Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation as ordered is justifiable in view of import of Areca Nuts below Minimum Import Price condition. Accordingly, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution not warranted and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
Orissa High Court held that refund claimed in respect of tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in section 54 of the GST Act. Accordingly, refund of taxes deposited twice is allowed and order rejection refund is quashed.
SAFEMA Delhi held that non-tribal individual used tribal employee to Benami purchase land. Thus, the sale is violative of section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is absolutely barred under the law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism [RCM] raised merely on the basis of figures appearing in Balance Sheet without classifying the category of service is not sustainable.
Telangana High Court held that rejection of refund application by refund sanctioning authority not sustained since authorities failed to demonstrate that services rendered by petitioner tantamount to intermediary services. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
ITAT Indore held that in absence of evidence, expense on fuel cost occurred on deployment of JCB’s on rent needs to be ascertained by way of proper and detailed empirical analysis. Accordingly, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on transport coordination services relating to employee movement is inadmissible for the period from 01.04.2011 onwards. Further, CENVAT on escort/security services may qualify as input services if the place of removal extends beyond the factory gate.
Madras High Court held that compensation paid to agent on account of loss due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rate is allowable as business expense under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same is not justified and liable to be deleted.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used in generation of electricity is admissible only to the extent the electricity produced and utilized in the factory of production and not on the portion of electricity transferred/sold to the grid.
NCLAT Delhi held that termination of contract not triggered by the insolvency of Corporate Debtor and therefore not barred by moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC]. Accordingly, appeal held as devoid of merit.
