|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 1280 Records
-
2022 (10) TMI 801
Seeking abatement of appeal - CIRP proceedings under IBC - continuance of proceedings after death or adjudication as an insolvent of a party to the appeal or application - short payment of duty - reversal of CENVAT Credit - Case of Revenue is that subsequent to the order of the NCLT approving the resolution plan, the appeal stands abated and all the issues arising out of the order appealed against have acquired finality with the said order of NCLT approving the resolution plan - Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- With the approval of the resolution plan the corporate debtor was managed by a monitoring committee (MC) which is comprised of the erstwhile resolution professional (as he will become after the Resolution Plan) and 4 representatives of the Financial Creditors. During the period following the approval of the CCI until the closing date, the corporate debtor will be managed by a reconstituted MC comprising of 4 representatives of the Financial Creditors, 2 representatives of the Resolution applicants and the erstwhile Resolution professional. After the closing date, a new board of Directors constituted by the Resolution Applicants will replace the MC and it will have adequate representation from the members of the Resolution Applicants and as requirements under applicable law. Further it is also quite evident that control and management of the corporate debtor has passed on to the resolution applicants who in turns are successor interest in the management of the corporate debtor and have been authorized specifically to approach any Competent Authorities/Courts/Legal Forums/offices-Govt, or Semi Govt./ State or Central Govt. for appropriate relief(s). Thus it is quite evident that on the date of approval of the resolution plan, the successor interest to the corporate debtor has been appointed who has been asked given the resolution authority to represent before the relevant authorities.
However from the date of approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the appeal filed by the applicant has abated and CESTAT has become functus officio in the matters relating to this appeal. Further it is also settled that the impugned order’s in the appeals have got merged in the order of the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan.
The appeals filed abate as per the Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, with effect from the date of the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT - Since the appeals have abated the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant/appellant does not survive.
-
2022 (10) TMI 800
Levy of equal penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - availment of wrong credit on input services used in the Co-generation plant for generation of electricity which was being wheeled out to T.N.E.B. - input services used for manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- On perusal of records, it is seen that though audit was conducted in the year August 2008 the show cause notice has been issued much later after a delay of 4 years on 17.07.2012. It is seen that the appellant has paid up the duty immediately when the audit had pointed out the defect of availing wrong credit. Even then, the department has taken a period of 4 long years to issue the show cause notice. It is stated in the show cause notice that appellant has suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Apart from this allegation there is no positive act of suppression brought out by the Department.
There were conflicting views as to whether credit is eligible on input services used for generation of electricity that is sold outside, the appellant cannot be burdened with the guilt of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The issue being interpretational in nature and as the department had collected all the details of availment of credit from the accounts maintained by the appellant, the penalty imposed in this regard is unwarranted - the penalty imposed with regard to duty liability of the input tax credit availed in respect of electricity (Co-generation plant) requires to be set aside.
CENVAT credit of input service availed for manufacture of exempted goods - Ethyl Alcohol - only argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that they had availed credit by inadvertent mistake - HELD THAT:- The said mistake would not have come to light but for the audit conducted by the Department. There are no sufficient grounds for setting aside penalty on input service tax credit in respect of Ethyl Alcohol.
The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed in regard to credit availed in respect of input services used in the co-generation plant for generation of Electricity sold outside - Penalty imposed in regard to input service tax credit on the services used in manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol is upheld.
The appeal is partly allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 799
Extended period of SCN - whether the show cause notice has been issued rightly by invoking the extended period of limitation? - if demand of Rs. 3,27,325/- is rightly made for use of E. Cess & SHE Cess for payment of duty in December 2016 or not? - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this Tribunal have held in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST [2019 (4) TMI 1896 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] that an assessee is entitled to refund of unutilized cess under the existing law, lying in credit as on 30/06/2017 - Following the ruling of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, Single Member Bench in KIRLOSKAR TOYOTA TEXTILE MACHINERY PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE [2021 (8) TMI 818 - CESTAT BANGALORE], considered refund of unutilized credit of EC. & SHEC on 30/06/2017, it was held that such refund be granted to the assessee as it neither lapses, nor the same was time barred.
