become functional. The Court expect that the Tribunal would start functioning fully - The SLP stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to mention the matter before the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal for not only registering/numbering the case but also to take up the matter and if required, at least hear it for the purpose of any interim relief which the petitioner may require - The Court is conscious that the Tribunal, because of its recent constitution and functioning, might be overloaded but having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, when the matter was at the final stage before the High Court, the Court find it to be an appropriate case where a discretion for priority hearing of the case of the petitioner is required to be exercised. The President of the GSTAT would take appropriate action if the matter was so mentioned - The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax – Scope of Goods Transport Agency Service - Classification of transportation services - Appellant company engaged in extraction, processing and export of iron ore availed transportation services for movement of iron ore from mine head to processing plant and to ports for shipment and deposited service tax on transportation charges - Appellant filed refund claim contending that transporters engaged were individual truck owners and not GTA and therefore no service tax was payable under GTA service - Whether transportation undertaken by individual truck owners falls within ambit of Goods Transport Agency service... [Read more]

Service Tax – Scope of Goods Transport Agency Service - Classification of transportation services - Appellant company engaged in extraction, processing and export of iron ore availed transportation services for movement of iron ore from mine head to processing plant and to ports for shipment and deposited service tax on transportation charges - Appellant filed refund claim contending that transporters engaged were individual truck owners and not GTA and therefore no service tax was payable under GTA service - Whether transportation undertaken by individual truck owners falls within ambit of Goods Transport Agency service as defined under Section 65(50b) of Finance Act 1994 and whether documents described as pay slips constituted consignment notes - HELD – The definition of Goods Transport Agency does not make distinction between incorporated entity, partnership concern or individual transporter. The mere fact that transportation was undertaken by individual truck owners would not by itself exclude activity from scope of definition - Section 65(50b) employs expression consignment note by whatever name called indicating emphasis is on nature and contents of document and not name assigned to it. Once document substantially depicts receipt and transportation of goods and contains particulars ordinarily associated with consignment note, the mere fact that it is described as pay slip would not alter its legal character. The said documents depicted movement of goods and contained material particulars concerning transportation undertaken - The judgments relied upon by appellant are distinguishable as they found no goods consignment notes had been issued by transporter whereas pay slips issued answer description of consignment note - Transportation services received were liable to be classified under category of Goods Transport Agency service - Once levy itself is held to be valid, consequential claim for refund cannot survive - The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

GST - Recovery of dues from partnership firm and partnership members - Liability of partners and authorized signatories under Section 88(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner in partnership firm challenged recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act seeking to attach bank accounts of the partnership firm to recover tax dues of a defaulting Private Limited company in respect of which one of the partners was a Director during the period of default - Whether recovery of tax dues from the partnership firm and its bank accounts could be initiated merely on account of the partnership of one of its members wi... [Read more]

GST - Recovery of dues from partnership firm and partnership members - Liability of partners and authorized signatories under Section 88(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner in partnership firm challenged recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act seeking to attach bank accounts of the partnership firm to recover tax dues of a defaulting Private Limited company in respect of which one of the partners was a Director during the period of default - Whether recovery of tax dues from the partnership firm and its bank accounts could be initiated merely on account of the partnership of one of its members with the defaulting company and the directorship of such member in the defaulting company during the tax period - HELD - When a private company is wound up and any tax, interest or penalty determined under the GST Act on the company for any period cannot be recovered from the company under liquidation, then every person who was a Director of such company at any time during the period for which the tax was due shall, jointly and severally, be liable for the payment of such tax, interest or penalty under Section 88(3) of the Act unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that such non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company - The recovery proceedings have been validly initiated against the petitioners on account of the tax arrears from the Directors of the defaulting company as the said petitioner was the Director of the defaulting company during the period of the default and also a partner in the partnership firm during the period of accrual of demand - The burden of proof that the tax default was not on account of the said petitioner but on account of other Directors is to be discharged only before the Commissioner as is contemplated under Section 88(3) of the Act - The impugned recovery notices cannot be interfered with and liberty is given to the petitioner to work out her remedy within the statutory framework of Section 88(3) of the Act - The writ petitions are dismissed - GST - Bank attachment for recovery of tax dues - Validity of procedures followed under Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 145(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Petitioner challenged attachment of bank accounts of the partnership firm on the ground that recovery proceedings were initiated against a separate legal entity merely on the basis of common link of one of the partners with the defaulting company - Whether recovery proceedings validly initiated against a partnership firm for recovery of tax dues of a defaulting company could be sustained when the partnership firm itself had no direct liability for such dues - HELD - The scheme under Section 88(3) of the CGST Act makes it clear that when a private company is wound up and tax cannot be recovered from the company, every person who was a Director of such company during the period for which the tax was due shall be liable for the payment of such tax, interest or penalty - Since the petitioner in the individual petition was also the partner in the partnership firm and was the initial partner of the said firm after the execution and registration of the partnership deed and continued after default was made in the said company, the challenge to the impugned recovery communication addressed to the bank account holders cannot be countenanced - All partners of the defaulting company are also partners of the petitioner firm and therefore they cannot deny their relationship with the defaulting company and their liability to be proceeded under Section 88(3) of the Act. Merely because the petitioner resigned subsequently is of no anvil - There is no violation of principles of natural justice in attaching the bank accounts and the recovery proceedings have been validly initiated following the procedures laid down under Section 79 of the GST Act - The writ petitions are dismissed [Read less]

