Indirect Tax Weekly Round-Up: 23 To 29 June 2024
Mariya Paliwala
30 Jun 2024 10:30 AM IST
Bombay High CourtDiscrepancies Between Dates Of Creation And Signing Assessment Order; Bombay High Court Quashes MVAT Order Passed Beyond 4 YearsCase Title: Karvy Innotech Limited Versus State of MaharashtraThe Bombay High Court, while noting the discrepancies between the dates of creation and signing of the assessment order, quashed the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT) Order, which...
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Limited Versus State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court, while noting the discrepancies between the dates of creation and signing of the assessment order, quashed the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT) Order, which was passed beyond the limitation period of 4 years.
Madras High Court
Case Title: Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
The Madras High Court has quashed the order imposing tax demands on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes on the ground that receiving a discount is not tenable in law.
Kerala High Court
Credit Available On Advance Tax Paid For Stock-Transferred: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd Versus The Assistant Commissioner
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitioner will be entitled to credit for the entire amount paid in terms of Circular No. 50/2006 for the goods in question, which were stock-transferred to its branch office in Pollachi.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 31
Case Title: M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & others
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Deputy CGST Commissioner for refusing to entertain the application of the assessee or petitioner for a refund of unutilized input tax credit.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 32
Case Title: Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Versus UOI
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the order rejecting Ultra Tech's claim for the grant of budgetary support.
CESTAT
Penalty Can't Be Levied When Extended Limitation Period Is Not Invokable: Chandigarh CESTAT
Case Title: M/s P S Construction Versus Commissioner
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that when the extended period is not invokable, the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is also not leviable since the ingredients for invoking the extended period and levying the penalty under Section 78 are the same.
Recovery Provisions Of Central Excise Act Are Not Applicable To Service Tax: Chandigarh CESTAT
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Versus Commissioner
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)has held that recovery provisions of the Central Excise Act are not applicable to service tax.
Dept. Can't Challenge Customs Duty Demand, Below Threshold Limit Prescribed By CBIC: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs Versus Sedna Impex India Pvt Ltd
The Chandigarh bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), while dismissing the department's appeal, held that the department is precluded from challenging the commissioner's order if customs duty demand is below the threshold limit prescribed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Mumbai CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit To HDFC ERGO Against Duty Paid On Re-Insuring Motor Vehicle
Case Title: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner
The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed the CENVAT credit taken by the appellant, HDFC ERGO, against duty paid on re-insuring motor vehicles while providing general insurance service for the period from April 2011 to March 2012.
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise
The Allahabad Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the product “Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh” is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule under the category of “fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks.”
CA Certificate Sufficient To Grant Special Additional Duty Refund Claim: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Faxtel Systems (India) Versus Commissioner of Customs Bangalore
The Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that once a CA certificate is produced, in the absence of any allegation of fraud or collusion, such a certificate is sufficient to grant the refund claim. The Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund should not be denied merely for technical violations.
Case Title: M/s Yatra Online Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, CGST, Gurugram
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), while quashing the service tax demand against Yatra Online, held that “convenience fee” and “cancellation fee” are recovered in the course of the provision of the service related to the booking of tickets for passage through air and not in connection with any business promotion.
Service Tax Exemption On Laying Pipelines For Water Supply And Drainage: Ahmedabad CESTAT
Case Title: Skyway Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax is payable on laying pipelines for water supply and drainage.
Case Title: Hanuman Weaving Factory Versus Commissioner of Service Tax
The Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax on commission paid to the foreign commission agents is payable under reverse charge only from April 18, 2006, and not from January 1, 2005.
Customs Brokers Not Liable Once Verification Of Address Is Completed: Delhi CESTAT
Case Title: M/S Pawan Kumar Tiwari Versus Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the responsibility of the customs broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations.
Case Title: M/S Divine Autotech Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that no service tax is payable on an amount received by an automobile dealer from the manufacturer as a trade discount.
