Case Title: Myrayash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India has asked the petitioner(s) to serve an advance copy to the Additional Solicitor General to seek instructions in a plea challenging constitutional validity of levy of GST on lease/ rent payments.

2.Interest On Delayed Refunds Covered Under Principal Provision Of Section 56 Of CGST Act Cannot Exceed 6%:Supreme Court

Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate.

Bombay High Court

1.Dept. To Decide Whether Corrected Form TRAN-1 Would Be Entertained As Per Transitional Provision Under GST: Bombay High Court Allows Taxpayers To Correct Form TRAN-1

Case Title: Ambica Fertilisers Versus The Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 148

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice R.D. Dhanuka has allowed the taxpayers to correct Form TRAN-1. The court has directed the department to consider the issue of whether Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed or corrected by the petitioner can be entertained in accordance with provisions of section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not.

Madras High Court

1.TPO To Mandatorily Pass Order Determining Arm's Length Pricing Within 60 Days: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Saint Gobain India Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 162

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Sathya Narayan Prasad has held that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) must mandatorily pass the order determining arm's length pricing within 60 days.

2.Post Facto Changes In GSTRegistration: Madras High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed For Mismatch Of AddressIn Invoice And RC

Case Title: Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 166

The penalty imposed for mismatch of address in invoice and RC was quashed by the Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Saravanan on the grounds that there was a post facto alteration in GST registration.

3.Mere Signing Of Statement Admitting T ax Liability, Making Payments Under Stress Of Investigation Doesn't Amount To Self-Ascertainment: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s. Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Private Limited Versus Senior Intelligence Officer

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 167

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and having also made a few payments as per the statement, it cannot lead to self-assessment or self-ascertainment.

4.GST ITC Refund Can't Be Denied Even If Taxpayer Has Claimed Duty Drawback: Madras High Court

Case Title: Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs

The Madras High Court bench of Justice C. Sarvanan has held that the refund of input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied even if the taxpayer has claimed duty drawback.

5.Pre-Deposit Payment Made By Parent Company Having Separate Service Tax Registration Amounts To Proper Compliance: Madras High Court

Case Title: M/s.St. John CFS Part Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

The Madras High Court bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice N.Sathish Kumar has held that the pre-deposit payment made by the parent company having a separate service tax registration amounts to proper compliance.

Rajasthan High Court

1.Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Exempt Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST

Case Title: Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

The Rajasthan High Court consisting of Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has refused to exempt the assessee from personal appearance under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

2.Rajasthan High Court Directs GST Dept. To Reimburse The Pre Deposit In View Of CIRP Of Binani Cement

Case Title: M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Justice Sandeep Mehta has directed the GST department to reimburse amounts deposited by Binani Cement as a mandatory statutory obligation to the Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement.=

3.Rajasthan High Court Restrains GST Dept. From Recovery Of GST On Royalty Paid On Account Of Excavation Of Sand For Brick

Case Title: Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Versus UOI

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has restrained the GST department from recovering GST on royalty paid on account of the excavation of sand for brick.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

1.Benefit Of MEIS Scheme Can't Be Availed If Not Opted In Shipping Bill At The Time Of Export: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Adroit Industries (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amarnath Kesharwani has held that the benefit of the Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS) cannot be availed if it is not opted for in the shipping bill at the time of export.

Chhattisgarh High Court

1.Issuance Reassessment Notice Valid On Ground Disclosure Of Bogus Purchase Bills: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Jugal Kishore Paliwal Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid on the grounds of disclosure of bogus purchase bills.

ITAT

1,No TDS Required To Be Deducted On Enhanced Compensation Awarded By Court Under Land Acquisition Act:Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Land Acquisition Office versus DCIT, (TDS) Gurgaon

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member), has ruled that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded to them by the Court under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not in the nature of 'income from other sources' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, no TDS is required to be deducted with respect to it.

2.Mere Ignorance Of Law With Respect To Compulsory Audit Under Section 44AB Is Not A Reasonable Cause For Deleting Penalty: ITAT Hyderabad

Case Title: Mohd Zaheeruddin versus Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

The Hyderabad Bench of ITAT, consisting of members S.S. Godara (Judicial Member) and A. Mohan Alankamony (Accountant Member), has ruled that mere ignorance of law with respect to the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act for compulsory audit of accounts, cannot be said to be a reasonable cause under Section 273B for deleting the penalty imposed on the Assessee for failure to audit accounts.

3.Routine Business Support Services Are Not Taxable As Fees For Technical Services: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Magotteaux International SA, Belgium versus Dy. C.I.T, International Taxation, New Delhi

The Delhi Bench of ITAT, consisting of members Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and N.K. Billaiya (Accountant Member), has ruled that routine business support services are not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) since they do not make any technology or skill available to the recipient of the services.

CESTAT

1.Interest Free Security Deposits Are Not Exigible To Service Tax: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Case Title: Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that interest free refundable security deposits are not exigible to service tax since they are not collected in consideration for providing a service.

2.Unsubstantiated Show Cause Notice And Cancellation Of Licence: CESTAT Restore Customs Broker's Licence

Case Title: M/s Perfect Cargo & Logistics Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Airport and General)

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has restored the customs broker's licence as the show cause notice or the inquiry report lacked details about the non-existence of the exporter.

AAR

1.Liquidated Damages And Penalties Due To Breach Of Conditions Of Contract From The Contractor Are Exigible To GST: AAR

Applicant's Name: Singareni Collieries Company Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of members K.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao and B. Ragu Kiran has ruled that the liquidated damages and penalties received by the applicant due to breach of conditions of the contract by the contractor are exigible to tax under the CGST and SGST Acts.

2.ITC Can Be Availed on IGSTPaid Both On Imports Intra & Inter-State Sales: AAR

Applicant's Name: M/s. Euroflex Transmissions (India) Private Limited

The Telangana Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) consisting of members B. Raghu Kiran and S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao has ruled that IGST paid on imports is eligible to be availed as an Input Tax Credit (ITC) both on intra-state and inter-state sales.