Revisional Order merely based on Suspicion is Invalid: ITAT [Read Order]

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the revisional order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be merely based on suspicion.

During the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire along with notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.12.2016. the assessee had filed his reply regarding the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act, framed assessment wherein he duly explained the transaction related to M/s Maa Kalika Foundaries Pvt. Ltd., introduction fresh capital and also description “CAS CHQ XFER WD”. However, the Principal Commissioner invoked his power under section 263 of the Act and observed that the order was erroneous and against the interests of the Revenue.

On first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the revisional order.

A two-Member bench comprising Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member observed that the Pr.CIT has not made out a case of any prejudice caused to the Revenue.

“The law is well settled that for exercising power u/s 263 twin conditions are required to be satisfied – (i) that the order should be erroneous and; and (ii) it should cause prejudice to the interests of Revenue. Moreover, it is not the case where the assessee failed to substantiate his claim, rather the explanation along with supporting evidences were placed before the assessing officer and the learned Pr.CIT. In our considered view merely on the basis of suspicion, invoking of powers u/s 263 would not be justified. The concluded assessment should be revised where there is blatant error committed by the assessing officer, which culminated into the prejudice to the interest of Revenue. But where the Assessing Officer made necessary inquiry and satisfied itself about the explanation offered to him, revising such an order is highly unjustified and contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT. Therefore, in the present case the action of the learned Pr.CIT is unjustified and the same is hereby set aside and the assessment is restored,” the Tribunal said.

Sh. Ankit Gupta, Advocate appeared for the assessee.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

IGST on Ocean Freight: Higher Margin of Tax on Indian Shipping Lines will Drive them Out of Business, rules Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court in a significant ruling in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals, held that the margins arising out of taxation from GST would not create a level playing field and drive the Indian shipping lines out of business.

A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath was considering a petition filed by Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd challenged vires of the CBIC notification. The petition has principally three elements. First, having paid the tax under IGST Act on the entire value of imports (inclusive of the ocean freight), the petitioner cannot be asked to pay tax on the ocean freight all over again under a different notification. Secondly, in case of CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) contracts, the service provider and service recipient both are outside the territory of India. No tax on such service can be collected even on reverse charge mechanism. And thirdly, in case of High Sea sales, the burden is cast on the petitioner as an importer whereas, the petitioner is not the recipient of the service at all. It is the petitioner’s seller of goods on high sea basis who has received the services from the exporter/ transporter.

Mr Arvind Datar and Mr Harish Salve, appeared for the Assessee, urged that the service of transportation occurs outside India, that is outside the taxable territory and bears a nexus with India only as the destination of goods is India. However, it was submitted that since the import of goods is taxed under Section 5(1) as ‘supply of goods’, there remains no territorial nexus of the transportation service with the Indian territory.

The bench observed that “it is important to contextualize the purpose of GST and the constitutional amendment to effect it. In modern commerce, the distinction between goods and services is increasingly becoming a matter of degree than substance. GST seeks to focus on the taxation of “supply” of goods or services. The provisions of the IGST and CGST Act focus on implementing a workable machinery to adequately capture the complexities of supply in a global and digital age.”

Earlier, the High Court held that the GST law specifically provides that the importers are required to discharge IGST at the rate of 5 percent on ocean freight services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) under which, the duty of importer have to pay IGST on behalf of the foreign buyer. However, at the same time, customs duty on the CIF value (which includes the component of freight as well) of the goods imported into India is also paid by the importer. As a result, there is double taxation on the component of ocean freight under GST law which is an impediment and has bloated the cost of imports.

Concurring with the above view of the High Court, the Apex Court observed that “the impugned notifications were issued after the GST Council took note of the fact that since transport of imported goods by Indian shipping lines to India is not treated as export of service, the Indian shipping lines pay IGST on the same on a forward charge basis. On the other hand, on the same transportation service, the foreign shipping lines are not required to pay tax as they are not taxable persons in India. Therefore, to provide a level playing field to Indian shipping lines, the importer in India has been made liable to pay IGST on transportation of goods by foreign shipping lines on a reverse charge basis. If Indian shipping lines continue to be taxed and not their competitors, namely, the foreign shipping lines, the margins arising out of taxation from GST would not create a level playing field and drive the Indian shipping lines out of business.”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Artificial intelligence to be Used for Compliance under Companies Act: MCA introduces Chatbox to assist with Statutory Filings

In a move to incorporate technology and artificial intelligence into the compliances under the Companies Act, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) building a new version of its compliance platform for companies. The Enterprises Act is expected to become more interactive in the coming months.

