More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

GST – Denial of ITC to purchasing dealer on the grounds of retrospective cancellation of registration of its suppliers - Issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of WBGST Act, 2017 - Whether the show cause notice exhibit any ‘pre-determined mind’ and liable to be interfered with at the writ petition stage – HELD - The show cause notice merely invites the taxpayer to present its case and does not constitute any final determination. The notice issuing authority has prima facie material to question the genuineness of the petitioner's transactions with its suppliers based on the ITC chain, and this is sufficient ... [Read more]

GST – Denial of ITC to purchasing dealer on the grounds of retrospective cancellation of registration of its suppliers - Issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of WBGST Act, 2017 - Whether the show cause notice exhibit any ‘pre-determined mind’ and liable to be interfered with at the writ petition stage – HELD - The show cause notice merely invites the taxpayer to present its case and does not constitute any final determination. The notice issuing authority has prima facie material to question the genuineness of the petitioner's transactions with its suppliers based on the ITC chain, and this is sufficient to issue a notice under Section 74. The burden of proving the eligibility for ITC is on the taxpayer, and the adequacy of the documents submitted by the petitioner can only be examined during the adjudication proceedings, not at the show cause notice stage - The SCN does not exhibit any pre-determined mindset of the authority, as the notice has extensively used the term "prima facie" to indicate that the process is still at the inquiry stage. The petitioner would have a full opportunity to present its case and the authority would be required to consider the reply before passing any final adjudication order. However, the adjudication order passed during the pendency of the writ petition is quashed as the same was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file its reply to the notice and the authorities are directed to pass a fresh adjudication order after considering the reply and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – West Bengal AAR - Exemption under GST for conservancy services related to Municipal functions - Applicant provides services to the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) for carrying segregated waste from the secondary transfer point to the designated dumpsite in a segregated manner using its own fuel-operated vehicles - Whether the conservancy services provided by the applicant to Municipal Corporation for carrying segregated waste from secondary transfer point to dumpsite in segregated manner with the help of own fuel operated vehicle are exempt from GST as the activities related to functions entrusted to a Municipal... [Read more]

GST – West Bengal AAR - Exemption under GST for conservancy services related to Municipal functions - Applicant provides services to the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) for carrying segregated waste from the secondary transfer point to the designated dumpsite in a segregated manner using its own fuel-operated vehicles - Whether the conservancy services provided by the applicant to Municipal Corporation for carrying segregated waste from secondary transfer point to dumpsite in segregated manner with the help of own fuel operated vehicle are exempt from GST as the activities related to functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution – HELD - The services provided by the applicant are "pure services" as they do not involve any works contract service or other composite supplies involving the supply of goods - The services are provided to a "local authority", i.e., the Howrah Municipal Corporation, which is covered under the definition of "local authority" in the CGST Act - The activities of the applicant are directly related to the functions entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution, specifically the function of "public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management" under Entry 6 of the Twelfth Schedule. Therefore, the services provided by the applicant to HMC for carrying segregated waste from the secondary transfer point to the dumpsite qualify for exemption under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) - Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – West Bengal AAR – Manufacture and supply of non-alcoholic beverages and related preparations - Classification and applicable rate of GST on Non-alcoholic Beverages, Iced Tea, Syrups, and Tea Extracts – HELD - The non-alcoholic beverages supplied by the applicant do not contain any fruit pulp or fruit juice in it. As such, it cannot be covered by tariff item no. 22029920 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which stands for ‘fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks’ - The non-alcoholic beverages are covered by tariff heading no. 2202 with specific tariff item no. 22029990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - the non-a... [Read more]

GST – West Bengal AAR – Manufacture and supply of non-alcoholic beverages and related preparations - Classification and applicable rate of GST on Non-alcoholic Beverages, Iced Tea, Syrups, and Tea Extracts – HELD - The non-alcoholic beverages supplied by the applicant do not contain any fruit pulp or fruit juice in it. As such, it cannot be covered by tariff item no. 22029920 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which stands for ‘fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks’ - The non-alcoholic beverages are covered by tariff heading no. 2202 with specific tariff item no. 22029990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - the non-alcoholic beverages as specified by the applicant will come under serial no. 2 of Schedule III which refers to Caffeinated Beverages, and as such will be taxed 40% GST by virtue of Notification No. 09/2025 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 19.09.2025 – Ordered accordingly - Classification and applicable rate of GST on Iced Tea preparation & Extracts, essences and concentrates of tea – HELD - The products under the heading ‘Iced Tea preparation & Extracts, essences and concentrates of tea’ will be covered by tariff heading no. 2101 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, more specifically covered by sub-heading no. 210120 – The Iced Tea preparation & Extracts, essences and concentrates of tea are liable to 5% GST - Classification and applicable rate of GST on Syrups and beverage concentrate - HELD - The syrups and beverage concentrates fall under tariff item 21069019 and are covered under Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 19.09.2025, attracting 5% GST. [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of Incentives/Discounts received by dealer from manufacturer - Demand for service tax on incentives/discounts received from the manufacturer under various schemes, alleging that these were consideration for certain activities/services provided by the dealer to the manufacturer - Whether the incentives/discounts received by the dealer from the manufacturer are liable to service tax - HELD - The incentives/discounts received by the dealer from the manufacturer are not liable to service tax. The dealership agreement between the dealer and the manufacturer was on a principal-to-principal basis, where t... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of Incentives/Discounts received by dealer from manufacturer - Demand for service tax on incentives/discounts received from the manufacturer under various schemes, alleging that these were consideration for certain activities/services provided by the dealer to the manufacturer - Whether the incentives/discounts received by the dealer from the manufacturer are liable to service tax - HELD - The incentives/discounts received by the dealer from the manufacturer are not liable to service tax. The dealership agreement between the dealer and the manufacturer was on a principal-to-principal basis, where the dealer buys vehicles from the manufacturer for resale to customers. The various terms and conditions in the agreement, including obligations on the dealer for sales promotion, advertisement etc., are conditions of the contract and not separate services for which consideration is paid - The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents which held that such incentives/discounts are in the nature of trade discounts or reductions in purchase price, and not consideration for any services. The activities performed by the dealer, such as sales promotion, are in its own interest and cannot be regarded as services provided to the manufacturer. Therefore, the incentives/discounts received by the dealer are not liable to service tax - The order of the adjudicating authority which had dropped the demand for service tax is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act - The appellant imported various types of men's polyester knitted jackets and classified them under different tariff items - Department alleged that the classification adopted by the appellant was incorrect and issued show cause notices invoking the extended period of limitation - Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act could have been invoked in the present case – HELD - Mere incorrect classification or self-assessment does not amount to suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty, ... [Read more]

Customs - Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act - The appellant imported various types of men's polyester knitted jackets and classified them under different tariff items - Department alleged that the classification adopted by the appellant was incorrect and issued show cause notices invoking the extended period of limitation - Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act could have been invoked in the present case – HELD - Mere incorrect classification or self-assessment does not amount to suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty, which is a prerequisite for invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant had a bona fide belief regarding the classification of the goods and had deposited the differential duty along with interest prior to the issuance of the show cause notices. Therefore, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of customs duty. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Limitation period for excise duty demand - Appellant cleared LLDPE/Reclaimed LLDPE granules from its 100% EOU unit to its DTA unit after amalgamation. Excise duty was not paid at the time of transfer under belief that amalgamation resulted in continuation of the same legal entity - Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable in the present case, given that the issue of issuing invoices without payment of duty was within the knowledge of the revenue authorities – HELD - The extended period of limitation is not invocable in the present case as the issue of issuing invoices without payment of dut... [Read more]

