CESTAT WEEKLY ROUND-UP [July 06, 2025 to July 12, 2025]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) reported at Taxscan from 06 July 2025 to July 12 2025.

CESTAT Allows Customs Duty Exemption on HIV Test Kits Which Qualify as Life-Saving Diagnostic Kits

M/s Cepheid India PrivateLimited vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 746

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) New Delhi Bench granted customs duty exemptions for imported HIV-VL test kits. These kits, used to detect and quantify HIV-1 viral RNA in blood plasma, were classified as life-saving diagnostic tools eligible for exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Countervailing Duty (CVD), plus a reduced 5% Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) under relevant notifications.

The Customs authorities had denied the claims, arguing the kits focused on viral load rather than antibody detection, making them ineligible, and revalued imports under 2007 Valuation Rules. The tribunal overruled this, emphasizing the kit’s critical role in HIV identification, treatment monitoring, infection progression tracking, and public health efforts against the epidemic. The revaluation was set aside, but the case was remanded for further assessment.

CESTAT Holds Reimbursed Diesel Expenses on Actuals Non-Taxable Under Service Tax, Reduces Penalty to 25% M/s TICS Project ConsultancyPvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 747

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that reimbursed diesel expenses on actuals are not includable in the assessable value for service tax, in the case of TICS Projects Consultancy Pvt Ltd. Covering the period from April 2009 to March 2010, the company faced a show cause notice for unpaid service tax of Rs. 46,36,744 and penalties after initial non-compliance.

The CESTAT cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants (2018), holding such reimbursements non-taxable based on the service agreement. The appeal was partly allowed and reduced the penalty under Section 78 to 25%.

FOB Value Agreed Between Buyer and Seller Cannot Be Changed by Customs Authorities: CESTAT M/S JAYANTAH TRADING CO vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(APPEALS) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 748

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Delhi bench ruled in favor of Jayantah Trading Co., an exporter accused of overvaluing readymade garments to claim excess duty drawback and incentives. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigated suspicions of substandard exports and proposed re-determining the Free on Board (FOB) value from Rs. 2.49 crore to Rs. 61.93 lakh under Customs Valuation Rules and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

However, CESTAT held that Customs authorities cannot alter the transaction value agreed between buyer and seller for calculating export incentives, especially with evidence of full remittance at the declared value. The tribunal set aside penalties and confiscation orders, emphasizing the sanctity of agreed FOB values. This decision reinforces exporter protections in incentive claims.

Relief to Hindustan Petroleum: CESTAT Holds Modernization Services within Refinery are 'Input Service’ and Eligible for CENVAT Credit [Read Order] Hindustan Petroleum CorporationLtd. vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 749

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled in favor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), granting relief by classifying modernization services within its refinery as input services eligible for CENVAT credit. The decision overturns the lower authority’s denial of credit, which argued that these services were unrelated to manufacturing.

The CESTAT emphasized that modernization services, including those for plant efficiency and safety, are integral to refinery operations, thus qualifying for credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This ruling provides significant financial relief to HPCL, reinforcing the eligibility of such services for tax credits in the petroleum industry.

Setback for Vedanta: CESTAT Denies Interest on Customs Refund, Says Claims Were Settled Within Statutory Timeframe [Read Order] Vedanta Limited vs Commissionerof Customs (Import) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 750

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) denied Vedanta's claim for interest on a customs duty refund, ruling that the refund was processed within the statutory timeframe. Vedanta had argued for interest due to delays, but CESTAT found the claims were settled promptly as per legal provisions.

The tribunal emphasized that no interest is payable when refunds are issued within the mandated period. This decision is a setback for Vedanta, reinforcing strict adherence to statutory timelines in customs refund cases.

Relief to Bosch: CESTAT Rules Notional Cost of Free Designs from Maruti Not Part of Excise Duty Valuation [Read Order] M/s. Bosch Ltd vs Commissionerof CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 751

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled in favor of Bosch Limited, stating that the notional cost of free designs provided by Maruti Suzuki India Limited should not be included in the valuation of goods for excise duty purposes. The decision addresses a dispute where the Revenue Department argued that the cost of designs, treated as additional consideration, should be added to the assessable value.

The CESTAT clarified that such notional costs do not form part of the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, providing significant relief to Bosch and setting a precedent for similar cases in the automotive industry.

CESTAT Allows Concessional Duty Benefit on Aluminium Based Laminates Used in MCPCBs [Read Order] M/s. Arktron Electronics vsCommissioner of Customs

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 752

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted concessional duty benefits on aluminium-based laminates used in manufacturing Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards (MCPCBs).

The ruling came in a case involving M/s. Universal Trading Corporation, where the tribunal examined whether these laminates qualified for the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 25/99-Cus. The CESTAT found that the laminates, essential for MCPCB production, met the criteria for the duty benefit, overturning earlier denials by lower authorities.