According to a person familiar with the project, the new ‘business module’ on the ministry’s compliance site will include chatbots to assist with filings, web forms rather than portable document format (PDF) forms, and artificial intelligence to guide the user through the filing process. The goal is to make the portal more responsive and to increase the convenience of doing business, particularly for small enterprises that may not have the resources to retain compliance consultants.

The ministry, which recently launched a comparable module for limited liability partnerships (LLPs), anticipates that the new business module will be fully functioning in two months.

Given that over 1.4 million active companies use the ministry’s MCA21 portal for statutory compliance, a more responsive and interactive technology interface with the regulatory authorities—Registrars of Companies (RoCs), Regional Directors, and official liquidators—will be extremely beneficial to businesses and professionals.

Since the new module will use artificial intelligence and data analytics to mine the information to spot trends in the corporate sector that may warrant the attention of regulators or policymakers, the new filing system will also influence the government’s administration of the regulatory framework under the Companies Act.

Earlier this month, the ministry requested bids from private researchers to analyze its database in order to shed light on business behavior in critical areas such as the level of leverage and whether monies obtained from the public were used for the stated purpose.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

GST ITC Fraud: Delhi HC holds Debiting through Electronic ITC Ledger is valid Deposit to Fulfill Bail Condition [Read Order]

The single bench of Delhi High Court presided by Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta in the issue of Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud has held that debiting through electronic ITC ledger is a valid deposit to fulfill bail condition.

The petitioner, Amit Gupta, is one of the Directors or key persons in M/s Brilliant Metals Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Progressive Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s JBN Impex Pvt. Ltd. and allegedly the mastermind behind devising a mechanism of availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of bills of various suppliers which were non-existing and fictitious and thus availed fraudulent ITC worth ₹27.05 crores. The petitioner was arrested and granted regular bail subject to conditions out which one was for deposit of amount of ₹2.70 crores.

The petitioner, deposited ₹1.10 crores through cash ledger and ₹1.60 crores by way of debiting/reversals through electronic ITC ledger. The Trial Court cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner believing that the ITC availed were through fraudulent means and thus the entire ITC claimed by the companies were under cloud, therefore, the petitioner not entitle to furnished ₹1.60 crores by reversal of the ITC as a condition of bail. Aggrieved petitioner filed Writ petition before the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Jain submitted that the petitioner has to his credit ITC worth ₹260 crores and the investigation does not show beyond ₹42 crores, ITCs are fraudulent till now. Therefore the reversal of the ITC credit for depositing the part amount of ₹2.70 crores with the department cannot be illegal or unwarranted. The counsel for the respondent, Mr. Harpreet Singh submitted that ITCs being fraudulent the same cannot be availed for deposit.

The High Court has held that “the petitioner having fulfilled the condition of deposit of the amount partly by cash ledger and partly by debit ledger of the ITC it cannot be said that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the conditions imposed on him. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned CMM, Patiala House Court is set aside”.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Rejection of GST Refund without Speaking Order: Calcutta HC directs Dept to re-consider Claim in 8 Weeks [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court has directed the GST department to re-consider the refund claim along with a speaking order. The petitioner, Heatworks Private Limited & Anr, has challenged the impugned order dated January 18, 2022, passed by the respondent-GST authority rejecting the claim for refund to the petitioner on the ground…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

Maintenance of SLR – Cash to include Balances held by Banks with RBI under SDF [Read Notification]

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued a notification regarding the Maintenance of Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) specifying Section 24 and Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

RBI has decided to institute the Standing Deposit Facility (SDF) with immediate effect and that the balances held by banks with the RBI under the SDF shall be an eligible Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) asset and such balances shall form part of “Cash” for SLR maintenance. The notification mandated that the Banks shall report the SDF balances under “Cash in hand” in Form VIII or Form I, as applicable.

