Case Title: Tata Motors Limited Versus Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority & Others

The Supreme Court has directed the state of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by Tata Motors with respect to the sale of buses to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC).

The division bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that after due verification, the amount of central sales tax paid by Tata Motors with respect to the transaction be transferred to Jharkhand immediately on verification. The State of Jharkhand was directed to adjust it towards the central sales tax liability of Tata Motors on sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, which were found to be in the nature of inter-state sales.

Case Title: CIT Versus Travelport L.P. USA

The Delhi High Court has held that the travel agents in India were merely connected to the extent that they could perform a booking function but were not capable of processing the data of all the airlines together in one place.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that a booking function is not covered under substantial business activity and, therefore, not taxable.

Case Title: Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International versus Union of India

The Delhi High Court has directed the department to grant IGST refund paid on the goods exported after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the Jurisdictional Commissionerates shall be entitled to verify the extent of duty drawback availed by the petitioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback/CENVAT Credit of Central Excise & Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by them. If any adjustment is to be made, it shall be made by the jurisdictional commissionerate.

Case Title: Nagesh Trading Co. Versus Income Tax Officer

The Delhi High Court has quashed the show-cause notice and the reassessment order as the department failed to pass the reassessment order within the prescribed time limit.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the department could not have issued another notice to the petitioner/assessee under Section 148A(b) dated June 2, 2022, after having issued and served the notice on March 31, 2021, under Section 148 of the unamended Act.

Case Title: M/s Victory Electric Vehicles International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

The Delhi High Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of the concerned officer to ensure that prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice (SCN), a pre-notice consultation is held with the person chargeable with customs duty or interest.

The division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the person chargeable with duty or interest was required to be given fifteen days to make his submission, in writing, concerning the grounds communicated to him in the pre-consultation notice, which is required to be served prior to the issuance of the SCN.

Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Limited

The Delhi High Court has held that income tax cannot be levied on the interest income from fixed deposits till the ownership is determined by the arbitral tribunal.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has agreed with the finding of the two Appellate Authorities below that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallised in the assessee's hands and that it could not be held to be the income of the assessee under Section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case Title: A. Irudayaraju Versus The State Tax Officer, Adjudication Cell

The Madras High Court has ordered the release of the vehicle as the department has failed to pass the detention order within the period as provided for under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) and no show cause notice has been issued within the period of 7 days as set out under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act.

The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that since the statutory show cause notice is to be issued within a period of 7 days from the date of interception, it becomes incumbent upon the authorities to pass an order of detention prior thereto.

Case Title: Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Visnagar Taluka Majoor Sahakari Mandli Limited

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act on the credit facilities given by the co-operative society to its members as they were directly related to the business while deriving interest.

According to the two-member bench of Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), unlike Nationalised Banks, co-operative credit societies/cooperative banks have different setups where deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable when the interest is derived from credit provided to their members.

Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Prakash Chandra Mishra

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an equalisation levy is not payable on advertising payments where advertisers or the target audience are located outside India.

The two-member bench of Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) have observed that when the intention of the levy is related to the targeted audience and the party paying the online advertisement has no relation in India, the Equalisation Levy is not attracted.

Case Title: M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax

Citation: Excise Appeal No.51255 Of 2019

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Clean Energy Cess has been imposed for the collection of cess on polluting fossil fuels so as to create additional funds for taking measures to reduce carbon emissions and pollution.

The two-member bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that under the Clean Energy Cess Rules, the cess has to be deposited through cash/PLA and cannot be deposited through debit to a cenvat credit account.

Case Title: Reliance Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Reliance Industries Ltd. was ineligible for a refund of amounts that had, inadvertently, been reversed in the CENVAT credit account under rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 between April 2010 and March 2011.

The two-member bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and C.J. Mathew (Accountant Member) has observed that Reliance Industries has not used any incremental input and input services for the manufacture of an exempted quantity of LPG and the entire quantum of inputs and input services was required for the manufacture of dutiable finished goods.

Case Title: Desai and Diwanji Versus Commissioner of CGST

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the assessee is eligible for CENVAT Credit on service tax paid by registered premises even if invoices raised are in the name of an unregistered branch office.

The single bench of Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) has observed that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting systems, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitle the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid by the service provider if invoices are raised in the name of branch offices, even if the said branch offices are unregistered, since Service Tax liability has been discharged by the main office also for services provided by the branches.

Case Title: M/s Raghuveer Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the allegation of clandestine removal is merely based on the entries in diaries, etc. is not sustainable.

The bench of P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the department has not adduced any additional evidence, even on a sample basis, to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal.

Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Macro Media Digital Imaging Pvt. Ltd.

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the service tax is not payable on the activity of printing advertisement content on PVC material.

The two-member bench headed by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the activity of printing advertisement content on PVC material which results in printed PVC flex or PVC board would amount to manufacture.

Case Title: Satyam Computer Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax

The Hyderabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), comprised of two members Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member), has granted Satyam Computer a cenvat credit for service tax paid on insurance premiums for employees and their families.

Applicant's Name: M/s Shakti Marine Electric Corporation

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) has ruled that combined wire rope is not a part of a fishing vessel but it is used to tie the fishing net with the vessel and 18% GST is applicable.

The two-member bench of Amit Kumar Mishra and Milind Kavatkar has observed that goods whenever used as a part of a fishing vessel or vessel attract 5% GST, otherwise, they attract the applicable GST rate of the goods.

Appellants Name: M/s Vadilal Industries Ltd.

The Gujarat Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling (AAAR), while upholding the ruling of AAR, has held that 18% GST is applicable on parathas.

The two-member bench of Vivek Ranjan and Milind Torawane has observed that the parathas are different from plain chapatti or roti and cannot be treated as or covered under the category of plain chapatti or roti. The appropriate classification of parathas would be under Chapter Heading 2106

Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.

Already have an account? Sign In