Revenue Neutrality - HELD THAT:- The appellant not utilized the Cenvat credit of EC & SHEC for payment of output tax/duty in December 2016, the same would have become refundable as on 30/06/2017. If the appellant is required to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,27,325/- in cash, it will become entitled to refund of the duty earlier paid by utilization of credit of EC & SHEC, thus the situation is wholly revenue neutral.
Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 798
CENVAT Credit - input services - adjudication authority in respect of disputed input services denied the credit without discussing the nature and use of the services in the Appellant’s factory - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The nature of use of the disputed services as explained by the appellant was not properly addressed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order passed by him. Hence, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a proper fact finding on issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit on the disputed services.
The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to pass a de novo order after considering all the documents to be submitted by the appellant before him.
-
2022 (10) TMI 797
Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of Excise duty - goods procured under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) for the clearance of the same without putting to use for manufacture of exported goods - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has been considered by the tribunal in the matter of M/S. SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD., SHRI S.K. BHANDARI AND SHRI V.K. LADIA VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR-II [2016 (3) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], M/S. SHREE RAJASTHAN TEXCHEM LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [2015 (2) TMI 653 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and GINGER CLOTHING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE [2014 (2) TMI 868 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and the payment of duty on the goods procured under Notification 43/2001-CE (NT) by utilization form cenvat credit for payment has been allowed - Therefore, following the said decisions it is held that the demand of duty can be paid by utilizing cenvat credit being no bar in law in this regard.
CENVAT Credit - inputs and packing materials used in the manufacture of medicament (exhibit batches) and the same is tested for trial and quality purpose and were destroyed / disposed off within the factory thereafter - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in the facts that packaging /raw materials on which Appellant has claimed Cenvat credit has been used in process of manufacturing of medicaments for trial and testing purpose and quality purpose under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, which was subsequently destroyed. On the basis of such testing /quality control process only the marketability of the product is ascertained. Accordingly, the raw materials/ packaging materials which is used in manufacturing and which goes for testing /quality process are indeed the inputs which are used in or in relation to manufacturing of final products. The nature of products manufactured by the Appellant is such that it is a must/ necessity that it needs testing and hence, the same forms an integral part of manufacture and without which it is not possible to manufacture the final products.
Thus, the Appellant is entitled for credit on input and packaging materials used for testing products (Exhibit batches) - reliance can be placed in the case of THERMAX CULLIGAN WATER TECHNOLOGIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2013 (12) TMI 977 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that In the present case, the Revenue has not adduced any evidence that the control samples have been removed from the factory and has not been consumed or lost or destroyed during the course of testing. In the absence of any corroborative evidence of removal of these samples from the factory, the demand of duty on such control samples cannot be sustained.
Whether the Appellant is liable to pay duty on goods cleared from factory on non-returnable challans for testing and sampling purpose? - HELD THAT:- The pharmaceutical goods before being marketed should be sent for tests and sampling purpose in terms of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945. The medicaments cleared under the cover of non-returnable challans for testing and sampling purpose cannot be considered as manufactured goods as the same is not marketable in as much as the same has not attained any level of marketability as is clear from the facts that the same was sent outside the factory premises for testing and sampling purpose. Marketability is decisive test for dutiability - the samples cleared for testing and quality control test are not liable to any excise duty.
No demand is sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2022 (10) TMI 796
Refund of CENVAT Credit against CVD and SAD paid, in the pre-GST regime, in cash - Section 142(3) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that Appellant had paid the CVD and SAD after the appointed date that is fixed for implementation of CGST Act. It is also not disputed by the Appellant that upon receipt of goods at his factory premises on 19.07.2017, there was window open for a considerable period of time to record the un-availed CENVAT Credit through Tran-I form but it is the only mistake committed by the Appellant in not availing the same within the stipulated time frame.
It is apparent that Appellant’s eligibility to take credit of the duties paid as CENVAT Credit is undisputable and only because of procedural aberration occurred during transition to GST period, Appellant could not take the credits in its electronic ledger in the GST regime, for which it sought for refund such a contingency is perhaps foreseen by the legislature for which contingent provision is well enumerated in Clause 6(a) of Section 142 of the CGST Act that deals with claim for CENVAT Credit after the appointed date under the existing law.
