SC held that, tax evasion cannot be presumed on mere non-extension of validity of e-way bill by the assessee due to traffic blockage and agitation, for which the Revenue Authority is responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic. Further, imposed a sum of INR 69,000/- on the Revenue Department towards the cost payable to the assessee, and to be recovered, directly from the persons responsible.
CESTAT set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on the amount written off as bad debts. Further, held that there is no such provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or in Finance Act, 1994 for reversal of CENVAT credit for the services provided for which no consideration for service provided is received by an assessee.
HC held that once the assessee is cooperating and has submitted the relevant documents to the Revenue Department then the bank accounts and Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of such assessee to be unblocked upon the expiry of one year from the date of imposing such restrictions.
High Court observed that in the absence of specific mention of IGST and Compensation Cess in the Exemption Notification, only the BCD on the fair cost of repair charges, freight and insurance charges would be payable. The IGST and Compensation Cess would be wholly exempted. Therefore, the assessee could not be denied such exemption on reimport of repaired air-crafts and spare parts.
HC set aside the summons issued by the Revenue Department without any details of the inquiry, wherein the assessee was co-operating in furnishing the documents as requisitioned and to provide further details. Held that, summons is a last resort and are not to be issued in a casual manner.
HC dismissed the applicability of Circular in a petition challenging the conduct of alleged parallel investigation by various jurisdictional authorities and affirmed the investigations conducted various jurisdictional authorities of the Revenue Department into entities having common nexus. Held that, Circular cannot be extended to cover all and myriad situations that may arise in the administration and the functioning of the GST structure.
The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.
CESTAT held that, right to claim Service Tax refund cannot be denied merely on account of procedural lapse of filing TRAN-1 before December 27, 2017.
HC set aside the rejection of application of GST registration on the ground that, if for the purpose of proof of business ownership there is an option to furnish either house tax receipts or electricity bill receipts, then application cannot be rejected on the basis of non-compliance if receipt of electricity bills are not furnished.
Export Oriented Unit (EOU) is not entitled to claim refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) on its own, however, adds a caveat that EOU may avail of the entitlements of Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) supplier specified in Chapter 8 of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) on condition that it will not pass on that benefit back to DTA supplier later on.