Central Excise - Limitation period for excise duty demand - Appellant cleared LLDPE/Reclaimed LLDPE granules from its 100% EOU unit to its DTA unit after amalgamation. Excise duty was not paid at the time of transfer under belief that amalgamation resulted in continuation of the same legal entity - Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable in the present case, given that the issue of issuing invoices without payment of duty was within the knowledge of the revenue authorities – HELD - The extended period of limitation is not invocable in the present case as the issue of issuing invoices without payment of duty was within the knowledge of the revenue authorities in March 2007 itself, when one such invoice was duly countersigned by the Range Superintendent. The show-cause notice was issued on 20.05.2009 by invoking the extended period of limitation for the period May 2007 to August 2007, which is not sustainable – Since the demands are not sustainable, no penalty is imposable on the appellants – The impugned order is set aside on limitation – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE – Respondent-assessee was undertaking job work for M/s Gravita Metals (GM) under Notification No. 214/86-CE. Department alleged that the process undertaken by GM does not amount to manufacture and hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the assessee which was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE even though the activity undertaken by GM does not amount to manufacture - HELD - The issue is no ... [Read more]

Central Excise - Exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE – Respondent-assessee was undertaking job work for M/s Gravita Metals (GM) under Notification No. 214/86-CE. Department alleged that the process undertaken by GM does not amount to manufacture and hence the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of the exemption notification. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the assessee which was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether the assessee is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE even though the activity undertaken by GM does not amount to manufacture - HELD - The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled in the assessee's own case for the earlier period. The Tribunal had earlier held that the activity undertaken by GM, which involves purification of unrefined lead to refined lead and subsequent manufacturing of alloy lead, amounts to 'manufacture' - The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's tests to determine whether an activity amounts to 'manufacture' and concluded that the goods are transformed into a different and commercially usable product. Further, the Department cannot adopt inconsistent positions in respect of the same product manufactured by the same assessee at different units, merely to deny the exemption benefit. The expression "in relation to manufacture" should be interpreted expansively and hence, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE - The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise – Classification - Ayurvedic medicines or Cosmetics and toiletry preparations - The appellant company was engaged in manufacture of Ayurvedic proprietary medicines, cosmetics and toiletry preparations without obtaining Central Excise Registration and clearing the goods without payment of duty - Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant company are Ayurvedic medicines classifiable under Chapter 30 or cosmetics/toiletry preparations classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - HELD - Based on the documents produced by the appellant company, including the Ayurvedic drug license, GMP ... [Read more]

Central Excise – Classification - Ayurvedic medicines or Cosmetics and toiletry preparations - The appellant company was engaged in manufacture of Ayurvedic proprietary medicines, cosmetics and toiletry preparations without obtaining Central Excise Registration and clearing the goods without payment of duty - Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant company are Ayurvedic medicines classifiable under Chapter 30 or cosmetics/toiletry preparations classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - HELD - Based on the documents produced by the appellant company, including the Ayurvedic drug license, GMP certificate, and opinion from the Directorate of ISM Drugs Control, it is concluded that the appellant company was manufacturing only Ayurvedic medicines. The onus is on the Revenue to prove that the goods are not Ayurvedic medicines, which has not been discharged in the present case. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata v. Sharma Chemical Works has held that mere sale across the counter without prescription does not make a product a cosmetic, and the main criteria is the use to which the customer puts the product - the Revenue has not produced any test report or test results with regard to the products in question. In that view, it cannot be termed that appellant-company is manufacturing cosmetics and toiletry preparations - The products are Ayurvedic medicines classifiable under Chapter 30 - The demands of duty confirmed against the appellants, along with interest, imposition of penalties on all the appellants and confiscation of the seized goods are not sustainable and set aside - The appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Cenvat Credit and Abatement Benefit – Appellant is engaged in providing various taxable services such as transport of goods by rail, maintenance and repair services, renting of immovable property, and manpower recruitment services - Revenue alleged that the appellant is not paying the correct service tax and was availing cenvat credit on input services - Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of abatement on certain services despite availing cenvat credit on input services during the earlier period – HELD - The appellant is entitled to the benefit of abatement as per the relevant notifications,... [Read more]

Service Tax - Cenvat Credit and Abatement Benefit – Appellant is engaged in providing various taxable services such as transport of goods by rail, maintenance and repair services, renting of immovable property, and manpower recruitment services - Revenue alleged that the appellant is not paying the correct service tax and was availing cenvat credit on input services - Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of abatement on certain services despite availing cenvat credit on input services during the earlier period – HELD - The appellant is entitled to the benefit of abatement as per the relevant notifications, even though it had availed cenvat credit on input services during the earlier period. The Cenvat credit availed by the appellant pertained to the period prior to introduction of Notification No.08/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015 and Notification No.08/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016, and therefore, cannot be attributed to the impugned period. The availability of the abatement benefit is not contingent on the appellant's cenvat credit availed during the impugned period, but rather on the cenvat credit availed prior to the insertion of the notifications. The appellant admitted its liability for service tax on certain services, such as renting of immovable property, maintenance and repair services, and manpower recruitment services, and directed the appellant to pay the admitted demand along with interest - The appeal is disposed by confirming the demand of service tax along with interest, which was to be adjusted against the amount already paid by the appellant. As the appellant being a wing of railways, no penalty is imposable on the appellant – The appeal is disposed of [Read less]

GST – West Bengal AAR - Composite Supply - Section 2(30) and Section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017 - The applicant, who runs a restaurant, serves food and non-alcoholic drinks along with tobacco or non-tobacco based hookah to customers at the restaurant premises - Whether serving of non-tobacco hookah / tobacco-based hookah in the restaurant along with food would fall within the scope of clause 6(b) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017 and be taxable at the rate applicable to restaurant services – HELD - The phrase "any other article for human consumption" used in Clause 6(b) should be interpreted with reference to the terms... [Read more]