As per the notification issued on 8th April 2022 “In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2A) of Section 24 read with Section 51 and Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) and in partial modification to notification DBR.Ret.BC No.11/12.02.001/2018- 19 dated December 05, 2018, the Reserve Bank hereby specifies that for the purpose of this notification, “Cash” to be maintained by banks, as referred to in the Annex of the notification ibid, shall also include the balances held by banks with RBI under Standing Deposit Facility (SDF).”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Supreme Court upholds Over 90,000 Re-Assessment Notices deeming them as Sec 148A Notices [Read Judgment]

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice M R Shah and Justice B V Nagaratna, on Wednesday, upheld the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act which were issued beyond 01.04.2021 (the effective date of amendment of the said provision by the Finance Act, 2021) to be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and be construed as show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b).

Recently, various High Courts have quashed these assessments on ground of non-compliance of section 148A notice.

Overruling the High Court orders, the Apex Court ruled that the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature and substituted with a specific aim and object to protect the rights and interest of the assessee as well as and the same being in public interest, the respective High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new provisions shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided section 148 notice has been issued on or after 1st April, 2021. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts in holding so.

“However, at the same time, the judgments of the several High Courts would result in no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act. The Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bonafide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment was enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, under the unamended section 148. In our view the same ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021,” the Court ruled.

“There appears to be genuine non-application of the amendments as the officers of the Revenue may have been under a bonafide belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced. Therefore, we are of the opinion that some leeway must be shown in that regard which the High Courts could have done so. Therefore, instead of quashing and setting aside the reassessment notices issued under the unamended provision of IT Act, the High Courts ought to have passed an order construing the notices issued under unamended Act/unamended provision of the IT Act as those deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as per the new provision section 148A and the Revenue ought to have been permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act as per the Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and the defences, which may be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the IT Act and which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law,” the Court said.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Subscription Money received in advance by Sun Direct TV from Customers shall be treated as Deferred Income: ITAT [Read Order]

In a major relief to M/s Sun Direct TV Pvt Ltd., the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the subscription monies received in advance by the Company shall be treated as deferred income and offered to tax on day to day basis which is correct methodology of revenue recognition under mercantile system of accounting.

The assessee is providing DTH services in India. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee receives subscription amount on quarterly / half-yearly / annual basis and credit the same to ‘deferred income account’. From this account, the revenue earned, for each day, are transferred to subscription account which is offered to tax by way of credit to Profit & Loss Account.

The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee received money from the channels subscribers but considered the same as deferred revenue expenditure which was not correct in view of the fact that the was no obligation for assessee to refund the subscription money. Therefore, the receipts were to be taxed on receipt basis.

The Tribunal bench comprising Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member and  Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM observed that the method of accounting has consistently been followed by the assessee since commencement of business in AY 2008-09. The said method is also in line with the requirement of AS-9 issued by ICAI. The assessee follows the same treatment to input costs.

“The cardinal principal of taxing the income under mercantile basis of accounting is that the income should have accrued to the assessee. Mere advances could not be brought to tax. The amount lying in ‘deferred income account’, in The assessee receives subscription income from various customers in advance which would be on quarterly / half-yearly or annual basis based on the needs of the subscribers,” the Tribunal said.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the department against the order of the CIT(A), the Tribunal added that “Mere advances could not be brought to tax. The amount lying in ‘deferred income account’, in assessee’s case, is nothing but advances received for rendering services in future period. Unless these receipts are held to be taxable under the statute, the same could not be brought to tax since only those incomes could be taxed which has accrued to the assessee during the year. In assessee’s case, these are unearned revenue and mere advances. The income would accrue to the assessee in future. To clothed the same as the income of the assessee during this year, is bereft of any merits. The argument that the money is never refunded to the subscribers, is not much germane to the issue since the subscription money paid by the subscribers is governed by the contractual terms between the assessee and the subscribers. Nevertheless, the said fact would not alter the position that this income was nothing but mere advances for rendering of services in future. Therefore, the impugned order could not be faulted with.”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Loss due to Exchange Fluctuation is Revenue Expenditure: Supreme Court grants Relief to Wipro [Read Judgment]

In a major relief to Wipro Finance Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that the loss suffered owing to exchange fluctuation can be regarded as revenue expenditure and thus an allowable deduction. The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and C T Ravikumar was considering an appeal against the High Court judgment which had…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

Composite Supply of Works Contract not Covered under the Term ‘Earth Work’: AAR [Read Order]

The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) has held that the composite supply of works contract not covered under the term “Earth Work”.

