Supreme Court dislodges Rajasthan HC judgement and denies IT exemption to Urban Improvement Trust

22nd October


SC has dislodged a Rajasthan HC judgement saying the Urban Improvement Trust set up under the State law is neither a  "municipality" nor a "municipal board". The SC inter alia holds:

"The word “Municipal Committee” occurring in Clause (iii) Explanation, thus, has a definite purpose and object.

Purpose and object was to cover those bodies, which are discharging municipal functions but are not covered by the definition of municipalities as was required to be constituted by Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Urban Improvement Trust constituted under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, thus, cannot be held to be covered by the definition of Municipal Committee as contained in Clause (iii) of Explanation to Section 10(20) of the I.T. Act......"

Read the full text of the judgement.


Ministry of Statictics seeks GST data to improve Accounts

19th October

It has been reported that the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MSPI) has sought quarterly GST data (output, input and revenue) on tax paying units from the Ministry of Finance.

This data is expected to improve the quality, timeliness and credibility  of both National Accounts Statistics and state-level accounts. Also this step is expected to reduce data collection cost. Apparently, the Finance Ministry will share this data one the GST system stabilises.

Fraudulent GST invoices to the tune of Rs 245 Crores and evasion of Rs 42 Crore detected by Bengaluru State GST Authorities

18th October

A businessman name Mangilal was arrested and later remanded to judicial custody on Tuesday 16th October.

The State GST authorities after preliminary investigations alleged that Mangilal issued fake invoices to the tune of Rs 245 Crore. They also alleged that he evaded GST of Rs. 42 crore.

His modus operandi included obtaining a GST registration in  the name of a deceased person and  issuing invoices in that name or of fictitious persons.

Goods in the factory can't be offending goods. When physical control operates, goods outside the factory must be presumed duty paid

17th October, 2018

Goods "lying within the factory premises were not contravening goods and had not violated any provision of Central Excise Act and, therefore, their confiscation is set aside."

"...goods which were confiscated such as at the transporter premises of Baba Roadlines.... the redemption fine cannot be directed to be paid by the appellants because said goods were proceed to have been manufactured by the appellant.

"...2,88,000 sticks of Captan brand cigarettes stated to have been found in excess at the residential premises of Shri Roop Singh .....cannot be contravening goods because the manufacturers factory was under physical control and it was not possible to remove manufactured goods without payment of duty...."  Musk Tobacco & Ors Vs CCE, Lucknow


Another "disaster cess"​ in the offing to manage natural calamities?

16th October, 2018

A panel of State Finance Ministers headed by Mr Sushil Modi, Deputy CM, Bihar, has examined the possibility of imposing "disaster cess" as an additional indirect tax and will be seeking the views of the Attorney General on such a levy.

It will be recalled that post the recent floods in Kerala, and losses caused by it to the State, the aspect of relief to affected areas/States has come into sharp focus.

There can be no dispute about the  purpose or intention of providing such relief. It’s legitimate, of course. However, the method of raising revenue is questionable. Whether an over-riding cess like the erstwhile “Education cess” (EC), “Secondary and higher education cess” (SHE), “Swach Bharat cess” and “Krishi kalyan cess” should be re-introduced into the indirect tax system?  Is that the best option we have?

Read the full article

Punjab Authority for Advance Ruling :  K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd.

15th October, 2018

The questions before the Authority for advance ruling were :

a. Whether free tickets given as "Complimentary Tickets" falls within the definition of supply under CGST Act, 2017 and thus, whether the applicant is required to pay GST on such free tickets?

b. Whether the applicant is eligible to claim Input Tax credit (for short "ITC") in respect of complimentary tickets?

The relevant extracts of the ruling reads :

"the applicant is also agreeing to the obligation of doing the act of allowing entry to the complementary ticket holder to enjoy services .... is covered under each limb of para 5(e) of Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017.....
The activity of the applicant of providing complementary tickets free of charge to some persons would be considered supply of service .....