GST – West Bengal AAR - Composite Supply - Section 2(30) and Section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017 - The applicant, who runs a restaurant, serves food and non-alcoholic drinks along with tobacco or non-tobacco based hookah to customers at the restaurant premises - Whether serving of non-tobacco hookah / tobacco-based hookah in the restaurant along with food would fall within the scope of clause 6(b) of Schedule II to the CGST Act, 2017 and be taxable at the rate applicable to restaurant services – HELD - The phrase "any other article for human consumption" used in Clause 6(b) should be interpreted with reference to the terms "food" and "any drink (other than alcoholic liquor for human consumption)" and cannot be stretched to include tobacco or non-tobacco based products for smoking. Smoking of hookah, whether tobacco-based or non-tobacco based, cannot be equated with ingestion and digestion of food or drink. The food & drink and smoking hookah cannot be put within the same bracket even when they are served in the same restaurant and on the same table - the supply of tobacco or non-tobacco products in a hookah in a restaurant is excluded from the scope of Clause 6 of Schedule II and hence serving of hookah for smoking cannot be considered as a composite supply of service – The two supplies, i.e., supply of food and supply of tobacco or non-tobacco based hookah, are to be regarded as separate supplies. The supply of food will be termed as supply of services within the ambit of Clause 6(b) of Schedule II to the CGST Act. However, the serving of hookah in the restaurant will be regarded as a composite supply of goods, and Clause 6(b) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 is not applicable to this supply - Ordered accordingly - What will be the rate of tax applicable on such services – HELD - Since the two supplies are regarded as separate supplies, different rates of tax will be applicable. The supply of food in the restaurant will be taxed at 5% GST. In case of tobacco-based hookah, the supply will be treated as supply of goods and will be taxed at 40% GST. In case of non-tobacco (dried tea leaves, mint leaves or dried rose petals etc.) based hookah, the supply will also be treated as supply of goods and will be taxed at 18% GST. [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR – Rendering of consultancy services and project management consultancy services to Local Authority - Applicant, a firm of architects, was providing consultancy services and project management consultancy services for the proposed construction of a fire station, staff quarters, and a multi-level parking complex for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) - Whether the consultancy services provided by the applicant for the construction of the fire station, staff quarters, and multi-level parking complex are exempt from GST under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR – Rendering of consultancy services and project management consultancy services to Local Authority - Applicant, a firm of architects, was providing consultancy services and project management consultancy services for the proposed construction of a fire station, staff quarters, and a multi-level parking complex for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) - Whether the consultancy services provided by the applicant for the construction of the fire station, staff quarters, and multi-level parking complex are exempt from GST under Entry No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) – HELD - The services provided are primarily preparation of architectural and structural drawings, consultancy services, preparing estimates, drawing up detailed tender documents, furnish completion plan of the buildings, checking measurements of work at site and final certification of bills for electrical, civil and other works. It is clear that no element of supply of any goods is present in the scope of services to be provided by the applicant to the AMC nor is it a works contract service as no transfer of property in goods is involved. Hence, the services provided by the applicant fall under the ambit of ‘Pure Services’ - The services were provided to a local authority, the AMC, which falls within the definition of a "local authority" under the CGST Act. The functions of providing fire services and public amenities such as parking lots are entrusted to a municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution. The construction of the fire station and multi-level parking complex fall within these functions - Since the staff quarters were located within the premises of the fire station and were essential for the functioning of the fire services, they are part of the fire services function - Since all the conditions stipulated in Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) dtd. 28.06.2017, as amended, stands fulfilled in respect of the service in question supplied by the applicant to the AMC, the applicant is eligible for the exemption from GST – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE - Refund claim of excise duty paid on elevator components and accessories supplied to a project of M/s BHEL, which was exempt from duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 34/2012-CE dated 10.09.2012 - Whether the appellant is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE despite the lack of undertaking from the Chief Executive Officer of the project – HELD - The Original Authority had recorded that condition (d)(i) under Sl. No. 338 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, which is conditiona... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE - Refund claim of excise duty paid on elevator components and accessories supplied to a project of M/s BHEL, which was exempt from duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended by Notification No. 34/2012-CE dated 10.09.2012 - Whether the appellant is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE despite the lack of undertaking from the Chief Executive Officer of the project – HELD - The Original Authority had recorded that condition (d)(i) under Sl. No. 338 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, which is conditional upon compliance with Sl. No. 43 of the Annexure, was found satisfied. There was no requirement at the stage of refund for obtaining an undertaking from the CEO of the project. If the requirements are procedural or directory in nature and not of the "essence" of the thing to be done, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. Since actual compliance has been recorded by the Original Authority, the impugned order is unsustainable - The appellant eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Classification of services as 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' - Appellant is engaged in providing taxi/transit facilities through a controlled room. The Revenue authorities held that the appellant's services are classifiable under the category of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' and accordingly, demanded service tax - Whether the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' as defined under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The appellant is into providing taxi services to the customers as and when they approach... [Read more]

Service Tax - Classification of services as 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' - Appellant is engaged in providing taxi/transit facilities through a controlled room. The Revenue authorities held that the appellant's services are classifiable under the category of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' and accordingly, demanded service tax - Whether the services rendered by the appellant fall under the category of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' as defined under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 – HELD - The appellant is into providing taxi services to the customers as and when they approach them telephonically, and the appellant connects the taxi driver to the customer and ensures that the taxi drivers are trained in their behavioral approach towards the customers - The service rendered by the appellant in no terms can be considered as a call center as the only thing the appellant does is connecting the driver to the customer and also the payments by the customer is directly paid to the driver. The appellant's services do not involve a basket of services as envisaged under the definition of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' - The services of merely connecting the driver to the customer and ensuring good ride quality do not fall under the category of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Interpretation of S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 on import of 2-wheeler rims - Appellants imported Motor Hubs falling under Chapter 8714 1090 and Rim falling under Chapter 87149290. The Revenue authorities contended that the import of rims is prohibited in terms of Order S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries, as the appellants are not manufacturers of the 2-wheeler vehicles - Whether the appellants, being authorized service centers of the 2-wheeler vehicle manufacturer, are eligible to import up to 24,000 units of 2-wheeler automotive wheel rims per financial year for repairs or afte... [Read more]

Customs - Interpretation of S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 on import of 2-wheeler rims - Appellants imported Motor Hubs falling under Chapter 8714 1090 and Rim falling under Chapter 87149290. The Revenue authorities contended that the import of rims is prohibited in terms of Order S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 issued by Ministry of Heavy Industries, as the appellants are not manufacturers of the 2-wheeler vehicles - Whether the appellants, being authorized service centers of the 2-wheeler vehicle manufacturer, are eligible to import up to 24,000 units of 2-wheeler automotive wheel rims per financial year for repairs or after-sales service purposes under Para 2(3)(vi) of S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 – HELD – The interpretation of Para 2(3)(vi) and (viii) of S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 shows that the manufacturer is allowed to import up to 70,000 units of 2-wheeler rims per financial year towards manufacturing activity, and they are further allowed to import up to 24,000 rims for "repairs" and "after-sales services". In the normal course, most of the manufacturers of cars and 2-wheelers appoint dealers and distributors who act as their service agents for servicing of the vehicles sold by them, and the service requirements are generally taken up by such agents and not by the manufacturer directly. Therefore, the Para 2(3)(vi) would be applicable not only for the repairs and after-sales services directly by the manufacturer but also when the same is provided through their authorized agents - The affidavit and the letter submitted by the appellants established that they are duly authorized by the manufacturer for taking up servicing of branded vehicles. Hence, the appellants, being authorized service centers, are eligible to import up to 24,000 units of 2-wheeler automotive wheel rims per financial year for repairs or after-sales service purposes under Para 2(3)(vi) of S.O. 5379(E) dated 19/12/2023 - The jurisdictional authorities are directed to release the goods on provisional basis upon fulfillment of the bond and bank guarantee and other terms and conditions as specified in the impugned orders – The appeal stands disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise - Excisability of waste/residue products - Manufacture of Sugar, Generation of waste/by-products like bio-compost, bagasse, and press mud during the manufacturing process. These waste/by-products were cleared to farmers on consideration - Whether the waste/by-products like bio-compost, bagasse, and press mud generated during the manufacture of sugar can be considered as excisable goods, and whether the appellants are required to reverse proportionate Cenvat credit or pay 5% of their value under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD – The bagasse and press mud are inevitable waste/by-products gen... [Read more]

