No Documentary Evidence From Department To Support Allegations; Supreme Court Grants Bail To Assessee Arrested Under Section 69 of CGST Act

The Supreme Court allowed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the assessee/accused, granting bail in a case registered under Section 132(1)(b), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal granted bail on the basis that the department failed to file any documentary evidence against the assessee/accused to substantiate the allegations made in the case, despite the court's direction. Section 69...

NCLT Order Prevails Over GST Demand, Even If State Is Not Notified About Pending NCLT Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order prevails over Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand, even if the state government is not notified about the pending NCLT proceedings. The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. observed that “the contention of the department that the order of NCLT is not binding on the State of Andhra Pradesh in view of Section 88 of the GST Act would have to be negatived in as much as Section 238...

Treaty Provisions Prevails Over Income Tax Act – Receipts From Aircraft Leasing Is Not Taxable As Royalty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that consideration received by Assessee from aircraft leasing activity is not taxable as royalty either u/s 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act or under India-Ireland DTAA. Under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act, royalty payable by the Indian Government to any non-resident, shall always be deemed to accrue or arise in India, without any exception. In such a case, the government could be the Central government or the State government. Pointing out that the...

'Cheeselings' By Parle-G Classified As 'Namkeen', Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'Cheeselings' by Parle-G is 'namkeen' which is exempted from the excise duty under S. No. 29 of the Notification No. 3/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March 2006. The Bench of C J Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that “'Namkeen' has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff. Therefore, the...

Second Provisional Attachment Notice Lacking Fresh Reasons Is Arbitrary: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court stated that issuing a second provisional attachment notice without providing new or fresh reasons is considered arbitrary. The Division Bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla observed that “the department cannot be allowed simpliciter to issue a second notice, and thereafter, third and fourth and continue with the provisional attachment for four to five years without giving any fresh reason for the said provisional attachment. If the same was...

In Absence Of Specific Reasons, GST Registration Can't Be Cancelled With Retrospective Effect : Delhi High Court

Finding that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not mention any particulars, which would provide any clue to the taxpayer/ petitioner as to the reasons for cancellation of its GST registration, the Delhi High Court quashed the SCN as well as the order, by which the GST Commissioner had cancelled the GST registration of petitioner with retrospective effect. The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta observed that “The SCN did not mention any intelligible reason....

Income Tax Refund Can't Be Denied To Taxpayer For Discrepancy In Form 26AS Filed: Delhi High Court

While observing that tax was duly deducted by the Land Acquisition Collector but was not disclosed for some reasons and hence the credit was not reflected in Form 26AS, the Delhi High Court held that the assessee/ petitioner cannot be penalized for the mere reason that the Form 26AS suffered from a discrepancy. Therefore, condoning the delay u/s 119 of the Income tax Act, the High Court quashed an order, by which the Revenue Department had rejected the Assessee's application to submit...

Detention Under Customs Act – Authority Must Specify Nature Of Infraction/ Violation, For Tentative Denial Of Preferential Duty Treatment: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that the Proper officer under Customs Act cannot detain the goods or stall the process of importation, without forming a requisite opinion regarding any forgery in import. The High Court clarified that the proper officer does not have any unfettered power to initiate a verification process, and it is incumbent upon him to form a requisite opinion in support of a suspicion that he had regarding the issue of Country-Of-Origin (COO) certificate or the origin of...

Service Charge Collected By Medical Store In Hospital Covered Under “Health Care Services”, Exempted From Service Tax: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service charge collected by a medical store in the hospital is covered under “Health Care Services” and are exempted from Service Tax. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) has observed that “medical aid to the patients who are admitted in the hospital, most of the time requires urgent care and treatment without any loss of time and that is the reason for having a medical store...

Goods Already Exported Before New Notification; Conditions Mentioned Are Not Relevant For Denying Refund: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that since the refund claim is for exports which had already taken place before the new notification, the requirement to submit returns (as mentioned in the new notification) does not apply and cannot be used as a reason to deny the refund. The Bench of M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that “taxes and duties should not be exported, to enable a level playing field in the ...

Local Commissioner's Report Establishing Supplier's Existence Is Sufficient: CESTAT Grants CENVAT Credit To Assessee

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the report of the Local Commissioner, which establishes the existence of the supplier, is sufficient to grant CENVAT credit to the assessee. The Bench of M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that “the affidavit duly bearing the stamp of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), and submitted by an independent local Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court Judge, Ludhiana, is independent...

Factory Closed Due To Unavoidable Circumstances Not Liable For Excise Duty: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that if a factory is closed due to unavoidable circumstances, it is not liable to pay excise duty. The Bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that “the closure of the factory was not on the choice of the assessee whereas, they were compelled to keep the factory closed as per the direction of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Therefore, closing of the...