It is an admitted fact of the parties that the said CENVAT Credit balance was not carried forward to the Appellant’s account on the appointed date since it was not due on the said day also. Therefore, in view of clear provision contain under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, Claimant/Appellant is eligible to get the refund of credit by cash except where unjust enrichment is alleged or established against the Appellant. The Appellant is also otherwise eligible to go for availment of transitional credit through filing required forms in Tran-I as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS FILCO TRADE CENTRE PVT. LTD. & ANR. [2022 (7) TMI 1232 - SC ORDER] but in view of the observation of this Tribunal read with Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act that such CENVAT Credit amount shall be paid to the Appellant in cash, it can’t avail dual benefits once order of this Tribunal is duly complied by the Respondent- Department by the closing date of the window.
The Appellant is eligible to get refund of Rs.11,04,057/- paid against CVD and SAD which applicable interest, if any, within a period of two months of communication of this order - Appeal allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 795
CENVAT Credit - input service distribution - whether input service distributed by ISD have been rightly disallowed without invocation of Rule 14 of CCR, 2004? - HELD THAT:- Rule 14 of CCR have not been invoked in either of the show cause notices. In this view of the matter, there are no disallowance of the CENVAT credit can be made save and except by resorting to the provision of Rule 14 of CCR.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2022 (10) TMI 794
Short payment of Central Excise Duty - SCN issued alleging that the appellant is manufacturer of auto parts, which are dutiable have charged and collected tax from their customer but did not pay to the Government - HELD THAT:- Both the parties are registered with the Central Excise Department and both are located at Rudrapur, thus, under the jurisdiction of the same Central Excise authority. Further, it is found that appellant have led sufficient evidence before this Tribunal, which needs to be verified for the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original Adjudicating Authority with direction to hear the appellant and verify the records, and if required, also verify the records of the buyer and thereafter pass reasoned order in accordance with law.
-
2022 (10) TMI 793
Levy of penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act - entire duty and interest was paid before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice itself - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of KUNNATH TEXTILES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN [2011 (11) TMI 154 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein in a similar set of facts, the Tribunal held that an assessee shall not be penalized in a case where the demand on them depended on interpretation of the conditions of the exemption notification claimed by the assessee.
The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal - the impugned orders are set aside to the extent of imposition of penalty and the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed to the extent of setting aside of the penalty.
-
2022 (10) TMI 792
Disallowance of employee’s contribution of PF/ESI on account of delay in deposits - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income. Admittedly, in all the above-stated matters, the Revenue had not contended that the assessee has deposited the contribution after the filing of the return of income.
Allowability of expenses attributable to employee provident fund and employee state insurance scheme on the assurance that the employee’s contributions towards PF & ESI have been deposited before the due date of filing of return of income. However, the Revenue shall be at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal where it is found as a matter of fact that the assessee has failed to deposit the employee’s contribution before the due date of filing of return of income stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act in accordance with law. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. we allow the appeals filed by the captioned assessees.
-
2022 (10) TMI 791
Maintainability of advance ruling application - non-deposit of full amount of fee for filing advance ruling application - Classification of goods - rate of GST - Chaff Cutter Machine, which is used in cutting of chaff, hay and agriculture produce for fodder of live stocks - time of supply of machinery - HELD THAT:- The requisite fee for filling Advance Ruling application is Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000 each for CGST and SGST), but the applicant has deposited only Rs. 5,000/- under SGST Act. Despite giving multiple opportunities, the applicant has not deposited the required pending fee of Rs. 5,000 under GCST Act. Thus, the application is hereby filed without any ruling.
-
2022 (10) TMI 790
Tribunal jurisdiction to hear appeal - jurisdiction of this tribunal to adjudicate this appeal - Penalty levied u/s 271FA - default in filing of the AIR information within the time stipulated u/s 285BA(1) - HELD THAT:- We hold that the first appeal arising from penalty order u/s 271FA passed by AO shall lie with ld. CIT(A) and not with the tribunal, thus we dismiss appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2015-16(fy2014-15) , with liberty to the assessee to file appeal with ld. CIT(A), if so advised, immediately on receipt of this order , and then learned CIT(A) shall condone the delay so far as time consumed by the assessee in persuing litigation with the Tribunal. However, for other delay, the assessee has to explain the same before learned CIT(A) which shall be adjudicated on merits by ld. CIT(A). With these directions, we dismiss the appeal filed by assessee, for assessment year 2015-16(financial year 2014-15).
