Sufficiency Or Inadequacy Of Reasons To Believe Cannot Be Looked Into While Considering Validity Of Search & Seizure U/Sec 132 Income TaxAct: Supreme Court

Case Title: Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) vs Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, restated the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.

"The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.

'Anardana' Be Classified Under Heading 1209 Of Tariff Entries Under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 & Attract 5% Custom Duty Till Revenue Takes Policy Decision Regarding The Same: Supreme Court

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs And Central Excise, Amritsar (Punjab) v. M/s. D.L. Steels Etc. Civil Appeal Nos. 2360-2376 of 2009

The Supreme Court held that 'anardana' or dried pomegranate seeds would fall under Heading 1209 of the Tariff entries issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as classified by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, attracting a custom duty at the rate of 5%, till the Revenue takes a considered policy decision regarding its classification.

The issue before the Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi was that revenue authorities (appellant) asserted that 'anardana' falls under the Heading 0813 of the Tariff entries, and would incur custom duty at the rate of 30%, while the importers claimed that it is covered by Heading 1209 and attracts duty at the rate of 5%.

Bombay High Court

Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 129E of the Customs Act Is Constitutional: Bombay High Court

Case Title: United Projects Versus The State of Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court has ruled that by virtue of section 129E of the Customs Act, the right to appeal is a conditional right. The legislature, in its wisdom, has imposed a condition of deposit of a percentage of duty demanded or penalty levied or both.

The three-judge bench of Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Justice Nitin W. Sambre, and Justice Abhay Ahuja has observed that the fiscal legislation can very well stipulate as a requirement of law a mandatory pre-deposit as a condition precedent for an appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority. Thus, section 129E of the Customs Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional.

Orissa High Court

"Tobacco & Tobacco Products" In Schedule To Odisha Entry Tax Act Include 'Bidi': Orissa High Court

​​Case Title: M/s. Patel Brothers & Co., Sambalpur v. State of Odisha

The Orissa High Court has held that 'bidi' comes under the purview of "tobacco and tobacco products" as provided under Entry 16, Part I of the Schedule to the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 ('OET Act'). A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed, "Although learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that under Entry 31 'cigarette and lighter' is a separate item and therefore unless there is a separate entry for 'bidi' it would not be amenable to entry tax in terms of the OET Act, the Court is unable to agree with the above contention. The expression 'tobacco and tobacco products' is wide enough to include 'bidi'..."

Madras High Court

Madras High Court Quashes Non-Speaking Order Rejecting The GST Registration Application

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has quashed the non-speaking order rejecting the GST registration application.

The petitioner had made an application seeking registration in accordance with Section 22 read with Section 25 of the CGST Act and Rule 8 of the CGST Rules. The registration sought was in respect of a rice mandi. The receipt of the application was duly acknowledged and physical verification (pv) was also duly undertaken.

Uttarakhand High Court

Cancellation Of GST Registration Affects Right To Livelihood, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Versus Commissioner Uttarakhand State GST and others

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the cancellation of GST registration affects the right to livelihood and the writ petition is maintainable.

The division bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe has observed that the appellant is denied his right to livelihood because of the cancellation of his GST Registration number. He has no remedy to appeal. It shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as the right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Telangana High Court

Erroneous Recording of Place Of Supply As The Location Of Unregistered Recipient: Telangana High Court Remands The Matter

Case Title: M/s Ani Technologies Private Limited Versus State of Telangana

The Telangana High Court ruled that, while the department referred to Section12(9) of the IGST Act, the department erroneously recorded that, in the instance of an unregistered receiver, the place of supply should be the recipient's location. It prima facie appears to be in contravention of Section 12(9) of the IGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda said, "it is prima facie evident that if the passenger is not registered under GST and avails transportation service, by way of legal fiction, the place of supply would be the place where the passenger embarks or starts his journey."

Telangana High Court Holds Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 To Be Unconstitutional

Case Title: M/s. Sri Sri Engineering Works and others Versus The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, and others

The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2017 is unconstitutional.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P. Madhavi Devi has observed that the intention of Parliament in ushering in the GST regime through the Constitution Amendment Act, enactment of the CGST Act and simultaneous enactment of various State GST Acts by the State Legislatures was to avoid a multiplicity of taxes by subsuming those indirect taxes into a single tax called GST. However, the amendments brought in by the Second Amendment Act were wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Constitution Amendment Act read with the CGST Act and the TGST Act.