Central Excise - Excisability of waste/residue products - Manufacture of Sugar, Generation of waste/by-products like bio-compost, bagasse, and press mud during the manufacturing process. These waste/by-products were cleared to farmers on consideration - Whether the waste/by-products like bio-compost, bagasse, and press mud generated during the manufacture of sugar can be considered as excisable goods, and whether the appellants are required to reverse proportionate Cenvat credit or pay 5% of their value under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – HELD – The bagasse and press mud are inevitable waste/by-products generated during the manufacture of sugar and molasses, and the appellant could not have maintained separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. Therefore, the amendment in the Finance Act and the Board's circular would not make any difference to the appellant's plea - Bagasse generated during the crushing of sugarcane is not an excisable item and the same is also applicable to press mud as it is an inevitable waste generated during the manufacture of molasses - The Supreme Court, in the case of UOI vs. DSCL Sugar Limited, upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Balrampur Chini Mills Limited and held that bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, and not the result of any manufacturing process, and therefore, it cannot be treated as an excisable item, and the Cenvat Credit Rules have no application - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Applicability of reduced penalty under Section 11A(6)/(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Reversal of irregularly availed and utilized CENVAT credit along with interest and 25% of the penalty amount - Department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellants, seeking confirmation of the CENVAT amount along with interest and for imposition of penalty - Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11A(6)/(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The show cause notice was issued after the amendment of Section 11A, which came into effect from 08.04.2... [Read more]

Central Excise - Applicability of reduced penalty under Section 11A(6)/(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Reversal of irregularly availed and utilized CENVAT credit along with interest and 25% of the penalty amount - Department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellants, seeking confirmation of the CENVAT amount along with interest and for imposition of penalty - Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11A(6)/(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – HELD - The show cause notice was issued after the amendment of Section 11A, which came into effect from 08.04.2011. As per the amended provisions, on payment of the duty, interest and 25% of penalty by the assessee, no proceedings shall be initiated by the Central Excise officers – Further, even under the unamended provisions of Section 11A, the assessee had the option to pay the duty along with interest and 25% of the penalty, and in such a case, the proceedings initiated through issuance of show cause notice were deemed to be conclusive. Since the appellants had already paid the duty, interest and 25% of the penalty, there was no requirement for adjudication of the matter - The impugned order is set aside in its entirety. The personal penalty imposed on the Managing Director of the appellant-company is also set aside – The appeals are allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Denial of CENVAT Credit on GTA and imposition of penalty on the ground that the vehicles mentioned in the invoices were not capable of transporting the goods to the appellants' premises, and some transporters had denied transporting the goods - Whether the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellants can be denied merely based on the verification from the 'VAHAAN' portal and statements of some transporters, without conducting any investigation at the end of the supplier of the goods – HELD - The Revenue cannot deny the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellants merely based on assumptions and presumptions. No in... [Read more]

Central Excise - Denial of CENVAT Credit on GTA and imposition of penalty on the ground that the vehicles mentioned in the invoices were not capable of transporting the goods to the appellants' premises, and some transporters had denied transporting the goods - Whether the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellants can be denied merely based on the verification from the 'VAHAAN' portal and statements of some transporters, without conducting any investigation at the end of the supplier of the goods – HELD - The Revenue cannot deny the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellants merely based on assumptions and presumptions. No investigation was conducted at the end of the supplier of the goods to ascertain whether the goods were actually supplied or not - Further, the statements of the transporters were not verified as per the statutory requirements and could not be relied upon. The appellants had used the inputs in the manufacture of the final product and paid duty on their clearances. In the absence of any evidence to show that the appellants had not procured the inputs, the CENVAT Credit availed by them cannot be denied - In view of the findings that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellants cannot be denied, the imposition of penalty on the appellants, including the Directors, is not justified - The impugned order denying the CENVAT Credit and imposing penalties on the appellants is set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Scope of expression 'export' in Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on deemed exports vs. physical exports – Claim of refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on account of both physical exports as well as deemed exports (clearances from the appellant's unit to other 100% EOUs) - Refund Sanctioning Authority allowed refund only to the extent of Cenvat credit availed in relation to physical exports and not for the deemed exports - Whether refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 can be granted for deemed exports, in addition to physical exports – HE... [Read more]

Central Excise – Scope of expression 'export' in Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Refund of unutilized Cenvat credit on deemed exports vs. physical exports – Claim of refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on account of both physical exports as well as deemed exports (clearances from the appellant's unit to other 100% EOUs) - Refund Sanctioning Authority allowed refund only to the extent of Cenvat credit availed in relation to physical exports and not for the deemed exports - Whether refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 can be granted for deemed exports, in addition to physical exports – HELD - The expression 'export' used in Rule 5 of CCR and the related Notification No.27/2012 has a definite connotation and can only be interpreted to mean physical exports i.e., taking goods out of India. The Rule 5 covers only physical exports and not deemed exports. When the plain reading of the provisions indicates that only physical exports are covered, the deemed exports cannot be considered eligible for refund under Rule 5 - the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Shilpa Copper Wire Industries Ltd case, whereby, deemed export was considered as eligible as physical export for the purpose of refund under Rule 5, the ratio of this order may not be applicable in the present matter in view of amendment vide Notification No.06/2015 dt.01.03.2015 inserting explanation 1(1A) restricting the scope of Rules and notification to physical export alone. Since the explanation being clarificatory in nature, it will have retrospective effect - The denial of refund on deemed exports under Rule 5 of CCR is upheld and the appeal is dismissed - Whether the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 1(1A) to Rule 5 through Notification No.06/2015 has retrospective effect – HELD - The amendment made by inserting Explanation 1(1A) to Rule 5 is clarificatory in nature, as it merely clarifies the meaning of 'export goods' referred to in Rule 5, which was already implicit. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Inter Globe Aviation Ltd vs. CC, New Delhi, that a clarificatory provision does not enlarge or put anyone at a disadvantage, but only clarifies the existing position. Therefore, the Explanation 1(1A) has retrospective effect. [Read less]

Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Vicarious Liability on Director under Section 75 of the Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 - The applicant was charged along with other co-accused for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 74(1)(b)(c)(e) of the MVAT Act on the allegations that the applicant and other co-accused had submitted false and fabricated information by giving false declaration in Form-F to the Sales Tax Department and thereby defrauded the Government exchequer - Whether the vicarious liability under Section 75 of the MVAT Act, 2002 can be attributed to the a... [Read more]

Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - Vicarious Liability on Director under Section 75 of the Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 - The applicant was charged along with other co-accused for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 74(1)(b)(c)(e) of the MVAT Act on the allegations that the applicant and other co-accused had submitted false and fabricated information by giving false declaration in Form-F to the Sales Tax Department and thereby defrauded the Government exchequer - Whether the vicarious liability under Section 75 of the MVAT Act, 2002 can be attributed to the applicant merely because she is a Director of the company - HELD - The Section 75(1) of the Act states that every person who at the time the offence is committed, was incharge of and was responsible to the business entity for the conduct of the business as well as the business entity shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence. However, a Director may be vicariously liable only if the company itself is liable in the first place and if such Director personally acted in a manner that directly connects their conduct to the company's liability - Mere authorization of an act at the behest of the company or the exercise of a supervisory role over certain actions or activities of the company is not enough to render a Director vicariously liable. There must exist something to show that such actions of the Director stemmed from their personal involvement and arose from actions or conduct falling outside the scope of its routine corporate duties - In the present case, the prosecution failed to make any specific allegations against the applicant that she was incharge of and looking after the day-to-day business of the company. In absence of any such material, the vicarious liability cannot be imputed automatically on the applicant merely because she was a Director of the company. Therefore, the proceedings against the applicant is quashed and the criminal application is allowed [Read less]