CESTAT upholds Confiscation of 2.95 Kg Foreign-Marked Gold as Invoice Mismatched and No Proof of Duty Payment [Read Order] MR. KAILASH CHANDER VARSHNEY vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 753

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the confiscation of 2,946.80 grams of foreign-marked gold seized from trader Kailash Chander Varshney during a Customs search based on intelligence. The appellant initially admitted lacking documents or invoices proving lawful import and duty payment. A later-produced invoice mismatched the gold's weight and description, with no bill of entry reference.

Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden shifted to the appellant to prove the gold was not smuggled, which he failed to discharge. The tribunal, comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta and P.V. Subba Rao, confirmed confiscation under Section 111(d) and a Rs. 10 lakh penalty under Section 112(b)(i), dismissing the appeal.

Auto AC Parts Like Filters, Valves Must Be Classified Under Specific Tariff Heads, Not General ‘Parts of Air Conditioners’: CESTAT M/s Motherson Bergstorm Hvac Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs PrincipalCommissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 754

The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that automobile air conditioning parts, such as filters, valves, blowers, control panels, and thermostats, must be classified under their specific tariff headings in Chapters 84 and 85, rather than the general category of "parts of air conditioners" under CTI 8415 90 00.

In the case of Motherson Bergstrom HVAC Solutions Pvt Ltd, the company imported these items and paid duties accordingly from August 2018 to October 2020. The customs authorities issued show cause notices demanding differential duty, arguing for general classification due to their exclusive use in vehicle AC systems. The appellant invoked Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff, prioritizing specific headings, while the department relied on Note 2(b) for parent machine classification.

Reduced Penalty u/s 78 of GST Applies If Tax and Interest Paid Within 30 Days of Demand Order: CESTAT Cuts Penalty to 25% M/s Minerals Marketing & Consultancy vs The PrincipalCommissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 755

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi ruled that a reduced penalty under Section 78 of the GST Act applies if tax and interest are paid within 30 days of a demand order. In the case of Minerals Marketing & Consultancy, the appellant faced a demand of Rs. 11,16,723 for service tax discrepancies in 2015-16 based on Form 26AS data.

The firm had prepaid Rs. 9,88,319 with interest before the show cause notice, leaving a differential of Rs. 1,28,404. After the demand order, it paid the remaining tax, interest, and 25% penalty within 30 days. The tribunal, presided by Dr. Rachna Gupta, rejected the full penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals), modifying it to 25% to encourage compliance, partly allowing the appeal.

Recovery u/s 28AAA of Customs Act Not Valid without Prior DGFT Cancellation of Scrips: CESTAT M/s Ganpati Hosiery Mills vsPrincipal Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 756

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that recovery under Section 28AAA of the Customs Act is invalid without prior cancellation of scrips by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

The customs alleged diversion of goods to Dubai after FOB exports to Panama and the Netherlands, issuing a show cause notice for recovery and penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. The appellant argued that no DGFT cancellation proceedings occurred and evidence from statements under Section 108 was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 138B procedures, including lack of cross-examination. Relying on the Delhi High Court's Amit Exports judgment, CESTAT set aside the recovery order, emphasizing procedural prerequisites.

No Penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise If Superintendent Revises Returns in Bona Fide Belief Without Evidence of Collusion: CESTAT M/s. Kedar Nath Vishwakram vsPrincipal Commissioner of CGST and CX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 757

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) provided relief to Shree Kedar Nath Vishwakarma, a Central Excise Superintendent, by setting aside a Rs. 25 lakh penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Vishwakarma was accused of facilitating irregular CENVAT credit of Rs. 2.55 crores to Shri Ram Alloys and Ingots Pvt Ltd by revising their ER-1 returns for August to November 2016.

The tribunal ruled that penalties cannot be levied if revisions are made in bona fide belief without evidence of collusion, deliberate misconduct, or extraneous benefits. The disciplinary authority confirmed no intentional wrongdoing, deeming it a mistake. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Relief for L.G. Electronics: CESTAT Directs Interest Payment on Post-2014 Pre-deposit u/s 35FF of Central Excise Act M/s L. G. Electronics India Pvt.Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 758

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to LG Electronics, ruling that interest is payable on a post-2014 pre-deposit under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944. LG Electronics, manufacturing electronics like TVs and refrigerators, had deposited Rs. 47,82,819 before a show cause notice, later treated as part of a 7.5% pre-deposit.

The CESTAT rejected the CBIC circular’s view that the appeal filing date is the deposit date, holding interest payable from the actual deposit date, as the appeal was filed post-2014 under new provisions. The tribunal directed interest payment accordingly.