Jharkhand High Court

Summary of Show Cause Notice In Form DRC-01 Is Not A Substitute Of Section 74(1) Show Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

The Jharkhand High Court held that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute for show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that though the petitioner submitted their concise reply, the respondent cannot take benefit of the action as a summary of show cause notice cannot be considered as a show cause notice as mandated under Section 74(1). It is well settled that there is no estoppel against statute, and a bonafide mistake or consent by the assessee cannot confer any jurisdiction upon the proper officer. The jurisdiction must flow from the statute itself. The rules of estoppel are the rules of equity, which have no role in matters of taxation.

ITAT

Cash Deposits Related To 'Shroff Business' Is Not An Undisclosed Income: ITAT

Case Title: The DCIT Versus M/s. Sidhanath Enterprise

The Rajkot Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), consisting of TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), has ruled that the cash deposits related to the Shroff business are not an undisclosed income.

Expenditure Incurred On Trademark Registration Is A Revenue Expenditure: ITAT Allows Deduction

Case Title: Add. CIT Versus M/s Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)has allowed the deduction and held that the expenditure incurred on trademark registration is a revenue expenditure.

The two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member) has ruled that the amendment in section 32 of the Income Tax Act from A.Y. 1999-2000 which allows deprecation on various intangible assets (including trademarks) is applicable only when the cost incurred in respect of a trademark is in the nature of capital expenditure.

SFIS Credit Does Not Constitute Taxable Income: ITAT Delhi

Case Title: Container Corporation of India Ltd. versus DCIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has ruled that the credit received by the assessee under the "Served From India Scheme" (SFIS) is not in the nature of income and that it does not constitute taxable income under Section 2(24) (xviii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench, consisting of Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member), observed that the SFIS credit had only reduced the value of a capital asset in the books of accounts of the assessee by the amount of excise duty and that if the SFIS credit was not available, the assessee would have paid the excise duty and added the same to the cost of the asset. Hence, the ITAT ruled that there was no element of revenue or income in the SFIS credit.

ITAT Directs Revenue To Give Effect To High Court Order Holding Software License Charges Received By EYNot Taxable As 'Royalty'

Case Title: EY Global Services Ltd. versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of ITAT has directed the revenue authorities to give effect to the order passed by the Delhi High Court in favour of EY Global Services Limited (UK) (EYGSL (UK), holding that payments received by EYGSL (UK) from its member firms in India, towards Software License and Maintenance Charges, Global Technology Charges and GWAN Connectivity Charges, are not taxable in India.

The Bench, consisting of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member), noted that the Delhi High Court, reversing the order passed by the AAR, has held that the payment received by EYGSL (UK) for providing access to computer software to its EY member firms located in India did not amount to 'Royalty' and hence, it was not taxable in India under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the India-UK DTAA.

CESTAT

Empty Packaging Material Of Cenvatable Input Is Not Liable For Payment Of Excise Duty Or Cenvat Credit: CESTAT

Case Title: Candila Healthcare Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that empty packaging material of cenvatable input is not liable for payment either as excise duty or as cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

C&F Agent Service Is Admissible Input Service Under Cenvat Credit Rules: CESTAT

Case Title: NITCO Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-DAMAN

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) has held that the C & F Agent Service is an admissible input service in the terms of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

CESTAT Set Aside Demand OfService Tax On Ocean Freight Charges

Case Title: M/s. Geodis Overseas Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) consisting of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has held that the ocean freight charges collected from customers are not subject to the levy of Service Tax under Business Support Services.

Services Provided With Respect To A Government Sports Stadium, Not A Commercial Service; Would Not Attract Service Tax: CESTAT Delhi

Case Title: M/s Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi

The CESTAT Delhi has ruled that an activity undertaken in a stadium, which belongs to the Government and which is used for non-commercial activities, would not be covered under the definition of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction' services, as defined in Section 65 (25b) of the Finance Act, 1994, and hence, it would not attract service tax.

The Bench, consisting of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Mr. Raju (Technical Member), held that the activity of laying Synthetic Athletic Track Surface is of a civil nature and therefore, it would fall within the definition of commercial or industrial construction services; however, since the same was provided in respect of a sport facilities owned by the Government, the same would not be chargeable to service tax.