Customs - EPCG Scheme - Appellant imported capital goods under EPCG scheme and availed concessional customs duty. The goods were seized for non-fulfilment of export obligation within the stipulated period - Whether the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(o) and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) are legally valid – HELD - In this case, the demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants have not met the export obligation, despite the reduction in the value of export obligation by the DGFT and extension of time limit till the time of passing of the impugned Adjudication order – the i... [Read more]

Customs - EPCG Scheme - Appellant imported capital goods under EPCG scheme and availed concessional customs duty. The goods were seized for non-fulfilment of export obligation within the stipulated period - Whether the confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(o) and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) are legally valid – HELD - In this case, the demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants have not met the export obligation, despite the reduction in the value of export obligation by the DGFT and extension of time limit till the time of passing of the impugned Adjudication order – the impugned order confirming demand has been passed without hearing the appellant and also without appreciating their pending request to Competent Authority for allowing certain further time for including third party export and duty as also computation of duty based on depreciated value of capital goods. Thus, on this count itself, the confirmation of demand of differential duty without considering all relevant factual matrix and certain specific provisions in the notification itself i.e. condition 3 of Notification No. 28/97 dated 01.04.1997 for proper calculation of duty required to be paid for non-fulfilment of export obligation in part of full, is not proper - The permissible export made by them during intervening period will also have to be considered in terms of provisions under the Notification and EXIM Policy. Thus, to this extent impugned order confirming demand of differential duty is set aside and remanded back for re-computation - Further, the non-fulfilment of the export obligation was not deliberate, but due to the non-availability of the seized machinery and prevailing market conditions, which made it an act of impossibility. Therefore, the confiscation and penalty are not legally sustainable – The appeal is allowed partly allowed by remand [Read less]

Customs – Denial of opportunity of hearing to Department, Violation of principles of natural justice - Department appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority - Adjudicating Authority had ordered absolute confiscation of gold and imposed penalties on the carrier and owner of the gold for smuggling. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the respondents without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Department - Whether the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) suffered from violation of principles of natural justice by denying the D... [Read more]

Customs – Denial of opportunity of hearing to Department, Violation of principles of natural justice - Department appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority - Adjudicating Authority had ordered absolute confiscation of gold and imposed penalties on the carrier and owner of the gold for smuggling. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the respondents without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Department - Whether the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) suffered from violation of principles of natural justice by denying the Department an opportunity of hearing – HELD - The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) suffered from gross violation of principles of natural justice as the Department was denied the opportunity of hearing, which is a very important aspect of any adjudication. No order having civil consequences can be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected party, as the principle of natural justice, namely audi alteram partem, mandates that the other side must be heard before any adverse decision is taken - The Commissioner (Appeals) had mentioned in the impugned order that letters were sent to the appellants and the Department both for the personal hearing but no representative from the Department side appeared while the Department stated that no online link was provided to join the virtual hearing, which rendered the decision taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) without facilitating proper opportunity to the Department as a gross violation of principles of natural justice - The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the appeals de novo, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both sides, in accordance with law - The appeals filed by the Department are allowed by way of remand [Read less]

Customs - Classification of Manganese Ores and Concentrates - The appellants imported 'Manganese Ore' lumps and claimed clearance of the goods without payment of CVD in terms of exemption Notification No.04/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 - Department denied the exemption, contending that the goods had undergone washing, sizing and screening, which amounted to concentration and hence manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, and that since the exemption applied only to 'ores' and not 'concentrates', the appellants were not entitled to the exemption - Whether the imported goods should be classified as 'Manganese Ores' el... [Read more]

Customs - Classification of Manganese Ores and Concentrates - The appellants imported 'Manganese Ore' lumps and claimed clearance of the goods without payment of CVD in terms of exemption Notification No.04/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 - Department denied the exemption, contending that the goods had undergone washing, sizing and screening, which amounted to concentration and hence manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, and that since the exemption applied only to 'ores' and not 'concentrates', the appellants were not entitled to the exemption - Whether the imported goods should be classified as 'Manganese Ores' eligible for CVD exemption under Notification No.04/2006-CE or as 'Manganese Concentrates' not eligible for the exemption - HELD - The processes undertaken on the raw manganese ore, such as washing, removal of waste, and sizing, amounted to 'concentration' of the ore and resulted in the emergence of a distinct excisable product, i.e., 'Manganese Concentrate', in terms of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26 - Even simple physical processes like washing, crushing, and sizing, depending on the requirement and nature of the ore, would enhance its value, purity, and compatibility with the intended end-use, and therefore, would lead to the emergence of a distinct product, i.e., 'Manganese Concentrate' – Further, the classification scheme for Manganese Ores and Concentrates under the Customs Tariff clearly differentiates between ores with different manganese content, indicating that an improvement in the manganese content through processing would result in a distinct product. Accordingly, the imported goods were not eligible for the CVD exemption under Notification No.04/2006-CE, as they were 'Manganese Concentrates' and not 'Manganese Ores' - The appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAAR - Classification of Natural Fibre Composite Board - Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 'Natural Fibre Composite Board' [NFC] also commonly referred to as Rice Husk Boards. The appellant sought Advance ruling on classification of rice husk board manufactured by them – The Advance Ruling Authority held the application to be non-maintainable due to lack of adequate details such as purchase invoices of inputs, sales invoices, brochure etc. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal – HELD - The Advance Ruling Authority has not given any ruling in the matter. Therefore, there is nothing before thi... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAAR - Classification of Natural Fibre Composite Board - Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 'Natural Fibre Composite Board' [NFC] also commonly referred to as Rice Husk Boards. The appellant sought Advance ruling on classification of rice husk board manufactured by them – The Advance Ruling Authority held the application to be non-maintainable due to lack of adequate details such as purchase invoices of inputs, sales invoices, brochure etc. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal – HELD - The Advance Ruling Authority has not given any ruling in the matter. Therefore, there is nothing before this Appellate authority to decide on the merits of the case - The Advance Ruling Authority did not have the benefit of going through the materials submitted by the appellant for the first time in the appeal, such as copies of purchase invoices of Raw Materials and sales invoices of Rice Husk Board and Rice Husk Profile. The material produced for the first time needs to be verified for its factual accuracy and relevance to the issue in question. Therefore, the impugned ruling is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Advance Ruling Authority to examine the issue afresh in the light of the materials and records now available, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Opportunity of Hearing before issue of Show Cause Notice - Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice as he was under the misunderstanding that a personal hearing was mandatory before issuing the notice – The notice was uploaded on the GST portal but no physical notice was served - Whether the petitioner Is entitled to a personal hearing before the issuance of the show cause notice under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act – HELD - As per the relevant provision of Section 75(4), a personal hearing is required to be granted only when a request is received in writing from ... [Read more]

GST - Opportunity of Hearing before issue of Show Cause Notice - Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner could not respond to the show cause notice as he was under the misunderstanding that a personal hearing was mandatory before issuing the notice – The notice was uploaded on the GST portal but no physical notice was served - Whether the petitioner Is entitled to a personal hearing before the issuance of the show cause notice under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act – HELD - As per the relevant provision of Section 75(4), a personal hearing is required to be granted only when a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. In the present case, the petitioner did not file any such request for a personal hearing before the issuance of the show cause notice. The show cause notice is a method to ask the petitioner to file his response or defense against the prima facie case made out against him, and the question of providing the petitioner with a hearing prior to the issuance of the show cause notice is not in accordance with the law - The petitioner was under the misconception that a personal hearing was mandatory before the issuance of the SCN, which is not the case – The impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is directed to file his reply before the respondent authority and the respondent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh, provide him a hearing as per Section 75(4) and decide the matter in accordance with the law – The petitions is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Duty of Adjudicating Authority, Closure of proceedings basis payment made under protest - Petitioner submitted a reply to notice in Form GST DRC-06 requesting time to file a detailed reply and deposited the demanded amount under protest – Respondent passed an order under Form GST DRC-05 concluding the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount - Whether the Respondent was justified in concluding the proceedings without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner – HELD – The Adjudicating Authority committed a mistake by treating the deposit as voluntary and con... [Read more]

