This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan during the previous week from December 6 to December 11, 2021.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax
In a setback to Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court denied the Input Tax Credit (ITC) for availing outdoor catering services to employees. The division bench of Justice M.R.Shah and Justice B.V.Nagarathna held that The statutory provision ā Rule 2(1) defining āInput Serviceā post 01.04.2011 is very clear and the out-door catering services when such services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee is held to be excluded from the definition of āInput Serviceā. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in denying the input tax credit and holding that such a service is excluded from input service.
The Supreme Court upheld the measures adopted by RBI to implement a ban imposed by the Government on the export of PPE kits in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The three-judge bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice B V Nagarathna the RBI has demonstrated a rational nexus in the prohibition of MTTs in respect of PPE products and the public health of Indian citizens. The critical links between FTP and MTTs have been established by the respondents. Facilitating MTTs in PPE products between two distinct nations may prima facie appear to have no bearing on the availability of domestic stocks. However, the RBI has carefully established the connection between the use of Indian foreign exchange reserves, MTTs, and the availability of domestic stocks. As a developing country with a sizable population, RBIās policy to align MTT permissibility with the FTP restrictions on import and export of PPE products cannot be questioned.
The Supreme Court issues notice to Govt. on a plea challenging 18% GST on services by way of grant of mineral exploration and mining rights.
GST Commissioner Vs. M/s Citi Bank
The Supreme Court delivered the split Verdict on chargeability of Service Tax on Card-Issuing Bank For Interchange Fees.
Prakash Raghunath Autade Vs. UOI
The Bombay High Court felt that no right to cross-examine the witness before the reply to Show Cause Notice is filed and before adjudication commences. The division bench of Chief Justice Deepankar Dutta and Justice M.S.Karnik held that it is only after the statements of witnesses are recorded by the relevant authority in course of adjudication of proceedings and such evidence is regarded as relevant that the noticee has the right to claim that he be extended the opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses so as to extend to him fair, reasonable and adequate opportunity of defence.
Tata Steels Vs. State of West Bengal
In a major relief to Tata Steels, the Calcutta High Court ruled that state not to deprive legitimate claim to purchase High-Speed Diesel (HSD) oil at concessional rate under Central Sales Tax Act. The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin held that in the instant cases neither petitioners nor IOCL is guilty of any latches and when there is no specific prohibition under the statute against such refund petitioners should not get entangled in the cobweb of procedures and the State should do substantial justice by refunding the amount of tax in question collected by it in excess of statutory concessional rate of tax during the relevant period either to the selling oil dealers/IOCL or to the purchasing oil dealers/petitioners and State should not deprive the legitimate claim of the petitioners to purchase the HSD oil at a concessional rate which is their statutory right under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in course of inter-State sale since they have fulfilled the conditions under Section 8 (1) read with 8 (3) and 8 (4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by doing what fairness and justice demand of a State and which is the motto of every civilised society.
Laxmi Organic Industries Vs. UOI
The Bombay High Court held that the refund application filed Manually is not supposed to be filed in FORM GST RFD 01 on GST portal.
Madhav Copper Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court ordered further investigation in respect of the provisional release of goods as there is an alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Schneider Electric India Pvt.Limited Vs. ST
The Madras High Court held that the CST turnover cannot be included in VAT turnover for determining tax liability or determining the due date for filing Returns.
M/s Pioneer Carbide Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI
The Meghalaya High Court directed the assessee to make a specific request to the GST Commissioner to rectify mistakes made electronically in GST TRAN-1.
M/s Nagorao Auto Engineering Works Vs. UOI
The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the GST Authority to Re-Open Online Portal to enable filing of Form TRAN-1 Electronically or Accept Manually.
The Orissa High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to either modify the Goods and Service Tax (GST) portal to facilitate the filing of TRAN-1 to claim the ITC or accept returns manually against the old registration certificate.
M/s Radhemani And Sons Vs. Additional Commissioner CGST
The Chhattisgarh High Court remanded the matter to Authority for GST Refund as a supply made as inter-State was subsequently held as intra-State.
Advent India PE Advisors Private Limited Vs. UOI
The Bombay High Court directed the GST Authority to unblock ITC of Rs. 1.17 Crores availed in its electronic credit ledger after one year of restriction.
M/s.S.D.Arun Associates Vs. Designated Committee
The Madras High Court directed the GST Authority to issue a discharge certificate in form SVLDRS-4 either manually or electronically.
M/s JSVM Plywood Industries Vs. UOI
The Gauhati High Court has stayed the reassessment notice for not following the new procedure for issuance of notice where income has escaped Assessment after 31 March 2021.
M/s. Keshab Automobiles Vs. State of Orissa
The Calcutta High Court held that if self-assessment for tax periods prior to 1st October 2015 is not accepted by the Department, then such assessment cannot be sought to be re-opened.
In a partial relief to Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., the Karnataka High Court remand the matter back to the Authority as the disallowance of deduction expenditure not appreciated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