Company Reversed Wrongfully Availed CENVAT Credit with Interest and Paid Penalty: CESTAT Quashes SCN Invoking Extended Period M/s. Development ConsultantsPrivate Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 759

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata Bench quashed a show cause notice (SCN) issued to Development Consultants Private Limited for wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 32,23,866 during 2004-05 to 2008-09. An audit in April 2011 revealed irregularities, such as missing invoice details. Prior to the SCN dated April 11, 2012, the company had already reversed Rs. 26,94,123 with interest and paid a penalty of Rs. 8,65,439.

The appellant argued that the extended limitation period was inapplicable, as returns were filed regularly and details were available to the department. The revenue contended the audit justified the demand. Relying on the Vandana Global Ltd. precedent, CESTAT held the prior corrective actions sufficient, deeming the extended period invocation unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, with the paid amount standing as penalty.

Classification of Offshore Services as Export or Taxable Business Support Services: CESTAT Remands Matter to Commissioner Randstad Offshore Private Limited vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CENTRALEXCISE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 760

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded a case involving Randstad Offshore Private Limited to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication. The appellant claimed its services provided to a US company from July 1, 2012, to March 31, 2015, qualified as export of services, exempt from tax. However, the department classified them as taxable Business Support Services, viewing the entity as an offshore office of the parent company.

The Key issues included the invocation of extended limitation period, interpretation of export rules, and the absence of a relevant service agreement for the disputed period. CESTAT allowed the assessee one month to submit the appropriate agreement, directing the Commissioner to re-examine all claims and defenses, including export status and limitation aspects. The appeal was thus allowed by way of remand.

Extraction, Crushing, and Sizing of Coal Amounts to Manufacture, Not Liable to Service Tax under “Mining Services”: CESTAT M/s Integrated Coal Mining Limited vs Commissioner of CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 761

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata Bench held that Integrated Coal Mining Ltd.'s activities of extracting, crushing, and sizing coal constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, not "Mining Services" liable for service tax.

The company, which supplied processed coal to buyers like CESC Ltd. and paid excise duty and VAT, faced demands for service tax from 2008-2017, including penalties and Cenvat credit reversal. The CESTAT set aside these demands, reasoning that excise/VAT and service tax are mutually exclusive, and the department had consistently treated the process as manufacturing.

Recorded Statement u/s 108 of Customs Act Not Admissible if Witnesses Not Cross-Examined before AA: CESTAT Shanti Swaroop Sharma vs ThePrincipal Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 762

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are inadmissible as evidence if the witnesses are not examined and cross-examined before the adjudicating authority, as mandated by Section 138B.

The Revenue Department imposed penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA, but CESTAT set them aside due to lack of admissible evidence and procedural non-compliance. The tribunal emphasized that without cross-examination, such statements hold no evidentiary value, rendering the penalties unsustainable, especially since the goods' confiscation was already overturned.

Transport Services by Single Truck Operator Without Consignment Notes Fall Under Negative List: CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand M/s. Bajrang Enterprise vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 763

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata Bench ruled in favor of Bajrang Enterprise, a single-truck operator providing road transport services without issuing consignment notes. The firm, which earned over Rs. 1.5 crore in FY 2015-16 and 2016-17, faced a Rs. 8.25 lakh service tax demand plus interest and penalties after a Show Cause Notice based on income tax data mismatches.

CESTAT set aside the demand, classifying the services under the Negative List as non-taxable, since the operator did not qualify as a Goods Transport Agency (GTA). Even if deemed GTA, liability fell on recipients via Reverse Charge Mechanism for services to government firms like Balmer Lawrie Ltd., or due to exemptions for consignments below Rs. 1,500.

Taxability of Foreign Exhibition Services: CESTAT Rules No Service Tax Payable on Services Performed Abroad Sarup Industries Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 764

The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that foreign exhibition services performed outside India are not subject to service tax. In the case of Sarup Industries Ltd, a footwear manufacturer and exporter, the company paid Rs. 5,72,027 in foreign currency to overseas entities for advertisement and exhibition services during FY 2005-06 and 2006-07. The department demanded Rs. 66,566 in service tax under reverse charge mechanism, plus interest and penalties, classifying it under 'Business Exhibition Service'.

The original authority partially dropped the demand but confirmed Rs. 49,307 for the period post-April 2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this, but CESTAT set aside the order, emphasizing that services rendered abroad are non-taxable per Rule 3(ii) of service tax rules, a 2006 circular, and precedents like K.G. Denim Ltd. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

CESTAT Allows Adjustment and Refund of ₹22.37 Lakh Excess Service Tax to Eastern India Enterprise and Sets Aside Penalties M/s.Eastern India Enterprise vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 765

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted relief to Eastern India Enterprise by allowing the adjustment and refund of Rs. 22.37 lakh in excess service tax paid, while setting aside all imposed penalties. The company, registered under the "maintenance and repair service" category as per the Finance Act, 1994, underwent an audit for the period 2009-10 to 2012-13, resulting in a show cause notice demanding Rs. 1.34 crore.