GST - Duty of Adjudicating Authority, Closure of proceedings basis payment made under protest - Petitioner submitted a reply to notice in Form GST DRC-06 requesting time to file a detailed reply and deposited the demanded amount under protest – Respondent passed an order under Form GST DRC-05 concluding the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount - Whether the Respondent was justified in concluding the proceedings without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner – HELD – The Adjudicating Authority committed a mistake by treating the deposit as voluntary and concluding the proceedings without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had clearly stated that the amount was deposited under protest and a detailed reply was also filed, which the Respondent ought to have considered - The Adjudicating Authority has a duty to adjudicate the matter on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer, even if the tax along with interest has been paid – The impugned orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Respondents for adjudication on merit in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner – The petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Exemption from GST on rendering of parking services and collecting parking charges on behalf of Municipal Corporation - Petitioner, a co-operative society, was rendering parking services and collecting parking charges on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Whether the petitioner is exempt from paying GST on the parking services as it is rendering such services on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which is performing a function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution of India – HELD - The letter issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to the petitioner indicated ... [Read more]

GST - Exemption from GST on rendering of parking services and collecting parking charges on behalf of Municipal Corporation - Petitioner, a co-operative society, was rendering parking services and collecting parking charges on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Whether the petitioner is exempt from paying GST on the parking services as it is rendering such services on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which is performing a function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution of India – HELD - The letter issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to the petitioner indicated that services in relation to any function entrusted to a Municipality under Article 243W of the Constitution of India are exempt from GST. However, the said letter alone may not be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was rendering parking services on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation - The petitioner an opportunity to approach the proper officer and demonstrate, on the basis of the documents in its possession, that the petitioner is not liable to pay GST on the parking services. The proper officer to grant a post-decisional hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. If the adjudicating authority is not convinced with the petitioner’s submission it will record its findings on such aspect and the same would be treated as supplementary reasons in support of the order - the garnishee proceedings shall also remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Classification of Dry Citrate Powder intended for medical use and Bicarbonate Bag – It is the applicant’s case is that the product merits classification under HSN 90189031 - HELD - While HSN 9018 covers instruments and appliances used in medical and surgical use, the HSN 90189031 covers artificial kidney dialysis apparatus - The Dry Citrate Powder does not satisfy the criteria of being an "instrument, appliance or apparatus" as per the dictionary meaning and the explanatory notes to Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff. Hence, Dry Citrate Powder cannot be classified under HSN 90189031 as a medical dev... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Classification of Dry Citrate Powder intended for medical use and Bicarbonate Bag – It is the applicant’s case is that the product merits classification under HSN 90189031 - HELD - While HSN 9018 covers instruments and appliances used in medical and surgical use, the HSN 90189031 covers artificial kidney dialysis apparatus - The Dry Citrate Powder does not satisfy the criteria of being an "instrument, appliance or apparatus" as per the dictionary meaning and the explanatory notes to Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff. Hence, Dry Citrate Powder cannot be classified under HSN 90189031 as a medical device. The Dry Citrate Powder is correctly classifiable under HSN 29181590 as a salt of citric acid, an organic chemical, attracting 18% GST. Similarly, the Bicarbonate Bag, containing sodium bicarbonate, is correctly classifiable under HSN 28363000 attracting 18% GST – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Whether an educational institution established under an Act of Parliament is a 'specified person' liable for Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax dated 13.09.2018 - Whether the applicant, established under the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 is a 'specified person' under Section 51 of the CGST Act read with Notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax dated 13.09.2018 - HELD - The Supreme Court interpretation in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., held th... [Read more]

GST – Gujarat AAR - Whether an educational institution established under an Act of Parliament is a 'specified person' liable for Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax dated 13.09.2018 - Whether the applicant, established under the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 is a 'specified person' under Section 51 of the CGST Act read with Notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax dated 13.09.2018 - HELD - The Supreme Court interpretation in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., held that the condition of 51% or more Government participation by way of equity or control applies only to entities "established by Government" and not to those "set up by an Act of Parliament" - The Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017 provides for substantial control of the Central Government over the functioning of the applicant institute. The term 'control' as contemplated cannot be interpreted to refer to day-to-day operational control, but rather a substantial regulatory control, which is present in the case of the applicant. The composition of the Board cannot be a determinative factor to ascertain the quantum of control by the Central Government - The applicant has substantial control and oversight by the Central Government as per the provisions of the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017, and hence, qualifies as a 'specified person' under the Notification - The applicant is a 'specified person' under Section 51 of the CGST Act read with Notification No. 50/2018-Central Tax dated 13.09.2018 – Ordered accordingly - Whether the threshold of Rs. 2,50,000 for deduction of tax at source is to be determined on the value of supply under each contract regardless of the number of invoices issued – HELD - In case of a single contract, the threshold value of Rs. 2.5 lakhs applies to the total value of supply under the contract, excluding the GST payable. In case of separate contracts with the same supplier, each contract would be considered individually for the purpose of applying the threshold value of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. However, if the supply is made on a continuous basis or a recurrent basis, but is part of the original contract, the threshold value would be applicable on the contract and not the individual supplies. It is the contract which determines the threshold value of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and not the invoices. [Read less]

GST - Petitioner challenged the rectification orders as being passed without a reasoned order, in violation of the principles of natural justice – HELD - The respondent had passed the assessment order after following the procedure contemplated under the law, and the petitioner did not challenge the said assessment order. The petitioner subsequently filed rectification applications under Section 161 of the CGST Act, and the respondents considered the same and passed the impugned rectification orders. The petitioner did not substantiate the illegality committed by the respondent authorities as the rectification orders were... [Read more]

GST - Petitioner challenged the rectification orders as being passed without a reasoned order, in violation of the principles of natural justice – HELD - The respondent had passed the assessment order after following the procedure contemplated under the law, and the petitioner did not challenge the said assessment order. The petitioner subsequently filed rectification applications under Section 161 of the CGST Act, and the respondents considered the same and passed the impugned rectification orders. The petitioner did not substantiate the illegality committed by the respondent authorities as the rectification orders were passed after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. Further, the involvement of disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution - The petitioner ought to have challenged the rectification orders by way of an appeal - The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available under the law. [Read less]

GST - Detention of goods, Release of perishable goods – The authority determined the value of goods and imposed a penalty on the driver of the vehicle, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who was the owner of the goods – Petitioner seeking release of goods and vehicle – HELD - The goods are perishable and the vehicle is subject to corrosion as the same is put under the open. The petitioner to deposit an amount equivalent to the penalty calculated under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/OGST Act, and upon such deposit, the vehicle along with the goods shall be released forthwith by the opposite party. In case th... [Read more]

