Supreme Court

Same Activity Can Be Taxed As ‘Goods’ & ‘Services’ : Supreme Court Upholds Levy Of Service Tax On “Engineering Design & Drawings”

The Supreme Court has held that the import of “Engineering Design & Drawings” falls under the category of “design services” under section 65(35b) read with Section 65(105) (zzzzd) of the Finance Act, 1994, and are subject to levy of service tax. On the sole ground that “Engineering Design & Drawings” prepared and supplied by sister company were shown as ‘goods’ under the Customs Act and in the bill of entry, such services cannot be excluded from the definition of “design services” under the Finance Act, 1994.

Issuance Of Corporate Guarantee On Behalf Of Group Companies Without Consideration Is Not A Taxable Service: Supreme Court

Case Title: Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Versus M/S Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 281

The Supreme Court has held that the issuance of a corporate guarantee on behalf of group companies without consideration is not a taxable service.

The division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra has observed that, as there is no consideration involved, no service tax would be assessed on the corporate guarantees given by a parent company to its subsidiaries.

Mortein Spray, Harpic & Lizol Cleaner- Not Classifiable as ‘Insecticide’ Under KVAT; Dettol A 'Medicament': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari has ruled that Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers, Mortein Insect Killers, Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol Floor Cleaners, are not be classifiable under Entry 44(5) of the 3rd Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act (KVAT), 2003 as ‘insecticides’.

Delhi High Court

No Justification For Not Adjudicating The Notice For More Than 13 Years After Its Issuance: Delhi High Court

Refund Claim Embedded In Return, No Need To File Fresh Claim: Delhi High Court Directs Dept. To Pay 6% Interest

Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes Versus Corsan Corviam Construction S.A.-Sadbhav Engineering Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has held that since the claim for a refund made by the assessee was embedded in its return and the assessee was not required to file a fresh claim.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has directed the Department to pay interest within 4 weeks.

Attachment Of Bank Accounts Is A Draconian Step, Attachment Is Subject To The Condition Mentioned U/s 83 Of GST Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sakshi Bahl Versus The Principal Additional Director General

The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied.

Services Provided By EY India To Overseas EY Entities Not “Intermediary Services”: Delhi High Court Directs IGST Refund To EY India

Case Title: M/s Ernst and Young Ltd vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals & Anr.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the services provided by M/s Ernst and Young Limited (India), the Indian Branch Office of UK based company, M/s Ernst & Young Limited (E&Y Ltd), to overseas EY Entities, is not an “intermediary service”.

Delhi High Court Quashes Service Tax Demand of Rs. 56.61 Crores Against MTNL

Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Union Of India

The Delhi High Court has quashed the service tax demand of Rs. 56.61 crores against Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL).

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that MTNL had received the compensation during the financial year 2015-16, which was prior to May 14, 2016, i.e., the date on which the Finance Act, 2016, came into force and Clause (j) was introduced in Section 66E of the Act. Thus, the surrender of any right to use the spectrum by MTNL prior to the said date would not be chargeable to service tax.

Bombay High Court

Case Title: Dharmendra M. Jani Versus UOI

Orissa High Court

Different Amount Mentioned In Tax Invoice And E-Way Bill: Orissa High Court Orders Issuance Of Fresh Assessment Order

Case Title: M/s. Jena Trading and Co. Versus CT and GST Officer

The Orissa High Court has held that the different amounts mentioned in the tax invoice and e-Way Bill indicate a palpable error in the waybill, which may be construed as a human error. The bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice M.S. Raman quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

Karnataka High Court

Rule Whittling Down Input Taxes Refund Paid In Course Of Making A Zero-Rated Supply Is Ultra Vires: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India

The Karnataka High Court has an amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust, and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab And Haryana High Court Directs To Refund Tax Collected Illegally With 6% Interest

Case Title: Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Citation: CWP-23788-2021

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if the tax is collected without any authority of law, the same would amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe on his right under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

Punjab And Haryana High Court Directs To Refund Tax Collected Illegally With 6% Interest

Case Title: Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that if the tax is collected without any authority of law, the same would amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe on his right under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.

Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court Directs Department To Release The Seized Goods On The Condition Of Payment Of 200% Of The Tax Payable

Case Title: S/S S.K. Trading Co Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2(Appeal)

The Allahabad High Court has directed the department to release the seized goods on the condition of payment of 200% of the tax payable on the goods valued at the same on the basis of the valuation as shown in the invoice.