.....Since all tickets supplied by the applicant including complementary tickets would be taxable, the applicant would clearly be eligible for claim of Input Tax Credit....".

Read the AA Ruling


Recent Court / Tribunal Judgements

 National Anti-profiteering Authority

Decisions for the National Anti-Profiteering Authority :

  1. 1. Shri Ankur Jain & DG Anti-Profiteering, CBIC Vs M/s Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd. : Case No. : 10/2018 : 8th October, 2018
  2. 2. Sh. Jijrushu N. Bhattacharya & DG Anti-Profiteering, CBIC  Vs M/s NP Foods (Franchisee M/s Subway India) : Case No. 9/2018 : 27th September, 2018
  3. 3. Miss Neeru Varshney & DG Anti-Profiteering, CBIC Vs M/s Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd. : Case No. 8/2018 : 25th September, 2018
  4. 4. Shri Sukhbir Rohilla along & 108 other Applicants & DG Anti-Profiteering, CBIC Vs M/s Pyramid Infratech Pvt. Ltd. : Case No. 7/2018 : 18th September, 2018  
  5. 5. Shri Pawan Sharma & DGAP, CBIC Vs M/s Sharma Trading Company, Jaipur: Case No. 6/2018 : 7th September, 2018
  6. 6. Dinesh Mohan Bhardwaj Vs M/s Vrandavaneshwree, Automotive Private Limited : Case No. 1/2018 : 27th March 2018

 CESTAT Decisions


18th October, 2018 : CESTAT Mum : UPS Jetair Express Private Limited   Vs Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai East 

Revenue denied CENVAT credit only on the ground invoices didn't mention the registration number of the service provider. No other allegations were made regarding receipt of input services, eligibility etc.

Held : This is merely a procedural lapse. It is settled that CENVAT credit can't be denied on mere technicalities or procedural lapses.

CENVAT credit allowed, extended period of limitation not applicable.

Ed's comment : Isnt it surprising that a Senior Officer like Prin. ADG, DGPM, WRU, still needs to catch up with decades old case law regarding Modvat and Cenvat? It's repeatedly held procedural lapses aren't reason enough to deny credit. How will the dept reduce litigation? Should Tribunal for fairness?

18th October, 2018 : CESTAT Ahd : M/s Auto Care Lubricant Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vapi
The Tribunal relying on an earlier decision in Castrol India Ltd, held :
“The authorities under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act are the best judge to decide as to whether a product is required to be affixed with a MRP under the said Act or not. If said authority has clarified that 210 ltr. barrel are not required to be affixed with MRP, it was obligatory on the part of the Excise authority to accept such decision of Controller of Legal Metrology authority….., it was not open to the Excise authority to doubt the decision of the authority under Standards of Weights and Measures Act and to proceed independently ….”

18th October 2018 : CESTAT Ahd : M/s Javiya Finance Services, Javiya Marketing Vs C.C.E.& S.T.- Surat-I
The appellant were providing service of identifying customers for car loans and receiving commission from ICICI Bank. This was to be taxed under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS).  

The appellants admitted taxability but argued they were under bonafide belief the services are not taxable and so extended period of limitation should not be invoked.
Held : "The definition of Business  Auxiliary  Services  is  very  clear  and  there  is  no  scope  of interpretation. The definition specifically includes the service of promotion or marketing of any service of the client within its ambit." Appeals dismissed.


 12th Oct : CESTAT Mum : Tahnee Heights CHS Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South : Held : "The appellant also do not provide any service to its members, who pay the amount towards their share of contribution, for occupation of the units ....the explanation furnished under clause 3(a) in Section 65B of the Act will not designate the appellant as an entity, separate from its members....the case of the appellant is not confirming to the requirement of 'service', as per the definition contained in Section 65B(44) of the Act."

10th Oct : CESTAT Ahd :  L & T Ltd. etc Vs C.C.E. Ahd Appellants argued the law and IS specifications had changed for their product "concrete mix" made at site. It was eligible for the exemption making the earlier Supreme Court judgement in their own case irrelevant.

