The Supreme Court held that refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act is not payable to the applicant if tax incidence was passed on. The amount must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The Tribunal observed that similar deductions were allowed in earlier scrutiny assessments. Finding no error in the Assessing Officer’s view, it annulled the revision proceedings.
Relying on CBDT instructions and precedent, the Tribunal ruled that approval for reopening must come from the CCIT. Approval by PCIT rendered the notice and assessment unsustainable.
The AAR held that shaving foam and shaving cream are distinct products based on composition, packaging, and market understanding. Shaving foam falls under HSN 33071090 and attracts 18% GST.
The Authority rejected classification of plastic sterile aprons and shoe covers under garment heading 6210. It held that the products are plastic articles and fall under specific entries in Chapter 39.
It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
AAR held that sun-cured, graded, and butted tobacco leaves remain “tobacco leaves” under HSN 240110 and attract 5% GST. Minimal manual processes do not alter their essential character.
The framework clarifies which GST officers can issue SCNs and adjudicate demands under Sections 73 and 74. Jurisdiction depends strictly on assigned functions and monetary limits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is determined on an estimated basis. In absence of clear concealment, the Rs.5.41 lakh penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal clarified that CPC could not make prima facie adjustments denying Section 80P deduction before the Finance Act, 2021 amendment. The disallowance made in 2019 was held invalid and deleted.
