CESTAT Delhi held that no service tax is payable as the assessee did not receive any consideration for providing a corporate guarantee.
An in-depth examination of the changes introduced to the GST Appellate Tribunal, the implications of these reforms, and the challenges that remain.
CESTAT held that the utilization of credit by any unit within the same entity would not cause any loss to the Exchequer. This is because the credit disallowed to one unit is proportionally made available to the second unit. From a company’s perspective, the net credit availed and utilized remains unchanged.
High Court held that the Order of Appellate Authority allowing refund to assessee cannot be ignored solely because Revenue decided to challenge the order allowing refund, directed the Revenue to disburse refund along with interest and clarified that Revenue is not precluded from availing any remedy and in case Revenue succeeds they would be entitled to recovery the amount disbursed.
CESTAT, Kolkata made a significant ruling regarding the amendment in Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Previous version of the rule stated ‘taken or utilized,’ but it was modified to ‘taken and utilized.’ This alteration in wording clearly indicates the legislative intent to exclude the imposition of interest when the credit has been taken but not utilized.
CESTAT’s decision clarifies that since the rent received by individual co-owners is below the specified threshold, there is no basis for imposing service tax on these amounts.
In Kia Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ, affirming GST on inter-state transport of demo vehicles between distinct persons, emphasizing compliance with CGST Act and Rules.
In the case of M/s. SHIDO Pharma v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Madras High Court quashed the order passed without providing an opportunity of hearing and directed the Revenue Department to conduct afresh proceedings.
The court deemed the show cause notice invalid as it failed to include essential details such as the date, time, and venue of the personal hearing
ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner, who had correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had added the differential margin to the assessee’s income based solely on a comparison between industry gross margin and the assessee’s gross margin, without conducting a thorough analysis of the assessee’s business strategy.
