Blog

The Telangana AAR in the ruling No. TSAAR Order No. 05/2024has ruled that GST is payable for providing renting services for buildings which is provided to the Government Social Welfare College Boys Hostel wherein the applicant is providing renting of buildings to GHMC and municipalities, and further, there is no direct nexus between the services provided by the applicant and the functions discharged by the Government Social Welfare College Boys Hostel under Article 243W of the Constitution and hence the applicant is not eligible for this exemption.

The Telangana AAR in the ruling No. TSAAR Order No.04/2024 has decided that the AIIMS cannot claim Exemption under the GST Act on pure services received from its vendors on the basis that the applicant although is not the Central Government but a Governmental authority was established by the Government through the Parliament. Subsequently, the GST exemption Notification 12/2017 was amended w.e.f. 01.01.2022 hadomits the phrase Governmental Authority from the description of the services; hence, the applicant is not eligible for exemption.

RBI through notification no. RBI/2023-24/126 dated 23.02.2024 permits authorized banks and non-banks to issue PPIs for making payments across various public transport systems. These instructions are issued under Section 18 r.w.s 10(2)of the Payment and  Settlement  Systems  Act,  2007, and shall come into effect immediately.

Govt. notifies July 1, 2024, as the effective date for enforcement of provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Ministry of Corporate Affairs incorporation-related services can also be accessed through the National Single Window System (NSWS) by going through the following link: https://www.nsws.gov.in/

The NCLAT has dismissed the appeal file by the appellant against the order passed by the adjudicating authority wherein the Authority has allowed the application filed by the financial creditor for the replacement of the appellant by a new Resolution Professional based on the Resolution dated 06.10.2023 passed by the CoC for replacement of the appellant.

The bench noted that when the CoC had not confirmed the appointment of the IRP, the IRP could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of IBC. Further, the tribunal has observed that the CoC never confirmed the appointment of the appellant as the IRP and no evidence has been provided indicating the CoC’s confirmation by a majority of not less than 66% of the vote. Therefore, when the appellant’s appointment as IRP was not confirmed, he could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of the IBC.

The Allahabad High Court in W.T. No. 141/2023 has quashed the penalty which was imposed because of the production of expired e-way bill, decided that as there is no intention to evade tax which was established by the authorities and subsequently there was no dispute regarding consignor and consignee and the description of the goods, the penalty could not be imposed on the grounds for a technical error.

The brief facts pertaining to this case are:

• The goods of the petitioner were intercepted and the e-way bill had expired, wherein no discrepancies were found between the goods and the invoices and the other e-way bill.
• The petitioner stated the reason for the expiry of the e-way bill due to the breakdown of the vehicle and the letter of the mechanic who repaired the vehicle along with the ‘fast-tag’ chart was produced before the court as evidence.
• The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case M/S “Pepsico India Holdings Limited Lucknow v. Commissioner of Trade Tax and Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited Ghaziabad and Others v. State of U.P. and Others”, wherein the petitioner contended that the penalty could not be imposed on the grounds of requisite documents with the goods.
• Decision: The court has quashed the order of the penalty because without having the intention to evade tax, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under Section 129(3) based on technical errors.

The Bombay High Court in the case having W.P(C).1085/2024 has held that the service provided by an individual advocate or a partnership firm of advocates of legal services is exempt from levy of service tax and further, the court has observed that the taxable service in respect of services provided by the individual advocate for a firm of advocates has been set out to be Nilwherein the Notification No. 25/2012, also clearly provides that the service provided by an individual advocate, a partnership firm of advocates, by way of legal services, is exempt from the levy of service tax.

The brief facts pertaining to this case are:

• The petitioner is a practicing advocate and has challenged an order passed by the DCCGST by which an amount towards service tax was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, inter alia along with the interest and penalty.
• The petitioner further contended that the department, in passing the order hence, interference by the court in the proceeding would be justified and there are several procedural illegalities, amounting to a breach of the principles of natural justice, in passing the order wherein the first SCN based on which the impugned order has been passed was neither issued nor received by the petitioner and once the order itself was without jurisdiction which was binding on the designated officer, he could not have passed the order.
• Decision: The court noted that the without any jurisdiction forwarded the proceedings, as service tax was not leviable on the individual advocate and such contention had not been considered by the Designated Officer before passing the order and hence preferred to quash and set aside the order for the reasons that the designated officer had passed without jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant assessee against the order of the High Court which dismissed the appeal because of Delay in filing the paper book. Further, the High Court has dismissed the restoration application and furthermore dismissed the restoration application filed by the appellant assessee.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should admit and examine the facts of the appeal and the Apex Court condones the delay and has restored the original appeal with a direction to take up the appeal together and dispose of the matters after allowing all the contesting parties. (Remanded back to High Court for adjudicating based on merits)

The Madras High Court in the case having WP(C)24032/2021 has quashed the assessment proceedings initiated in violation as prescribed u/s 144B. The bench has observed that a duty is cast on the AO in terms of Section 144B(1)(xiv) to take into account all relevant material frames the draft assessment order wherein the respondent has erred in not complying with the mandatory requirement since the draft assessment order has been made without even examining/taking into account the objections/response of the petitioner made vide letter dated 22.09.2021and herein the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind to relevant matters and on record, thus stands vitiated.

The brief facts pertaining to this case are:

• The assessee company engaged in the manufacture, production, and sale of animal feed, aquatic feed, and aquatic health care products wherein filed its return declaring “Nil” income after set-off of brought forward losses.
• Subsequently, the ITO issued an SCN to make additions for invoking penalty u/s 270A wherein the assessee filed its reply along with supporting evidence and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3).
• The bench has found that the intimation by the NFaC u/s 144B(1)(iii) has not been furnished as the method and manner adopted in making the assessment is now a complete faceless assessment which was launched in 2020 to promote an efficient and effective tax administration, minimize physical interface & increasing accountability.
• The Bench opined that intimation u/s.144B(1)(iii) informs an assessee that the assessment would be made in terms of Sec.144B which is important if one bears in mind that Faceless Assessments u/s.144B comes with its own set of obligations and rights in making the assessment.
• On this the order was passed without considering objections filed by the assessee, the Bench pointed out that such an assessment order traverses beyond the draft assessment order and hereby prejudice to the assessee.
• Decision: The court on this basis decided that the draft assessment order suffers from non-application of mind and thereby sets aside impugned proceedings and directed the revenue to follow the procedure contemplated u/s.144B.(In the favour of the assessee).