GST - Detention of goods, Release of perishable goods – The authority determined the value of goods and imposed a penalty on the driver of the vehicle, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who was the owner of the goods – Petitioner seeking release of goods and vehicle – HELD - The goods are perishable and the vehicle is subject to corrosion as the same is put under the open. The petitioner to deposit an amount equivalent to the penalty calculated under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/OGST Act, and upon such deposit, the vehicle along with the goods shall be released forthwith by the opposite party. In case the writ petition succeeds, the petitioner shall be entitled to a refund of the amount deposited along with interest – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST - Manual filing of Appeal - The appeal was initially accepted, but later rejected by the respondent on the ground that it was not filed electronically as per Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the rejection of the appeal solely on the ground that it was filed manually and not electronically is justified – HELD - Though Rule 108 mandates electronic filing of appeals, the respondent had initially accepted the manual filing of the appeal without raising any objection. The respondent had heard the appeal on merits and it was not appropriate to reject the appeal at a later stage solely on the ground of manual fili... [Read more]

GST - Manual filing of Appeal - The appeal was initially accepted, but later rejected by the respondent on the ground that it was not filed electronically as per Rule 108 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Whether the rejection of the appeal solely on the ground that it was filed manually and not electronically is justified – HELD - Though Rule 108 mandates electronic filing of appeals, the respondent had initially accepted the manual filing of the appeal without raising any objection. The respondent had heard the appeal on merits and it was not appropriate to reject the appeal at a later stage solely on the ground of manual filing, especially when the matter was pending for over a year and four months. The order of the respondent rejecting the appeal is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law – the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent to decide the appeal on merits without reference to the manner of filing of the appeal – The petition is allowed [Read less]

Affiliation Fee charged by a University is not in the nature of “consideration” for "supply of service". In view of statutory exemption as per Entry 66 of N/No. 12/2017-CT(R), the reliance on Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dtd 17.06.2021, is misplaced.

GST - Petitioner challenge the impugned order on the grounds that the reliance placed by the Authorities on the judgments was incorrect and the judgments cited did not even remotely relate to the issues raised by the petitioner in its defense submissions – HELD - The reasonings and findings recorded by the respondent-Commissioner, while dealing with the defense submissions, by placing reliance on the incorrect judgments/citations, is flawed and deceptive. It appeared that the Commissioner, without reading the actual judgments, had followed the AI generated citations and case law. This is an appropriate case wherein some ... [Read more]

GST - Petitioner challenge the impugned order on the grounds that the reliance placed by the Authorities on the judgments was incorrect and the judgments cited did not even remotely relate to the issues raised by the petitioner in its defense submissions – HELD - The reasonings and findings recorded by the respondent-Commissioner, while dealing with the defense submissions, by placing reliance on the incorrect judgments/citations, is flawed and deceptive. It appeared that the Commissioner, without reading the actual judgments, had followed the AI generated citations and case law. This is an appropriate case wherein some directions are called for prescribing parameters for quasi-judicial authorities while placing reliance on the judgments either of the High Courts or of the Supreme Court of India, while dealing with legal issues raised by an assessee - Issue Notice. The interim relief is granted to the petitioner till the final disposal of the writ petition – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

GST – Jurisdiction and Power of Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) to grant interim relief from recovery proceedings - Challenge to Recovery Notice issued during the pendency of its appeal before the GSTAT – Revenue of the case that once the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal seeking appropriate interim reliefs while the Petitioner argued that there is no provision either under the CGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder empowering the Tribunal to grant an interim order staying recovery proceedings - Whether the GSTAT has the jurisdiction to pass interim orders – HELD ... [Read more]

GST – Jurisdiction and Power of Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) to grant interim relief from recovery proceedings - Challenge to Recovery Notice issued during the pendency of its appeal before the GSTAT – Revenue of the case that once the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal seeking appropriate interim reliefs while the Petitioner argued that there is no provision either under the CGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder empowering the Tribunal to grant an interim order staying recovery proceedings - Whether the GSTAT has the jurisdiction to pass interim orders – HELD - The Tribunal, being vested with wide appellate powers under Section 113 of the CGST Act, 2017 to pass such orders "as it thinks fit", has the inherent and incidental jurisdiction to grant appropriate interim orders relevant to the subject matter of the appeal, including stay of recovery proceedings, in order to make the appellate remedy effective - The power to grant interim relief, including protection against recovery pending the Appeal, is inherent and incidental to the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal - The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025 also expressly provide for the Tribunal's inherent powers to make orders for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process. Accordingly, the Petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal for appropriate interim relief, rather than filing the Writ Petition before the High Court. However, to enable the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal, the Court grants limited interim protection by restraining the Respondents from acting upon the Recovery Notice until the Petitioner files an interim application before the Tribunal and the same is decided - The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file an interim application before the Appellate Tribunal within two weeks, and till such application is filed and decided, the Recovery Notice shall not be acted upon by the Respondents - The Petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Opportunity of Hearing - Validity of ex parte order - Petitioner contended that no notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued, no adjournment was granted, and the show cause notice was not properly served - Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the ex parte order without affording proper opportunity of hearing – HELD - There is a prima facie case of gross technical and procedural irregularity. It is mandatory upon the respondent authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by way of a reply to the show cause-cum-demand notice - Where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person... [Read more]

GST - Opportunity of Hearing - Validity of ex parte order - Petitioner contended that no notice in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued, no adjournment was granted, and the show cause notice was not properly served - Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the ex parte order without affording proper opportunity of hearing – HELD - There is a prima facie case of gross technical and procedural irregularity. It is mandatory upon the respondent authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by way of a reply to the show cause-cum-demand notice - Where an adverse decision is contemplated against a person, the authority is required to afford an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an order - the ex parte order is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause-cum-demand notice, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Validity of Adjudication Order passed in the name of non-existent entity, Merger of entities - Sections 28 and 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Petitioner had a Hydrocarbon Division as a separate company, which was amalgamated with the petitioner and the information relating to the same was also provided to the GST Authorities - Respondent authorities passed impugned orders in the name of the non-existent - Whether the orders passed in the name of the non-existent entity are valid – HELD - GST Number once assigned has to be taken into consideration and all the orders would have to be posted on the portal on the said ... [Read more]

GST – Validity of Adjudication Order passed in the name of non-existent entity, Merger of entities - Sections 28 and 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Petitioner had a Hydrocarbon Division as a separate company, which was amalgamated with the petitioner and the information relating to the same was also provided to the GST Authorities - Respondent authorities passed impugned orders in the name of the non-existent - Whether the orders passed in the name of the non-existent entity are valid – HELD - GST Number once assigned has to be taken into consideration and all the orders would have to be posted on the portal on the said number. However, once it has been brought to the knowledge of the Department that the company having erstwhile GST No. has already merged with another company having a distinct GST registration number, there should have been some provision in the GST Act for an automatic cancellation of the earlier GST Number, as it is a settled law that an order cannot be passed in the name of non-existent entity - The entity having lost its existence, after the same having merged with the petitioner company, the GST Number assigned to the non-existent entity, would deemed to have been cancelled from the date of amalgamation - The moment an information is received to the Department relating to a particular company having become non-existent and having merged with another company, the GST Number of the new company would become operational and the earlier GST Number would be deemed to have been cancelled. At the same time, if there are any demands relating to the earlier GST Number, the same can always be uploaded on the new GST Number and the new company would have to deal with all such demands in accordance with law - The authorities are directed to upload the orders on the new GST number of the petitioner and the petitioner to avail all the remedies available in law in relation to the concerned orders - The writ petitions are disposed of [Read less]

