Tax
Madras High Court Quashes ₹12.58 Cr Demand Against Pellagic Food, Upholds Advance Ruling Principles
The Madras High Court on 9 July quashed the Customs order passed against Pellagic Food Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. that raised a demand of Rs. 12.58 crore as differential customs duty, along with interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalties. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that Customs authorities should ordinarily follow the legal principles laid down in an Advance Ruling in similar cases, even though such rulings bind only the applicant who obtained them,...
CESTAT Mumbai Slams Customs For Missing Records, Calls It Contrary To 'Viksit Bharat @2047' Vision
On 21 July, the Mumbai Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) criticised the Customs Department for rejecting a refund claim merely because it was unable to trace its own records, observing that such administrative failure is inconsistent with the vision of “Viksit Bharat @2047”. A Single Member Bench of Technical Member M.M. Parthiban made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by John Miranda and directing the Customs Department to refund Rs. 3 lakh deposited...
GST Law Does Not Mandate Three-Month Gap Between Notice And Adjudication Order: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on 17 July held that GST law does not require a mandatory three-month gap between issuance of a show cause notice and passing of an adjudication order, clarifying that the three-month requirement only applies to the period between issuance of the notice and expiry of the statutory limitation period for passing the order. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy partly allowed writ petitions filed by Raj Machine Tools challenging two GST assessment orders for the financial year...
Patna High Court Quashes Mechanical GST Registration Cancellation, Imposes ₹15,000 Costs On Department
The Patna High Court on 17 July held that GST authorities cannot cancel GST registration or reject a revocation application without complying with the statutory safeguards mandated under law, ruling that orders passed mechanically in violation of the principles of natural justice are unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra allowed the writ petition filed by Munna Chaudhary, set aside the GST registration cancellation order, the order rejecting the...
No MRP Doesn't Mean Imported Pet Food Isn't 'Put Up For Retail Sale' If It's Consumer-Ready: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that the absence of a maximum retail price (MRP) does not by itself prevent imported pet food packs from being treated as goods "put up for retail sale," even if they are repacked into smaller units after customs clearance.A division bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed,"The absence of MRP does not detract from this status, especially as the packs fall below the 25 kg exemption threshold under Rule 3(a) of the Legal...
No Cenvat Credit Reversal On Sulphuric Acid Supplied Duty-Free To Fertilizer Manufacturers: CESTAT Hyderabad
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, has held that manufacturers are not required to reverse Cenvat credit on Sulphuric Acid supplied to fertilizer manufacturers without payment of excise duty under a conditional government notification. The tribunal held that such supplies cannot automatically be treated as "exempted goods" merely because no duty was paid on them. The tribunal observed that the product remained dutiable. It said the exemption was...
FSSAI Alone Can Certify Imported Food Safety; Customs Can Sample For Classification: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that only an authorised officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is competent to draw samples of imported food products to determine whether they are safe and fit for human consumption. It clarified that Customs authorities may independently draw samples only for customs purposes such as classification, valuation, duty liability and investigation of possible misdeclaration. Justice Smita Das De held, "In concise, the FSSAI Authorised...
NFAC Must Provide Video Conferencing If Assessee Seeks Personal Hearing: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a taxpayer who seeks a personal hearing during appellate proceedings before the NFAC is entitled to such a virtual hearing.“There are various issues which can be better explained with the help of personal or virtual assistance by assessee or its authorised representative. Mere written submissions or memo of appeal are not sufficient for proper adjudication,” division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed.The court thus set aside an...
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Extended Limitation Against boAt Maker In Bluetooth Earphones Customs Dispute
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked against Imagine Marketing Ltd., the company behind the boAt brand, in a dispute over the tariff classification of imported wireless Bluetooth earphones. The tribunal found that the dispute was purely interpretational and that the Department had failed to establish collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts"There is no element of...
CESTAT Mumbai Holds Lease Rentals Collected By Asian Paints For Tinting Machines Not Liable To Service Tax
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently granted relief to Asian Paints Ltd., holding that service tax could not be levied on lease rentals collected from dealers for tinting machines after finding that the arrangement amounted to a deemed sale. The tribunal held, "I have no hesitation in holding that the transaction in the case before us is of 'deemed sale' as per Article 366 (29A)(d) of the Constitution of India." The order was passed...
Assessing Officer Not Deemed to Have Noticed Facts Disclosed in Wealth Tax Return: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that an Assessing Officer is not deemed to have noticed facts disclosed in a wealth tax return while examining an income tax return. It refused to interfere with reassessment proceedings initiated against a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) over an unexplained cash payment of more than ₹1.02 crore towards the purchase of immovable property. A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by...