The authority declined an advance ruling request on roasted areca nut classification after noting that the issue had already been decided by the Madras High Court, leaving no scope for reconsideration.
The High Court held that effective service requires authorities to consider alternative modes when there is no response to portal notices. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that service tax liability cannot be determined merely from Form 26AS entries without examining the nature of services. It set aside a ₹47.96 lakh demand after finding that the services were exempt road and canal construction works.
The Tribunal ruled that statutory presumption of passing on duty must be rebutted with proper evidence. The refund claim must be reconsidered with supporting documents.
The court quashed orders reversing ITC that were based solely on limitation under Section 16(4). It held that the amendment inserting Section 16(5) allowed ITC claims for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021.
The tribunal held that exemption for a statutory housing authority depends on whether housing units were sold above cost. The case was remanded to examine if charges exceeded cost plus nominal mark-up.
The Court held that rejection of condonation for a 50-day delay in filing Form 10B was improper when genuine hardship was demonstrated. It directed authorities to treat the audit report as filed within time and process the return accordingly.
The Tribunal found that authorities had not determined the minimum percentage of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium required for classification as fertiliser. It set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh examination.
The Tribunal remanded the refund case after finding that the taxpayer should be given an opportunity to produce documents proving that the tax burden was not passed on. The adjudicating authority must reconsider the claim after examining the evidence.
CESTAT Hyderabad set aside a service tax demand on rent-a-cab services provided to an SEZ unit after holding that the SEZ Act has overriding effect over the Finance Act notification. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied based on the notification’s condition when Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides the benefit.