Tax Deposited During Search Can't Be Retained By Department Till Adjudication Of Notice: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Rajasthan High Court

Entitlement Of ITC After Cancellation Of GST Registration Can Be Considered During Revocation: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court Upholds GST Demand On Royalty Paid To The Mining Department Towards Mining Lease

Case Title: Rajasthan Granite Mining Association Versus Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the GST demand on royalty paid to the Mining Department towards mining lease.

CESTAT

Procedural Lapse Cannot Be The Basis To Deny Service Tax Refund, Defeating The Object Of SEZ: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Lupin Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the beneficial object of establishing the SEZ tax-free, without any burden of duties, means that the procedural lapse, if any, cannot be the basis to deny the refund.

Freight And Handling Charges Shown Separately In The Invoice Is Not Includable In The Assessable Value Of The Excisable Goods: CESTAT

Case Title: Messrs Mira Industries Versus C.C.E.-Ahmedabad-ii

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that freight and handling charges shown separately in the invoice of the appellant are also not includable in the assessable value of the excisable goods.

Cricket Player Providing Brand Promotion Services Not Liable To Pay Service Tax: CESTAT

Case Title: Ajitesh Kamlesh Argal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara-I

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed the demand for service tax on remuneration received by the cricket player from M/s. Nike India Pvt. for brand promotion.

CESTAT Allows Service Tax Refund On Construction Services Of Complex Provided By The Cooperative Housing Society

Case Title: Shantanu Co Operative Housing Society Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the service tax refund on the construction of complexes provided by the appellant’s cooperative housing society.

Suspension Of The Licence Of Broker Is Not Warranted After The Investigation And Issue Of Show Cause Notice: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s.India Transport & Travel Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that suspension of the license is not warranted after investigation and the issuing of a show cause notice.

Service Tax Exemption On Handling Of Agriculture Produce By A Cargo Handling Agency: CESTAT

Case Title: Elegant Surveyors Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax is exempted from the handling of agricultural produce by a cargo handling agency.

Value Of Bought Out Items Supplied Along With Manufactured Goods Cannot Be Included In Assessable Value Of Manufactured Goods: CESTAT

Case Title: Transrail Lighting Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Silvasa

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the value of bought-out items supplied along with manufactured goods cannot be included in the assessable value of the manufactured goods.

Service Tax Under RCM Not Payable By Company If Personal Property Rented Out By The Directors To The Company: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Cords Cable Industries Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Excise

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not payable by the company if personal property is rented out by the directors to the company.

Breast Pump Is Not A Medical Device, Classifiable Under CTH 39269090: CESTAT

Case Title: M/S Mehar Healthcare Corporation Versus Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that breast pumps have nothing to do with any medical or surgical procedures and are not used by any medical practitioner.

The two-member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P V Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the manual breast pumps are classifiable under CTH 39269090.

Cenvat Credit Available On Books Of Account Cannot Be Rejected Without Following Due Procedure: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s Saavn Media Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax-Mumbai East

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that unless CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant has not been recovered by way of the issue of a show cause notice invoking Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT Credit available on the books of account cannot be rejected when it is accumulated on account of export of service.

CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit Of Service Tax Paid On Corporate Membership Of Club

Case Title: M/s Emco Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise-Mumbai-III

AAR

Supply Of Prepackaged And Labelled Rice Upto 25 Kgs, To The Factory Of Exporter Attracts 5% GST: Haryana AAR

Applicant’s Name: D D International Pvt. Ltd.

The Haryana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that 5% GST is applicable on supplies of prepackaged and labelled rice up to 25 kg to the factory of the exporter.

The two-member bench of Sunder Lal and Kumud Singh has observed that the legislature's intention is that the supply of rice in packets of up to 25 kg, which are duly pre-packaged and labelled as per the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the rules made thereunder, is a taxable event and it’s not an exempted or nil-rated supply.

Services Provided By Branch Office To Head Office And Vice Versa Will Attract GST: AAR

Applicant’s Name: Tvl.Profisolutions Private Limited

The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the services, including those of common employees of a person, provided by branch offices to the head office and vice versa, each having a separate GST registration, will attract GST.