GST – Legality of use of Artificial Intelligence Tool for preparation and issuance of Show Cause Notice - Application of mind by Competent Authority - Petitioner assailed a Show Cause Notice on the ground that there was no application of mind to the facts involved in the case by the Officer concerned, who had resorted to the use of an AI Tool for issuance of the notice - Whether a show cause notice issued primarily relying upon an AI Tool without the requisite sanction in law can be sustained – HELD - The document annexed to the show cause notice referred to various AI-based aids and suggestions with regard to the mann... [Read more]

GST – Legality of use of Artificial Intelligence Tool for preparation and issuance of Show Cause Notice - Application of mind by Competent Authority - Petitioner assailed a Show Cause Notice on the ground that there was no application of mind to the facts involved in the case by the Officer concerned, who had resorted to the use of an AI Tool for issuance of the notice - Whether a show cause notice issued primarily relying upon an AI Tool without the requisite sanction in law can be sustained – HELD - The document annexed to the show cause notice referred to various AI-based aids and suggestions with regard to the manner in which the order could be passed or improved and the optional enhancement suggested by the AI Tool included suggestions to tighten the order further with case-law citation, convert it into Order-in-Original reasoning, add knowledge and connivance language and draft a defence-proof rebuttal - The statute expects the competent authority not only to examine the facts of the case but also to apply their mind before issuing a SCN. The use of an AI Tool for preparation and issuance of show cause notice is not shown to be permissible under the statute. Since the show cause notice has been issued primarily relying upon the AI Tool which does not have the requisite sanction in law, the said show cause notice and the consequential proceedings thereof cannot be sustained in law - The show cause notice and the consequential proceedings thereof are quashed. Liberty is reserved with the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law by examining the facts of the case with independent application of mind – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Locus standi of third party to challenge Advance Ruling orders - Petitioner, being a recipient of supplies under a contract with the party who obtained the Advance Ruling, seeks to challenge an order passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling classifying supplies and services attracting varying rates of GST - Though the petitioner was not a party to the Advance Ruling proceedings, contends that by virtue of contractual obligation to reimburse the applicable GST, the order imposed financial burden and civil consequences upon it - Whether a writ petition challenging an order passed by the AAR or the AAAR can ... [Read more]

GST - Locus standi of third party to challenge Advance Ruling orders - Petitioner, being a recipient of supplies under a contract with the party who obtained the Advance Ruling, seeks to challenge an order passed by the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling classifying supplies and services attracting varying rates of GST - Though the petitioner was not a party to the Advance Ruling proceedings, contends that by virtue of contractual obligation to reimburse the applicable GST, the order imposed financial burden and civil consequences upon it - Whether a writ petition challenging an order passed by the AAR or the AAAR can be maintained by a person other than the applicant and the concerned officer, and whether such writ petition is maintainable in the absence of locus standi – HELD – In terms of Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017 an order passed by the Advance Ruling or the Appellate Authority is binding only on the applicant who had sought it and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer, and is a decision in personam binding only on the parties to the proceedings - Having regard to the scope and ambit of Chapter XVII dealing with Advance Rulings, there is no scope to bind third parties and there is no scope for a challenge at the instance of any person other than the applicant or the concerned officer, irrespective of the consequences flowing from such Ruling - Any financial implication arising by way of increased liability pursuant to an Advance Ruling is merely a consequence flowing from such ruling in the light of the contractual obligations between the parties. The general principle that an aggrieved person is one who suffers adverse consequences by reason of a decision cannot be mechanically applied to pronouncements rendered under Chapter XVII of the Act - Having regard to the legislative intent and the scope of the provisions, the Court does not find any scope for a third party either to claim the benefit of such ruling or to question the same. The Authority for Advance Ruling is essentially an alternate advance dispute resolution mechanism and cannot be treated as general litigation so as to permit third parties to enter the arena of such proceedings - When there is no contractual stipulation classifying the supply of goods or services or specifying the applicable rate of GST, the question of the impugned ruling imposing any additional liability does not arise and consequently the petitioner cannot be regarded as an aggrieved person. Entertaining such writ petition would necessarily require the Court to interpret the contract as incorporating clauses relating to the classification of goods or services and the applicable rate of GST which are otherwise absent in the contract, which exercise would amount to rewriting the terms of the contract which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - The writ petition is not maintainable for want of locus standi and is accordingly dismissed [Read less]