The M/s Mahalaxmi BT Patil Honai Constructions Joint Venture (JV) engaged in construction of infrastructure projects, was formed to undertake construction of Jeur Tunnel under Krishna Marathwada Irrigation Project. The said JV consisting of three members M/s Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, M/s BT Patil and sons Constructions Pvt. Ltd and Honai Constructions. The work order consists of Earth Work such as excavation for Tunnel, removal of excavated stuff, fabrication, transporting, providing steel support, rock bolting, reinforcement, fixing of chain link, cement concerting, providing drainage arrangement etc. wherein total earthwork is approximately 91% and construction work is around 9% wherein transfer of property is involved.

The M/s Mahalaxmi BT Patil Honai Constructions Joint Venture approached the advance ruling authority seeking advance ruling to clarify whether the contract is covered under the term “Earth Work” and therefore covered under Sr. No.3A Notification No. 12/2017-CT.

The applicant submitted that the impugned activity is a Composite supply of works contract as defined in clause (119) of section 2 of the CGST Act 2017, where such supply is to a Governmental authority or Government entity. Further submitted by the applicant that the supply is eligible for the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 3A of the Notification No. 12/2017-CTR.

The Tribunal has observed that to fall under the Sr. No. 3A, the primary requirement is that the supply should be in the form of a composite supply of goods and service. But the impugned activity is a composite supply of works contract as defined in clause (119) of section 2of the CGST Act. Being a composite supply of works contract the impugned activity cannot be covered under Sr. No. 3A.

The Coram of by relying the decision of Appellate Authority in Soma Mohite Joint Venture case has held that the impugned is not covered under Sr. No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-CT as amended and hence the contract not covered under the term “Earth Work”.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Consignment Note sufficient to prove Transportation for CHA: CESTAT confirms Service Tax Demand against Deccan Mining [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench held that a consignment note is enough to prove transportation for CHA. The department confirmed the service tax demand against Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt Ltd(Appellant).

The appellant challenged the denial of refund of Rs.1,07,03,293/- towards service tax and education for the service of transportation, which the amount paid by them was under protest and hence the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable. Per contra, Revenue challenged the dropping of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Tribunal bench comprising Mr P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member, and Mr P. Dinesha, Judicial Member observed that the explanation given to the consignment note matches with the contents extracted in paragraph 13 of the Order-in-Original read conjointly with Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules,1994. 

Definition under Section 65(50b) would also refer to issuing of the consignment note, “by whatever name called” and hence if for convenience, termed as “pay slips”, that by itself would not result in any other thing other than a consignment note. The bench found a similar view in  Dalveer Singh Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2008(9) STR 491 (Tri. Del.)] and by Tribunal Bench at New Delhi in the case of Jain Carrying Corporation Vs CCE, Jaipur [2019(24) GSTL 376 (Tri. Del.)] 5.Insofar as Revenue’s appeal is concerned, the bench finds that penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 are not automatic and are governed by Section 80 and the assessee has proved reasonable cause for its failure which has been duly accepted by the adjudicating authority. The tribunal didn’t find any merit in the appeal filed by the Department and both the appeals were dismissed.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

CCI revises Long Form for Merger & Acquisitions [Read Notification]

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has notified the revised format of Form II (i.e. long-form of merger notification) vide Notification no. CCI/CD/Amend/Comb. Regl./2022 dated 31st March 2022. This amendment revises the content and format of information that the parties to a combination used to file under section 6(2), where the post-combination market share exceeds 15% in cases of horizontal overlap and 25% in cases of the vertical interface. Generally, these are the cases requiring detailed examination to assess the likely effect of the combination on competition in India.

The revised Form II will be effective from 1st May 2022. A one-month period has been given for making the revised form effective. The time period of one month will provide sufficient time for the notifying parties to get familiarised with the revised Form – II.