The Commissioner upheld a Rs. 13.19 lakh demand but recognized excess payments totaling Rs. 35.56 lakh, yet denied the Rs. 22.37 lakh refund due to lack of a formal application. CESTAT ruled there was overall excess payment, adjusted the liabilities accordingly, and remanded the case for verification of unjust enrichment and claim accuracy, finding no grounds for penalties given the overpayment.

Road Construction Receipts for CSR Activities not part of Taxable Value: CESTAT grants Relief to Eastern India Enterprise M/s.Eastern India Enterprise vs Commissioner of Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 765

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Eastern India Enterprise, holding that receipts from road construction under CSR activities are not taxable value for service tax purposes.

The authorities issued a show cause notice demanding Rs. 1.34 crore in tax, interest, and penalties on alleged maintenance and repair services. The company argued these amounts were for non-taxable CSR road works, supported by balance sheets, profit/loss accounts, and CA certificates. The Revenue appealed, citing inadequate verification, but CESTAT upheld the exclusion after examining records, finding no infirmity and dismissing the appeal. This clarifies CSR exemptions under the Finance Act, 1994.

CESTAT Upholds classification of Activity by Adjudicating authority under ‘works contract service’ as assessee paid service tax by opting scheme as per State VAT Rules M/s. Nag Interiors Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner of Service Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 766

The Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the classification of Nag Interiors Pvt. Ltd.'s activities as 'works contract service' under Section 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. The case stemmed from service tax disputes covering June 16, 2005, to June 30, 2012, with authorities issuing show-cause notices for alleged short-payments.

The appellant paid VAT on transferred goods under the Karnataka VAT Act, 2004, and service tax on the remaining value, opting for a composition scheme aligned with State VAT Rules. CESTAT affirmed the adjudicating authority's ruling, citing evidence of proper VAT and service tax remittances, while upholding tax demands, interest, and penalties.

Styrene-Butadiene Copolymer to Be Classified as ‘Polymers of Styrene’, Not Synthetic Rubber: CESTAT KLJ POLYMERS & CHEMICALS LIMITED vs Commissioner of CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 767

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that Styrene-Butadiene Copolymer (SBC), imported by KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Limited, should be classified under Chapter Heading 3903 as "Polymers of Styrene" rather than Chapter 4002 as "Synthetic Rubber."

The company argued that SBC, containing over 70% styrene, is thermoplastic and recyclable, aligning with Chapter Note 4 and HSN Explanatory Notes. It fails synthetic rubber tests for elasticity and vulcanization. The CESTAT, citing full disclosure by the appellant and the dispute's interpretational basis, overturned the Principal Commissioner's order, confirming classification under 3903 and quashing additional demands.

Education Consultant Services to Foreign Universities Qualify as Export, Not Intermediary Services: CESTAT M/S.Canam Consultants Ltd. vs The Principal Director General CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 768

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi ruled that education consultant services provided by Canam Consultants Ltd. to foreign universities qualify as export of services, not intermediary services under GST rules.

The company, engaged in promoting foreign universities' courses to Indian students, conducts seminars, counsels students, and assists with admissions, receiving payments in foreign currency directly from the universities on a principal-to-principal basis. The tribunal set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 13.05 crore (originally Rs. 14.86 crore), plus interest and penalty, for the period July 2012 to June 2017, aligning with prior rulings like Sannam S-4 Management Services.

Bagasse is Not A Manufactured Final Product: CESTAT Quashes Central Excise Duty Demand Under Rule 6 of CCR M/s.The Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Commissioner of GST& Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 769

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has quashed a central excise duty demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, ruling that bagasse is not a manufactured final product but a by-product waste. In the case involving Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., which produces sugar and molasses from sugarcane, bagasse was classified under CET entry 23032000 with nil duty and treated as an exempted good.

The department demanded 6% of bagasse's value due to common inputs used for dutiable and exempted goods, a decision upheld by the Commissioner. However, CESTAT, citing the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Union of India that invalidated a contrary CBEC circular, held Rule 6 inapplicable. The tribunal set aside the demand, allowing the appeals with consequential benefits.

Service Tax Payable Only on Service Portion in Works Contract Where VAT Already Paid on Goods: CESTAT M/s. Ocean Lifespaces India vs The Commissioner of GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 770

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that service tax on works contracts is payable only on the service portion when VAT has already been paid on goods. Ocean Lifespaces India Private Limited, providing interior decoration services, paid VAT on 79.85% of the invoice value and service tax on the remaining 20.15%.

The department demanded service tax on 70% of the gross value under Rule 2A(ii)(C) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, but CESTAT, relying on prior judgments, held that service tax cannot be levied on the goods portion after VAT payment. The tribunal allowed the appellant’s appeal, stating the department’s demand was unsustainable

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