CESTAT Allows Credit Of CVD And SAD Paid For Imports Made PriorTo The GST Regime

Case Title: M/s. ITCO Industries Ltd. versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai Bench of CESTAT has allowed credit of CVD and SAD paid after 30.06.2017 for the imports made prior to 30.06.2017, i.e., prior to the GST regime, under the advance authorisation scheme.

The Single Bench of Judicial Member Ms. Sulekha Beevi held that credit of CVD and SAD paid by the importer could not be denied on the ground that the duties were paid by the appellant only after an intimation letter was issued to it. The CESTAT observed that the said intimation letter had not been issued by invoking any provisions of the Customs law or Excise law.

CESTAT Allows Cenvat Credit On The Capital Goods

Case Title: M/s K K Spun India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Indore

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), consisting of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), has allowed the cenvat credit on the capital goods, as their finished goods falling under CTH 68109990 are dutiable under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Amount Lying After Wrong Invocation Of The Bank Guarantee: CESTAT Directs Payment of Interest

Case Title: M/s Leather Sellers Versus Commissioner of Customs And Excise, Patparganj

The Delhi Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the amount was lying in the nature of the pre-deposit with the department from the date of encashment of the bank guarantee.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant is entitled to 12% interest from the date of encashment of the bank guarantee under Section 129EE of the Customs Act.

AAR

Toll Charges Are Included In The Value Of Outward Supply: Tamil Nadu AAR

Applicant's Name: NTL India Private Limited

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of T.G.Venkatesh and K.Latha has ruled that the value of toll charges, being incidental expenses incurred while providing outward supply, is liable to be included in the value of outward supply of service.

E-Rickshaw Sold Without Battery Classifiable As An "Electrically Operated Motor Vehicle" :West Bengal AAR

Applicant's Name: Rohit Singh Kharwar

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling consisting of Brajesh Kumar Singh and Joyjit Banik has ruled that a three-wheeled electrically operated vehicle, commonly known as an e-rickshaw, when supplied without a battery, is classifiable as an "electrically operated motor vehicle" under HSN 8703.

Renting Land For Fish/Prawn Farming Attracts 18% GST : AAR

Applicant's Name: Sri Vinayaka Hatcheries

The Andhra Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), consisting of D. Ramesh and RV Pradhamesh Bhanu, has ruled that 18% GST is payable on the rental of land for fish or prawn farming as the purpose of use of land was not mentioned in the lease agreement.

No GST Payable On Scanning And Processing Of Results Of Examinations: Andhra Pradesh AAR

Applicant's Name: Universal Print System

The Andhra Pradesh Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that GST is not payable on the scanning and processing of results of examinations.

The two-member bench of D. Ramesh and RV Pradhamesh Bhanu has observed that the printing of pre-examination items like question papers, OMR sheets (Optical Mark Reading), and answer booklets for the conducting of an examination by the educational boards be treated as an exempted supply of service.

GST Payable On Supply Of Medicines, Consumables Used For Providing Health Care Services To Out-Patients admitted To The Hospital: AAR

Applicant's Name: Be Well Hospitals

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the supply of medicines and consumables used in the course of providing health care services to outpatients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis, medical treatment, or procedures is not a composite supply. As a result, it is subject to GST.

The two-member bench of T.G.Venkatesh and K.Latha has ruled that the supply of medicines and consumables used in the course of providing health care services to in-patients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis, medical treatment, or procedures till discharge is a composite supply. It amounts to composite supply only when the consolidated bill raised in the name of the patient indicates the supply of medicines and consumables during the course of the provision of health care services. Hence, it is exempted from GST.

Vessel Support Services Provided In Relation To Foreign Vessels Sailing To Other Countries Falls Under"Export of Services": AAR

Applicant's Name: NSK Ship Management Private Limited

The Tamil Nadu Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that the vessel support services provided in relation to foreign vessels sailing to other countries outside India fall under "export of services" as per Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, as the "place of supply" in such cases is entirely "outside India".

The two-member bench of T.G.Venkatesh and K.Latha has observed that if such vessels are calling at a port in India, then the Place of Supply in respect of that vessel is in India as per Section 13(6) of the IGST Act 2017 and the services rendered to that vessel are not an "export of service".