The amendment to Form – II is a part of a series of measures undertaken by the CCI towards ease of doing business, reducing the compliance burden on the parties, and making the assessment of the combination more objective and focused. Previously, the CCI had also amended Form – I (i.e. short form of merger notification) in August 2019. This form is used by parties to provide information while seeking approval from the Commission for a combination, where the combined market share post-merger is not significant. Amendment to Form – I was followed by detailed guidance notes to Form – I issued in March 2020 that provided clarifications on the nature and scope of information to be filed and elaborated criterion for availing green channel by the parties.

The amendment to Form – II is aimed to remove duplicity and limit the information required so that they remain focused and relevant to the objective of assessment of a merger, suitably clustering the information on a common subject, streamlining the flow of information for better navigation and appreciation of material furnished in the notification. Further, the template of the revised long form is based on the structure of the short form so as to have modular formats of merger notification that would reduce the time and effort required to move from the short form to the long form. Further, revision in the long-form has been undertaken without sacrificing the cause of merger regulation. Revised long-form is intended to strike a balance between facilitation and enforcement functions and create a culture of compliance.

The CCI also intends to issue guidance notes for revised Form II in due course. This guidance notes will elaborate upon the queries in revised Form II and include certain queries from existing Form II that are explanatory in nature.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Ready to Eat Popcorn Attracts 18% GST: AAR [Read Order]

The Telangana State Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAR ) has held that ready-to-eat popcorn attracts 18% GST.

The applicant, M/s. Agro Tech Foods Limited is selling readymade popcorn. According to the applicant ready to eat (RTE) popcorn is obtained by popping the maize corn by using heating process which are subsequently coated with the palmolene oil, salt natural or artificial flavouring and spices.

In applicant’s opinion, Heading 1904 includes prepared foods obtained by swelling or roasting of cereals or cereal products. Thus, the popcorn being manufactured by the applicant by using the process of swelling by heating would merit classification under Heading 1904. However that, in certain cases, RTE popcorn has also been held to be classified under Tariff Heading 2008 i.e., ‘Fruit, Nuts and Other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included. Further that the tariff heading 2106 is a residuary entry that covers food preparations that are not covered elsewhere like mithai, mishtans, sweetmeats, namkeen etc. Thus, for an item to be classified under this entry, it must not be falling under any other chapter heading. Thus, the popcorn containing an element of flavor (strawberry/chocolate) may also merit classification under Heading 2106. The application filed by the applicant to clarify the correct HSN classification and consequently rate of GST applicable on ‘Ready to Eat’ popcorn sold in retail packages.

It was observed by the authority that as seen from the facts of the case the tariff heading ‘2008’ pertains to a class of commodities covering fruits, nuts, and other parts of plants and not the preparations pertain to cereals, etc., which are enumerated in the competing tariff entry ‘1904’. Therefore the commodity under question clearly does not fall under tariff head ‘2008’. Regarding the contention of the applicant with respect to classification of RTE popcorn under a general tariff heading ‘2016’ it is to inform that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of case laws held that a general entry or a residual entry will be preferred for a classification of commodity only in the absence of a specific entry.

The Coram of Sri B. Raghu Kiran, IRS, Additional Commissioner (Central Tax), and Sri S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, Additional Commissioner (State Tax) have held that “thus when a specific entry is available for enumerating the commodity ‘RTE popcorn’ to relegate it to the orphanage of the residuary entry will be against the principle of classification as held by Honorable Apex Court in Indian Metals & Ferrous alloys Vs CCE AIR (1991) SC 1020 and Honorable Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1976)2SC C 241. Hence RTE popcorn is classifiable under tariff head 1904 enumerated at Serial No. 15 of Schedule III of Notification No. 01/2017 and attracts rate of tax 9% SGST & CGST each”.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Rajasthan HC allows availing of ITC in GSTR-3B due to non-availability of FORM GST ITC-02A on GSTN Portal [Read Order]

The Rajasthan High Court allows Assessee to avail Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B Return due to non-availability of FORM GST ITC-02A on GSTN Portal at the time of its insertion. The petitioners, M/s Pacific Industries Ltd. approached the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court assailing the arbitrary action of the GST department whereby, the Petitioner was deprived…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

Govt notifies SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2022 [Read Notification]

The Central Government has notified the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022 whereby the Board has made certain amendments to the regulations.

