CESTAT Chennai held that services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations remain exempt from service tax even if part of the services are rendered outside SEZ premises. The Tribunal relied on Sections 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act to allow the appeal.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational and timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism instead of writ proceedings.
The Bangalore CESTAT held that a refund claim cannot reopen a finalized customs assessment where the importer failed to challenge the self-assessed Bill of Entry within the statutory appeal period.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods does not attract confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were not liable for confiscation, penalty on the Customs House Agent under Section 112(a)(ii) was set aside.
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d) and 148. The courts held that reassessment cannot be sustained on allegations that change after issuance of the original notice.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained on changing allegations introduced after issuance of notice under Section 148A(b). The Court ruled that reopening must rest only on the original reasons disclosed to the assessee.
Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties in a pure transit State. The Court directed release of goods and vehicles.
The Court directed the appellate authority to accept manual filing of Form GST APL-01 after the taxpayer could not upload the appeal electronically due to a technical glitch. Delay in filing was also condoned under the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court held that interest paid on borrowed funds was deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) because the loan was used for business purposes. The Court ruled that commercial expediency and composite business operations justified the deduction claim.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limitation principle and therefore lacked legal validity.