GST - Assignment of leasehold rights – Petitioner held a long-term lease for an industrial plot and had constructed a factory building on the land. The petitioners later assigned the leasehold rights in the plot to a third party - Department issued a show cause notice demanding GST on the ground that the assignment of leasehold rights amounted to a supply of service in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act of 2017 read with sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 of Schedule II – HELD – The sub-clause(b) of clause 2 of Schedule II indicates any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential comp... [Read more]

GST - Assignment of leasehold rights – Petitioner held a long-term lease for an industrial plot and had constructed a factory building on the land. The petitioners later assigned the leasehold rights in the plot to a third party - Department issued a show cause notice demanding GST on the ground that the assignment of leasehold rights amounted to a supply of service in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act of 2017 read with sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 of Schedule II – HELD – The sub-clause(b) of clause 2 of Schedule II indicates any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services. The transaction under question is assignment of leasehold rights by the petitioner in favour of assignee, which admittedly is not a lease nor does it amount to sub-lease. Even the Respondent has recognized this transaction as seeking compensation to transfer rights in favour of the assignee amounting to service classifiable under other miscellaneous services and is taxable at 18% under Sr. No. 35 of the Notification No.11/2017 CT (Rate) dated 28-06-2017. In Court’s view, the petty miscellaneous services like washing, cleaning, dyeing, beauty, physical well-being, etc. cannot be extended to assignment of leasehold rights in an immovable property, to term it to be other miscellaneous services as classified under clause at Sr. No.35 of the Notification – The transaction pertains exclusively to transfer of benefits arising out of an immovable property and has no nexus whatsoever with the business of the petitioner. Consequently, the essential element of supply of service in the course of business or in furtherance of business is completely absent in the instant transaction – Further, the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Union of India, has held that the assignment of leasehold rights over land and building by an industrial unit to a third party is a transfer of benefits arising out of an immovable property and not a supply of service under the GST Act - The show cause notice and the adjudication order are quashed as assignment of leasehold rights would not be subject to levy of GST under the provisions of the GST Act - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Commission agent, Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) - Appellant is engaged in providing port services and is required to share the revenue generated with the Government of Andhra Pradesh - Department held that the appellant was acting as a commission agent on behalf of the State Govt and therefore, the 15% amount retained by the appellant over and above the actual expenditure incurred for maintenance, improvement and other activities was taxable under the category of BAS - Whether the appellant was acting as a commission agent on behalf of the State Govt and the 15% amount retained by the appellant was taxabl... [Read more]

Service Tax - Commission agent, Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) - Appellant is engaged in providing port services and is required to share the revenue generated with the Government of Andhra Pradesh - Department held that the appellant was acting as a commission agent on behalf of the State Govt and therefore, the 15% amount retained by the appellant over and above the actual expenditure incurred for maintenance, improvement and other activities was taxable under the category of BAS - Whether the appellant was acting as a commission agent on behalf of the State Govt and the 15% amount retained by the appellant was taxable under the category of BAS – HELD - The agreement between the appellant and the GOAP clearly provided that the appellant was the concessionaire and was required to undertake all the improvement, maintenance and other activities related to the port, and the expenditure for the same was to be met from the port dues fund. The 15% amount retained by the appellant was towards its overheads and taxes, and not as a commission paid by the State Govt. The entire port dues collected had already suffered service tax, and taxing the 15% amount retained by the appellant would amount to double taxation. The appellant is not providing any services on behalf of the State Govt, and therefore, the 15% amount retained by the appellant was not taxable under the category of BAS - The demand of service tax on the 15% amount retained by the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Taxability of job work services involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods - The appellant was engaged in providing different services to the service recipient against different work orders - The work order involved job work/fabrication as per the designs and on the materials supplied by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd - Whether the services provided by the appellant under the second type of work order, involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods, are taxable under service tax - HELD - The labourers were engaged directly in the process of manufacture of battery b... [Read more]

Service Tax - Taxability of job work services involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods - The appellant was engaged in providing different services to the service recipient against different work orders - The work order involved job work/fabrication as per the designs and on the materials supplied by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd - Whether the services provided by the appellant under the second type of work order, involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods, are taxable under service tax - HELD - The labourers were engaged directly in the process of manufacture of battery by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd., and the consideration was fixed on the basis of work accomplished by counting in 'piece'. Such services were provided by way of carrying out job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods in the premises of M/s. Exide Industries Limited. As the activity undertaken by the appellant resulted in the 'manufacture' of excisable goods, on which M/s. Exide Industries Limited had discharged the appropriate duty, such services are exempted from the payment of service tax under Sl. No. 30(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 - Demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order on the services rendered by the appellant under the second type of work order, involving job work/fabrication for the manufacture of excisable goods - Since the impugned demand against the appellant cannot be sustained, the question of demanding interest or imposing penalty thereon under Section 78 of the Act does not arise – The appeal is allowed - Invocation of extended period of limitation - The impugned demand was raised solely on the basis of the difference found between the Income Tax Return (ITR) and Service Tax Return (ST-3) filed by the appellant - Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case - HELD - The appellant was regular in filing their ST-3 Returns and the impugned demand was raised solely on the basis of the difference found between the ITR and ST-3 filed by them. As the appellant had not suppressed any material fact from the Department, the intent to evade payment of service tax has not been established in this case. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the ingredients for invoking the extended period of limitation are not satisfied in this case. Accordingly, the confirmation of the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable - The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of the demand by invoking the extended period of limitation. [Read less]

Service Tax – Refund of service tax paid under mistake of law, Judicial Precedents - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 for service tax paid by the Director of the company in individual capacity on renting of immovable property to the company – Refund claims were initially rejected on the ground that the appellant was not liable to pay under Reverse Charge Mechanism and hence the credit taken was wrong – Appellant subsequently took re-credit of the amounts and filed refund claims under Section 11B of the CEA, 19... [Read more]

Service Tax – Refund of service tax paid under mistake of law, Judicial Precedents - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 for service tax paid by the Director of the company in individual capacity on renting of immovable property to the company – Refund claims were initially rejected on the ground that the appellant was not liable to pay under Reverse Charge Mechanism and hence the credit taken was wrong – Appellant subsequently took re-credit of the amounts and filed refund claims under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944. The refund claims were initially sanctioned by the lower Adjudicating Authority, but were later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal - Whether the authorities were right in denying the refund claim of the tax amount that was paid due to a mistake of law - HELD - The tax was paid by the appellant under a mistake of law, and it is well-settled that when the payment of tax was due to a mistake of law, the refund of the same cannot be denied or disallowed - the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order rejecting the refund claim despite the fact that the tax was paid under mistake of law – Further, if it is considered an input service that is used by the appellant, the tax for the same has been rightly discharged by the appellant and hence must be granted credit as input service, and if the service tax has been rendered only to the Director in their individual capacity, the tax is not payable by the appellant as per law, it is liable to be refunded as it has been paid under mistake of law. The CESTAT had taken a contrary view in the present case, ignoring its own previous decision in the appellant's case for a different time period, where it had held that the appellant was eligible for input credit on the service tax paid under RCM on the rent paid to the Director. The lower authorities and the Tribunal were bound by the judicial precedents set by the higher courts and their failure to do so amounts to a violation of the core principle of judicial discipline - The orders by the CESTAT is set aside and the orders of the Adjudicating Authority sanctioning the refund claims of the appellant is restored – The appeals are allowed [Read less]