Wooden Ice Cream Sticks And Spoons Exigible To 12% GST: AAR

Direct Tax

Supreme Court

Memorandum Issued By The Government To Deduct 4% TDS Is Not Ultra Vires To Tripura Sales Tax Act: Supreme Court

Case Title: The State Of Tripura Versus Chandan Deb

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 280

The Supreme Court has held that the liability to pay the tax shall be on the transferor who transfers the right to use any goods as per proviso to Section 3(1) read with Section 2(b) and 2(g) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act (TST Act).

Section 263 Income Tax Act | Erroneous Order Of Assessing Officer Causing Prejudice To Revenue Is Revisable By CIT : Supreme Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282

The Supreme Court has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax can exercise revision powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act over the orders of the Assessing Officer which cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue.

Mere Delay In Remittance Of TDS Doesn’t Attract Penalty Under S 271C Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that no penalty is leviable under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on mere delay in remittance of the tax deducted at source (TDS) after the same has been deducted by the assessee.

Income Tax Act | For A Company To Be A "Resident" In India, Domicile Or Registration Irrelevant; Test Is Where De Facto Control Lies : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the domicile or the registration of the company is not at all relevant, and the determinate test is the place where, the sole right to manage the company and the control of the company lies.

S. 80-IB Of Income Tax Act - Assessee Not Entitled To Deduction Under On Profit Derived From DEPB And Duty Drawback Schemes: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under Section 80- IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount received / profit derived from the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and the Duty Drawback Schemes.

Transfer Pricing | High Courts Not Precluded From Scrutinising ITAT’s Determination Of Arm’s Length Price : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court is not precluded from considering the determination of the arm’s length price determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in exercise of its powers under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court

Assessment Order Issued Without DIN, Invalid; S. 292B Of ITA Not Applicable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) where it had set aside the assessment order issued by the Income Tax Department without quoting the Document Identification Number (DIN).

Bombay High Court

ITAT

In Absence Of Proper Show Cause Notice To The Assessee, There Is No Merit In Levy Of Penalty: ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that where the initiation of penalty is one limb and the levy of penalty is another limb, then in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in the levy of penalty.

Income Tax Exemption On The Voluntarily Payment Made By The Employer To The Employee Out Of Appreciation: ITAT

Case Title: Mahadev Vasant Dhangekar Versus The Asstt. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the payment has been made voluntarily by them out of appreciation for the employee and thus falls outside the rigours of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Quashes Penalty Notice Which Was Silent On Specification Of Charges

Case Title: M.A. Projects Private Limited Versus ACIT

Case Title: M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT

ITAT Disallows Income Tax Deduction On Employees’ Contribution To PF & ESI Beyond The Due Dates

Case Title: M/s. Salasar Balaji Vs. ACIT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has disallowed income tax deduction on employees’ contributions to PF and ESI beyond the due dates.

Adjustment Of Difference In Depreciation To The Profits Eligible For Income Tax Exemption: ITAT

Case Title: DCIT Versus M/s Zensar Technologies Ltd

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that adjustment of the difference in depreciation to the profits makes them eligible for income tax exemption.

AO Cannot Make Ad-Hoc Disallowance Of Expenses For Want Of Supporting For Each Expense, Without Pointing Defect In Vouchers: ITAT

Case Title: TPF Getinsa Euroestudios S.L. Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the AO cannot make an ad hoc disallowance of expenses for want of support for each expense, without pointing to defects in vouchers on a sample basis furnished by the assessee.

Non-Resident Shareholders Can’t Take Benefit Of Lower Tax Rate Prescribed In DTAAs For Taxation Of Dividend Where DDT Is Applicable: ITAT

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd.

The Mumbai Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that non-resident shareholders cannot take advantage of the lower tax rate prescribed in Double Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) for taxation of dividends where Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is applicable.

Without Corroborating Evidence, Addition Can’t Be Made On The Basis Of A Declaration Made U/s 132(4) Of The Income Tax Act: ITAT

Assessee Explained The Source Of The Excess Stock Found During The Course Of Survey: ITAT Deletes Addition

Amount Declared As Turnover Can’t Be Concealed Income: ITAT

Employee Remuneration, Legal Expenses, Board Meeting Expenses etc. , Can’t Be Attributable To Interest From FDs: ITAT