Non-Banking Finance & Leasing Companies Not Liable To Pay Interest Tax On Instalments Paid Under Hire Purchase Agreement : Supreme Court

Case Title: M/s. Muthoot Leasing And Finance Ltd. versus CIT

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7

The Supreme Court has held that non-banking finance and leasing companies are not liable to pay tax on the interest component included in the hire-purchase instalment paid under the hire purchase agreement.

Sabka Vishwas Scheme : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Company Which Missed Deadline Due To IBC Moratorium

Case Title: Shekhar Resorts Limited vs Union of India

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 15

No one can be expected to do the impossible, the Supreme Court remarked while granting relief to a company which could not avail the benefit of settlement of tax dues under “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, due to moratorium imposed on it.

Bombay High Court

It Is A PAN Which Follows The Jurisdiction And Not The Jurisdiction Which Follows PAN: Bombay High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt. Ltd.

The Bombay High Court ruled that the transfer of PAN is a result of the order transferring jurisdiction and that the PAN follows the jurisdiction rather than the other way around.

Clause Contained In The Tax Invoice Amounts To An Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd Versus MAD (India) Pvt.Ltd

The Bombay High Court has held that the clause contained in the invoices, which clearly stipulates a reference to arbitration, deserves to be construed as an arbitration clause.

The single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre has observed that any document in writing exchanged between the parties that provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and would amount to an arbitration clause.

Madras High Court

No Promissory Estoppel Involved In Grant Of Temporary Reprieve From Service Tax On Works Contract; Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Raju Construction & Ors. versus The Government of India & Ors.

The Madras High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015, which withdrew service tax exemption on services in nature of works contract, as granted under the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax, dated 20.06.2012.

Entities Evading Tax Payment Are Liable To Be Punished Under Criminal Charges With Penalties: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.Tirupur Sree Annapoorna Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

The Madras High Court, while analysing the growing trend of tax evasion, has stated that companies, firms, or entities that evade tax payments are liable to be punished under criminal charges with substantial penalties.

Refund Or Carry Forward The ITC To GST Regime Is Dealer’s Choice: Madras High Court

Case Title: Easwaran Brothers India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 4

The Madras High Court has held that the dealer has two options: refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime.

The single bench of Justice M. Sundar has observed that the dealer cannot be compelled to opt for one of the two, i.e., refund or carry forward the ITC to the GST regime. It is, after all, an option given to the dealer. The provisional refund order issued by the department and the issuance of what is known as "Form-P" clearly defined the entitlement of the dealer.

Orissa High Court

Vedanta Claimed Unutilized ITC Refund, No Scope For Supplementary Refund Application Based On Fresh Calculation: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda Versus Union of India

The Orissa High Court has held that Vedanta has claimed the refund of the unutilized input tax credit on account of zero-rated supplies by clubbing up all the transactions relating to three units. There is no scope to insist on consideration of a supplementary refund application based on a fresh calculation made by taking individual unit-wise transactions into account.

Andhra Pradesh High Court

GST Dept. Can’t Retain Disputed Amount Paid Due To Inadvertent Error: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Varshan Enterprises Versus Office of GST Council

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the GST department cannot retain the disputed amount that is paid to them due to an inadvertent error.

The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu has observed that the amounts that were paid by the assessee or petitioner who furnished the incorrect details cannot be taken as a tax due from the department or respondents, legally. The department cannot contend that the claim, if any, of the petitioner is barred by limitation.

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Units Located In J&K Entitled For Central Excise Duty Exemption Prior To 1st July 2017 Liable To Pay GST: J&K & Ladakh High Court

Case Title: Godrej Consumer Products Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 4

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that units located in Jammu and Kashmir are entitled to central excise duty exemption prior to July 1, 2017, and are therefore liable to pay GST.

The division bench of Justice Tashi Rabsdan and Justice Mohan Lal has observed that in terms of the Central Excise regime as it existed prior to July 1, 2017, the units located in Jammu & Kashmir and other states were eligible to avail exemption from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of area-based exemption notifications. While exemption was available to the units located in Jammu and Kashmir, who were required to pay Central Excise Duty and avail exemption by way of refund of the cash component of duty paid, under the GST regime there was no exemption, and the existing units availing exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty prior to July 1, 201,7 are required to pay CGST and SGST/IGST like a normal unit. Thus, no exemption is available to the units by way of either an ab initio exemption or a refund.

ITAT

ITAT Sustains Disallowance As Cash Payment Exceeds Rs. 20,000 To Single Party In Single Day

Case Title: Shri Kalimuthu Harichandran Versus ACIT

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has sustained the disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act as a cash payment exceeds INR 20,000 to a single party in a single day.

Income From Domain Name Registration Not Taxable As “Royalty”; Registrar Merely An Intermediary: Mumbai ITAT

Case Title: PDR Solutions FZC versus DCIT

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that a domain name registrar does not have any right in the domain name, which is registered by it merely as a facilitator. Thus, the income received by it from domain name registration is not taxable as “Royalty”, the ITAT ruled.

When AO Has Taken One Of The Possible Views The PCIT Is Prohibited From Adopting Different View: ITAT

Case Title: Prerak Goel Versus PCIT

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while quashing the revision order, held that when the Assessing Officer (AO) has taken one of several possible views, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) is prohibited from adopting a different view.

