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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee wrongly availed Cenvat credit on Bills of Entry already used by its manufacturing unit. The demand and penalty were upheld as the credit had no nexus with service activities.
CESTAT Kolkata held that horticulture activities such as garden maintenance and plant care fall within agricultural services and are not liable to Service Tax. The Tribunal therefore set aside the major portion of the tax demand raised on this turnover.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper notice and hearing.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition noting that the assessment order remained unchallenged for nearly eleven months, but allowed the taxpayer to file an appeal with additional deposit.
The court found that the statutory requirement for service of notice was not met when the department relied only on portal-based communication after cancellation of registration.
NCLAT Delhi held that cartelisation and bid rigging/ collusive bidding in tender is clearly established in public welfare tender by common IP address and identical bidding. Accordingly, penalty for being engaged in bid rigging and cartelisation duly imposed.
The High Court ruled that the recovery notice could not be challenged as the assessment order determining interest and penalty was not appealed and had attained finality.