-
2022 (10) TMI 789
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligible 'reason to believe' - assessee society had not applied 85% of its gross income as required under the Income-tax Act, therefore, it was not entitled for claiming exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) - HELD THAT:- We are unable to comprehend the very basis for the AO to take recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. As application of 85% of gross income is by no means a requisite condition for claim of exemption under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, therefore, in our considered view the A.O had grossly misconceived; or in fact misunderstood the settled position of law, and thus, had wrongly taken recourse to proceedings u/s.147.
There is no obligation cast upon an assessee to apply 85% of its gross income to claim exemption under the aforesaid statutory provision. Ostensibly, the AO had wrongly read in the statutory requirement contemplated in the “3rd proviso” to Sec. 10(23C), which we are afraid is only applicable to institutions/trusts/funds referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of Sec. 10(23C) of the Act. Be that as it may, as there is no obligation cast upon an assessee to apply 85% of its gross income for claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, therefore, the very basis for reopening of the assessee’s case by the AO is incorrect and misconceived on the said count.
Assessee society had filed an application for registration u/s.12A on 28.11.2007, which was granted on 11.04.2008 i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2007 from A.Y.2008-09 onwards, therefore, its income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2007-08 would not be exempted and would be exigible to tax - On a perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee although the assessee in its return of income had in substance claimed exemption of its income u/s.10(23C)(iiiad) but had also referred to claim for exemption u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs. Nil. As the assessee had not claimed any part of its income as exempt under Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, there could have been no basis for the AO to arrive at a bonafide belief that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the said count i.e wrong claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. On the basis of our aforesaid observation, we are of the considered view that as the “reasons to believe” forming the very basis for taking recourse to proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in the case of the assessee are absolutely misconceived and incorrect, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the A.O cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down. Consequent to want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO the assessment framed by him u/s.147 of the Act, dated 28.03.2014 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Assessment framed by the A.O u/s.147 quashe for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (10) TMI 788
Addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained investment - Cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of Section 69A it transpires that the same contemplates that where in any financial year the assessee is, inter alia, found to be the owner of any money and such money is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and he offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the same; or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactory, then, the money may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.
Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had deposited money in question in his bank account during the year under consideration. Undeniably, as at the time of depositing the aforesaid money the assessee was the owner of the same, therefore, the provisions of Section 69A would clearly be applicable. We, thus, are of the considered view that no infirmity does emerge from the addition of the aforesaid amount u/s.69A of the Act by the A.O.
Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - As in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee had referred to one of the sale transaction in which Shri. Santosh Yadav (supra) was stated to be a purchaser and had appeared a/w. the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings. On being queried about the source of the aforesaid amount it was claimed by him that the same was the amount that was received from the final purchaser - No details as regards the name and address of the alleged final purchaser were provided by him. Also, in the remaining four sale transactions the story was no better and neither any details about the final purchaser were divulged nor any documents in support thereof were filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals).
As observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee and his associates had also failed to provide the details of their respective share of profits in their so called land broking business that was claimed to have been jointly carried out by them. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that the brokerage receipt that was shown by the assessee in his return of income could not be corelated with the cash deposits in his bank account. It was, thus, observed by the CIT(Appeals) that considering the facts involved in the case before him the nature and source of the cash deposits could not be proved by the assessee. Although the CIT(Appeals) as observed by us hereinabove had principally concurred with the addition of made by the A.O, but he had held the same as an unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act.
As the assessee had undeniably failed to substantiate on the basis of irrefutable documentary evidences the nature and source of the cash deposits made in his bank account during the year under consideration, therefore, no infirmity does emerge from the orders of the lower authorities who had rightly made/sustained the addition of the same in the hands of the assessee. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations uphold the addition made by the A.O u/s.69A of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed
-
2022 (10) TMI 787
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee availed the loan is an accommodation entry provider - HELD THAT:- Assessee did whatever it could do to comply with the query raised by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has simply brushed aside all the evidences filed by the assessee by stating that the entities from whom the assessee availed the loan is an accommodation entry provider. AO has not made any independent inquiry or brought any contrary material on record to disprove the evidences brought on record by assessee.