The two-member bench of Aby V. Varkey (Judicial Member) and B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd. v. CIT, in which it was ruled that if the AO has taken one of the possible views, then the assessment order cannot be considered to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue merely for the reason that the PCIT has a different view on the very same matter.

CESTAT

Customs Broker Is Not Liable For Undervaluation Of Exported Goods: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Sri Velavan Logistics Services Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that customs brokers cannot be held liable for the undervaluation of exported goods.

The bench of P. Dinesha (a judicial member) has observed that the valuation of any goods could never be the domain of a customs broker as it depends upon the contract between the exporter and the importer, in which the customs broker has no say.

Decision Of CG Not To Impose Anti-Dumping Duty, Quasi-Judicial In Nature; Principles Of NJ Must Be Followed: CESTAT

Case Title: Chemical and Petrochemicals Manufactures Association (CPMA) versus Union of India & Ors.

The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reiterated that the decision taken by the Central Government to not impose anti-dumping duty under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is quasi-judicial in nature and not legislative, and thus, the requirement of a reasoned order must be compiled with.

AAR

Readily Available Food, Beverages Sold Over Counter Is A Supply Of Goods, Does Not Qualify As “Restaurant Services”: Gujarat AAR

Applicant’s Name: Ridhi Enterprise

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that readily available food and beverages that are not prepared in the restaurant and sold over the counter are supplies of goods that are liable to GST and do not qualify as "restaurant services."

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar relied on the ruling of the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Uttrakhand, pronounced in the case of M/s Kundan Mishthan, in which it was ruled that sales of sweets, namkeens, cold drinks, and other edible items from sweet shop counters will be treated as supplies of goods with applicable GST rates of the items being sold and input credit will be allowed on supplies.

Supply Of Sharpener Along With Pencils Is A Mixed Supply: Gujarat AAR

Applicant’s Name: Doms Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of sharpeners along with pencils is covered under the category of "mixed supply."

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that a mixed supply containing more than two supplies shall be treated as a supply of the particular supply that attracts the higher rate of tax in the mixed supply. The applicant is required to use the HSN code of the particular supply, which attracts a higher rate of tax among all the taxable supplies contained in a pack or box.

GST Exemption On Hiring Of Goods Transportation Vehicle By GTA: Chhattisgarh AAR

Applicant’s Name: Prahallad Ray Rekhraj Agrawal Bazar Neora

The Chhattisgarh Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the hiring of goods transportation vehicles by the Goods Transportation Agency (GTA).

The two-member bench of Sonal K. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar Singh has observed that the service by way of giving on hire a means of transportation of goods to the applicant GTA is exigible for the nil rate of GST as stipulated under Notification number 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. When no tax is payable, the question of taking any input tax credit does not arise.

Training, Coaching Services Does Not Come Under ‘Educational Institution’, No GST Exemption Available: Kerala AAR

Applicant’s Name: Tutor Comp Info Tech Private Limited

The Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that training and coaching services do not come under the definition of "educational institution" to claim GST exemption.

The two-member bench of S.L. Sreeparvathy and Abraham Renn S has observed that institutions providing services by way of education as a part of the curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force and those engaged in providing education as a part of an approved vocational education course are covered by the definition of "educational institution."

No GST Payable On Afforestation Carried Out By Charitable Organisation: Gujarat AAR

Applicant’s Name: M/s. Vikas Centre For Development

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the afforestation carried out by the charitable organisation is exempt from GST.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar observed that the activities of mangrove plantations are covered under charitable activity. The applicant is registered under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a charitable trust, and thus the service of planting mangroves by the applicant is eligible for exemption from the payment of GST.

Medical Monitoring Services To Senior Citizens At Door Step Attract 18% GST: West Bengal AAR

Applicant’s Name: Snehador Social & Health Care Support LLP

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that services of regular medical monitoring, along with other logistical support, provided by the applicant to senior citizens at their doorsteps, attract 18% GST.

Supply Of Services For Right To Use Car Parking Space Attracts 18% GST: West Bengal AAR

Applicant’s Name: Eden Real Estates Private Limited

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has held that the supply of services for the right-to-use car parking spaces attracts 18% GST.

The two-member bench of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik has observed that the supply of services for the right to use a car parking space is a separate supply and not to be construed as a composite supply of construction of residential apartment services.

18% GST Payable On The Composite Supply Of Welding Services On Railway Tracks Along With Labour Services: West Bengal AAR

Applicant’s Name: Purple Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the conversion of short weld rails (SWR) to long weld rails (LWR) by flash butt welding on the railway tracks along with the supply of labour services shall be treated as composite supplies.

Contract For Construction Of New Railway Siding Is Covered Under “Works Contract”, Attracts 12% GST: West Bengal AAR

Applicant’s Name: Triveni Engicons Private Limited

The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the contract for the construction of new railway siding is covered under the definition of a "works contract" and attracts 12% GST.

Treated Water Obtained From CETP Attracts 18% GST: Gujarat AAR

The Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) has observed that treated water obtained from the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) attracts 18% GST.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that the applicant is also a common effluent treatment plant engaged in collecting, conveying, treating, and disposing of effluents from its member dyeing and bleaching units and obtaining water by the process of reverse osmosis. The treated water is not used for drinking purposes by the public at large but is supplied to industries for their use.