GST - Jurisdiction of DGGI Officer to issue penalty notice under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Irregular availment of input tax credit without actual supply of goods - Whether DGGI officer has jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice under Section 122 of the Act – Maintainability of writ petition - HELD – There are disputed questions of fact as to whether entire proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and whether the DGGI was a "proper officer" which are required to be examined by the GST Tribunal - In order to avoid the condition of pre-deposit, the petitioner cannot be permitte... [Read more]

GST - Jurisdiction of DGGI Officer to issue penalty notice under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Irregular availment of input tax credit without actual supply of goods - Whether DGGI officer has jurisdiction to issue show-cause notice under Section 122 of the Act – Maintainability of writ petition - HELD – There are disputed questions of fact as to whether entire proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and whether the DGGI was a "proper officer" which are required to be examined by the GST Tribunal - In order to avoid the condition of pre-deposit, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. If the High Court is required to entertain each and every matter, then what would be the use of the constitution of the Tribunal – The petition dismissed with liberty to petitioner to approach Appellate Tribunal to avail remedy of appeal [Read less]

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Levy of tax on blended coffee sold by Trade Mark Holder - Application of Section 5AA of APGST Act, 1957 - Appellant engaged in manufacturing and marketing of a product under its own trademark and brand name, purchasing raw materials from preceding points of sale which had already suffered tax. Appellant claimed exemption under Section 5 read with Entry 34A of the First Schedule to APGST Act, 1957 contending that the goods were entitled to exemption and that tax levied and collected at the preceding point of sale should be deducted from the tax payable at the subsequent point of ... [Read more]

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Levy of tax on blended coffee sold by Trade Mark Holder - Application of Section 5AA of APGST Act, 1957 - Appellant engaged in manufacturing and marketing of a product under its own trademark and brand name, purchasing raw materials from preceding points of sale which had already suffered tax. Appellant claimed exemption under Section 5 read with Entry 34A of the First Schedule to APGST Act, 1957 contending that the goods were entitled to exemption and that tax levied and collected at the preceding point of sale should be deducted from the tax payable at the subsequent point of sale - Whether Section 5AA can be applied to sales effected by a dealer marketing goods under a trademark or brand name at a point of sale other than the first point of sale, and whether tax at preceding points of sale is liable to be deducted from tax payable under Section 5AA, notwithstanding any express prohibition claimed in the provision itself regarding first sales – HELD - The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Blended Coffee by purchasing coffee seeds and chicory, subjecting the coffee seeds to the process of roasting and grinding and thereafter blending them with chicory before marketing the final product - A dealer who markets goods under a trademark or brand name at a point of sale other than the first point of sale is liable to tax under Section 5AA of the APGST Act, 1957 irrespective of whether the trademark is registered or unregistered. The statutory language of Section 5AA does not contain any express prohibition prohibiting its application to dealers engaged in manufacturing and sale of goods under a trademark. The provision operates by deeming such a dealer to be the first seller in the State when goods are sold at any point other than the actual first point of sale - The liability to tax under Section 5AA is attracted by the mere fact of marketing goods under a trademark or brand name, irrespective of trademark registration status. The Appellate Tribunal committed no error in confirming the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the assessment made by the assessing authority – The Tax Revision Cases are dismissed and the impugned order is upheld [Read less]

GST - Export of services - Non-production of Foreign Investment Remittance Certificate and Bank Statements - Petitioner had commenced export of services business and filed all returns for the relevant period - Respondent initiated proceedings and confirmed adjudication order solely on the ground that petitioner failed to produce copies of FIRC and Bank Statements without considering Letter of Undertaking, sale invoices and banker's certificates evidencing remittances to Non-Resident Rupee Account - Whether proceedings could be confirmed only for non-production of specific documents without considering alternative evidence ... [Read more]

GST - Export of services - Non-production of Foreign Investment Remittance Certificate and Bank Statements - Petitioner had commenced export of services business and filed all returns for the relevant period - Respondent initiated proceedings and confirmed adjudication order solely on the ground that petitioner failed to produce copies of FIRC and Bank Statements without considering Letter of Undertaking, sale invoices and banker's certificates evidencing remittances to Non-Resident Rupee Account - Whether proceedings could be confirmed only for non-production of specific documents without considering alternative evidence of genuine foreign remittance - HELD - Where banker has acknowledged remittances to Non-Resident Rupee Account and issued certificates satisfying the requirements for which FIRC is issued, such evidence should have been considered before confirming proceedings, especially if it could be reasonably opined that the Certificate would be instead of FIRC – The adjudication order is quashed restoring proceedings to respondent calling upon petitioner to produce Certificates issued by the petitioner's bankers - The petition is allowed [Read less]