Tribunal ruled that there is no change in the  C.Ex Tariff Heading description as far as ready mix concrete is concerned. There is no mention of any IS Specification anywhere in the SC judgement. So changes in IS Specifications cannot be used to distinguish the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. Demand beyond the period of limitation set aside. Personal penalty quashed as this is a case of interretation.

11th Oct : CESTAT Chennai : M/s. Pepsico India HPL Vs Commr of GST & CE, Chennai Outer : The appellants had paid excess central excise duty for which they utilised the CENVAT credit. On realizing this they suo moto took re-credit of the excess amount debited from the Cenvat account.

Held:  Following the said decisions of the High Courts, The impugned order and demand was set aside.

3rd October, 2018 : Mayur Printers & Ors Vs C.C.E.& S.T. Surat-I :

Two points were raised in the Rectification of Mistake Application. First, credit denied on defective gate passes and second, there was no findings in respect of cenvat credit lying in their account which should have been adjusted against the demand. Tribunal held - credit admissible if established through evidence. Matter remanded.

3rd October, 2018: CESTAT Ahd C.C., Kandla Vs Reliance Port & Terminals Ltd.: Revenue argued thatEPCG benefit was not available for “consumables” which was deleted from Not 97/2004 Cus on 21.5.2007. “Consumables” are not “capital goods”.  Respondents submitted the imported items were “used for installation of Crude. Product pipelines, therefore, all the goods used during the initial installation of pipeline shall be categorized as capital goods only.” The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on limitation without entering the merits of the case as the Revenue had abandoned the argument of limitation.



High Court Judgements


2nd July, 2018  : Allahabad High Court : Hamdard (Wakf) Labs Vs Commr Of Commercial Taxes : The High Court upholds the Tribunal order and holds that "Sharbat "Rooh Afza" is not unclassifiable under Schedule-V of the Act and liable to tax @ 12.5%. It is neither fruit juice nor fruit drink nor processed fruit.

2nd July, 2018 :  Delhi High Court : JOYCE KAROUNG Vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU : Relying on the SC judgment in Babua v. State of Orissa, (2001) 2 SCC 566 the High Court concluded the petitioner is not prima facie not guilty. Also, liberty of a citizen must be balanced with the interest of the society especially where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved. It is alleged that this is not the first offence.

Click for earlier Judgements in 2018

Legal Disclaimer

The information published in this site is intended for general guidance only. Often, the impact of tax laws largely vary depending on the specific facts of each case. The law in India is dynamic with frequent changes, this site is not meant to provide instant information on tax changes. Hence dissemination of some information may be delayed. Also due to space constraints and prioritization, it is likely some information relevant for a particular reader may not be published. Further, the information here is provided with the clear understanding that website, authors or publishers are not rendering any legal, accounting, tax, or other professional advisory services. The information provided here together with the specific facts of the case should be invariably vetted  professionally through competent advisers before proceeding with any decision.

While we will be diligent to ensure that information in this site is from reliable sources, however we are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or changes to facts, or the consequences of using this information. Every information in this site is provided "as is", with no assurance of completeness, accuracy etc. and without any warranty. In no event will Tax Quotient its employees, agents or associates will be liable to anyone else for any decision made or action taken relying on the information in this Site or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

There are a few 3rd Party links indicated in this site over whom Tax Quotient has no control. Tax Quotient does not represent that the information in these sites are accurate or will not be liable for any content in other websites.

The website owner reserves the right to temporarily suspend access to the website without prior notice and also restrict access or registration on this site to anyone without assigning reasons.

Tax Risk Management Part 1

An Introduction


Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing. 
- Warren Buffet

Read the Article


Tax Risk Management Part 2

Tax Risks as Black Swan Events!

If you were asked "What 'tax risks' you perceive in your business?" What would be your answer?

Read the Article



Indirect Tax Risk Management

Indirect Risk Tax Management




Economic Survey of India 2017-18