The notification omitted sub-regulation (1B) in regulation 17 in the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

Further, in Schedule II, in PART E, after clause C, the following shall be inserted, namely, – “D. Separate posts of Chairperson and the Managing Director or the Chief Executive Officer The listed entity may appoint separate persons to the post of the Chairperson and the Managing Director or the Chief Executive Officer, such that the Chairperson shall (a) be a non-executive director; and (b) not be related to the Managing Director or the Chief Executive Officer as per the definition of the term “relative” defined under the Companies Act, 2013.

The amendment shall come into force with effect from 24th March 2022.

NOTIFICATION NO: F. No. SEBI/ LAD-NRO/GN/2022/76

DATE: 22nd March, 2022

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

GST Provisional Attachment Order not Valid after One Year: Delhi High Court [Read Order]

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the GST provisional order under section 83 of the Central GST Act, 2017 would cease to effect after the expiry of one year.

The petitioner, M/s Pashupati Properties Estate Private Limited has challenged a letter dated 07th December, 2020 issued by the GST department under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 whereby has directed the Bankers of the Petitioner to provisionally attach immovable property No.6, The Greens, Rajokari, Delhi-110038 in the name of the Petitioner.

After considering the arguments from both the sides, Justice Manmohan and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain has observed that after the issuance of the impugned letter dated 07th December, 2020, no fresh attachment order in Form GST DRC-22 has been issued.

While allowing the petition, the High Court observed that “According to Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, every provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date the order was passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the impugned provisional attachment order/letter is no longer effective. Accordingly, this Court directs the Respondent to defreeze the bank accounts and release the immovable properties of the Petitioner not later than three days from today.”

M/S PASHUPATI PROPERTIES ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES GST DELHI, (EAST)

CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 210

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Activity of Installing Fixed facilities as part of Main Activity would not Constitute Business Support Services, No Service Tax: CESTAT [Read Order]

While quashing an order demanding service tax against Goyal MG Gases Private Limited, the CESTAT, Kolkata bench has held that an activity of installing fixed facilities as part of the main activity of the appellant would not constitute “Business Auxiliiary Services” within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant is engaged in the…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

Failure to participate in Appellate Proceedings: ITAT directs Assessee to Pay Rs. 10,000 to PM’s National Relief Fund [Read Order]

The Delhi bench of the ITAT has asked the assessee to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 to the PM’s National Relief Fund for miserably failing in participation in the appellate proceedings. The assessee, M/s Anant Media Pvt Ltd, filed a return of income declaring total loss of Rs .4,95,25,480/- which has been revised to…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

Appellate Authority shall dispose Appeal on Merits even in the Absence of Assessee during Proceedings: ITAT [Read Order]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench has held that the appellate authority shall dispose the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee during proceedings. The assessee, Mr. N K R Shanmugham, challenged a revisional order where the Commissioner revised the original assessment made u/s.143(3) of the Act. On first appeal, the…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

No Service Tax on Revenue Sharing by Theatres: Supreme Court upholds CESTAT Decision [Read Order]

In a major relief to Inox Leisure Ltd., a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the CESTAT wherein Hyderabad Bench quashed the Service Tax Demand under Business Support Services for revenue sharing by theatres. The appellant, Inox Leisure Ltd. is engaged in the business of exhibiting cinematographic films across India…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now

Period of Tax Appeal filed before an Authority without Jurisdiction shall be excluded from Limitation Period: Delhi HC upholds Validity of Revision Petition [Read Order]

A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, while upholding the validity of a revision petition, held that the time spent in prosecuting a tax appeal before an authority devoid of jurisdiction shall be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Bench of Delhi…

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Why should you subscribe?
  • Enjoy our website without interruptions from advertisements
  • Receive Daily newsletters
  • Receive realtime Telegram/Whatsapp news updates
  • Download original Judgements / Order / Notifications / Circulars, etc
  • Enjoy exclusive entry fees to Simplified series. (Webinars, Seminars, masterclasses, etc.)
  ₹1199 + GST for 1 year

Subscribe Now