Even, the assessment order does not reveal that the AO made any preliminary inquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act either with the lender or with the concerned bank to ascertain the genuineness of the loan transaction or to unearth the money trail.
Without making any inquiry the AO cannot treat the loan transaction as non-genuine on mere conjuncture and surmises. More so, when the lender is an income-tax assessee. The least the AO could have done is to obtain necessary information from the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the lender. In any case of the matter, when the lender is an income-tax assessee, he can be hauled up in case he is unable to explain the source of fund from which he advanced the loan to assessee. The bona fide of the assessee is further proved from the fact that not only the assessee paid interest on the loan availed and deducted tax at source, but, the entire loan amount was repaid to the lender in the financial year 2013-14, even, prior to the completion of the original assessment and much before initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Thus, addition made in the given facts and circumstances of the present case is unsustainable. Assessee appeal is allowed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 786
Validity of order of the first Appellate Authority - challenge on the ground that there is no Tribunal constituted under Section 112 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - entitlement to input tax credit (ITC) with regard to certain imports of capital goods - HELD THAT:- The pre-condition for the claim of unavailed credit on capital goods that the assessee concerned ought to have claimed, at the original instance, at least a portion of the credit. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has made no claim at all - However, seeing as the Assessing Authority has not had any opportunity to address the claim of transitional credit as the claim was made for the first time in appeal, an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to make a claim before the Assessing Authority who shall, upon receipt of the claim, dispose the same within a period of two weeks from date of receipt, after hearing the petitioner.
The impugned order is not interfered with in these circumstances but it is made clear that the Authority while disposing the request for transition, if and when made, shall take an independent view and not be bound either by the conclusion of the Appellate Authority or by the prima facie observations made in this order - writ petition disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 785
Recovery of accumulated credit transitioned - Input Service Distribution - Section 140 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- No effect will be given to the communication dated 04.02.2019 issued to the petitioner by the office of Commissioner of Central GST Audit-II, Delhi.
The respondents are restrained from enforcing recovery of accumulated credit transitioned by the petitioner [inter alia, in terms of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] concerning Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration granted to it by the respondents - the petitioner would be free to approach the respondents for grant of consequential relief.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 784
Gross violation of principles of natural justice - Scrutiny of the GST returns filed by the petitioner - challenge to the impugned proceedings on the ground that the same stands vitiated, inasmuch as Rule 99 of the Tamil Nadu Goods Service Tax Rules, has not been complied with - HELD THAT:- To a pointed question as to whether Form ASMT 10 which ought to have been issued in respect of aspects forming the subject matter of the proceedings in GST DRC-01 culminating in GST DRC-07 in view of the fact that the proceedings are pursuant to scrutiny of assessments, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that Form ASMT 10 was not issued other than the one issued on 22.12.2021, which does not cover the issues raised in the impugned proceeding. The learned Additional Government Pleader sought leave to issue notice in Form ASMT 10 in respect of the aspects forming the subject matter of the impugned proceedings and thereafter to assess in compliance with the procedure contemplated under the Act including Section 61.
The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment. It is open to the Respondent to issue appropriate Form (Form ASMT 10) and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in the manner contemplated under the Act proceed further in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2022 (10) TMI 783
Validity of adjudication order - jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority - HELD THAT:- The adjudication order dated 20.05.2022 is set aside - The concerned officer will commence proceedings de novo, which would logically mean that a fresh show-cause notice, by a proper officer, will be issued, bearing in mind the aforementioned Circular dated 20.09.2022.
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2022 (10) TMI 782
Validity of N/N. 29/2018, dated 31.12.2018 - by virtue of impugned notification, an amendment has been made to Notification No.13/2017 dated 28.06.2017 - amendment made qua Entry No.14, which has been inserted via Section 9(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - grievance is that while allowing for payment of service tax based on reverse-charge mechanism, body corporates have been excluded - HELD THAT:- At this stage, Mr Gaggar says that the petitioner-society would be satisfied if this Court were to direct that this writ petition is treated as representation to be dealt with by respondent nos.1 and 2 - there are no difficulty in disposing of the writ petition, on that basis.
Petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
