Interest on refund is available from date of reassessment when there is suppression of facts by assessee

Bawa Trading Co. v. Sales Tax Officer* [2017] 78 taxmann.com 104 (Orissa)

In step with the goernment's Digital India Initiative, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has launched a mobile applicatrion for 'Goods And Service Tax'.Taxpayers can readily access a host of GST information such as:

The High Court of Calcutta held that labelling and packing of handmade biri in printed plastic wrappers with aid of power operated machine to bring into existence retail pack would not come within purview of 'manufacture'.

Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Siliguri v. Kishan Biri Mfg. Co.* [2017] 78 taxmann.com 167 (Calcutta)

The CESTAT, Allahabad Bench held that activities to upgrade aircrafts being manufacturing activities, is not 'maintenance and repair services'.

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central  Excise, Kanpur* [2017] 78 taxmann.com  68 (Allahabad - CESTAT)

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that where assessee provided various kinds of telecom services such as cellular, fixed line and broadband services and paid service tax thereon, levy of VAT on SIM card replacement charges and lease line charges received by assessee from subscribers not justified.

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, LTU, Indore* [2017] 78 taxmann.com 106 (Madhya Pradesh)

The CESTAT, Mumbai Bench held that assessee was engaged in renting of earthmoving equipments and terms and conditions stipulated in agreement entered into between assessee and lessor led to conclusion that transaction envisaged in agreement was one of transfer of right to use goods, assessee's activity of giving equipments on hire did not fall under category of 'supply of tangible goods for use'

Gimmco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Nagpur* [2017] 78 taxmann.com 30 (Mumbai - CESTAT)

Services by way of carrying out,-

The Delhi goverenment announced reduction in VAT on jet fuel for regional carriers flying out of Delhi airport.The VAT on Aviation Turbine Fuel(ATF) bought for regional flights will be charged at the rate of 1% and not 25%.

The High Court Of Delhi held that in case, Customs Department does not issue show-cause notice under section 124(a) within six months or within extended period of six months from seizure, goods have to be released to person from whom they have been seized; Custom Department cannot take shelter under device of detention of goods in order to avoid consequences flowing from seizure of goods 

Jatinder Kumar Sachdeva v. Union of India* [2017] 77 taxmann.com 50

The Supreme Court of India held that trade discounts affectuated subsequent to original sale but evidenced by contemporaneous documents and reflected in relevant accounts are allowable.

Southern Motors v. State of Karnataka [2017] 77 taxmann.com 251 (SC)

The Cestat, New Delhi Bench held that Reimbursable expenses collected by services provider from service recipient could not be held to be a part of value of services being provided by services provider and same could not be subjected to service tax.

Fortune Park Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi* [2017] 77 taxmann.com 183

The High Court of Delhi held that rule 3(2)(b)(ii) of the Delhi Tax on Luxury Rules, 1996 Mandating Banquet Hall Owners to include entire value of turnover to determine Luxury Tax regardless of whether substantial part or whole of it is subjected to VAT levy is ultra vires.

Community Welfare Banquet Association v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi* [2017] 77 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi)

The Supreme Court of India held that where assessee imported automobiles from outside Tamil Nadu State and on purchase value of goods paid entry tax at rate of 13 per cent under Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 and also paid sales tax on said goods at rate of 12 per cent under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and High Court held that assessee would be entitled to adjustment of sales tax paid to extent of entry tax paid, SLP was to be dismissed on ground of delay.

Commercial Tax Officer v. Coimbatore Auto Garage (P.) Ltd.* [2017] 77 taxmann.com 70 (SC)

The High Court Of Patna held that where Assessing Officer framed original assessment of assessee dealing in mobile phones under section 31 or section 33 and subsequently he on basis of a judgment of SC issued on assessee a notice under section 31 seeking to reopen his assessment, issuance of notice would amount to change of opinion 

Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. State of Bihar* [2017] 77 taxmann.com 217

Dubai has imposed a 5% import duty on gold and diamond jewellery

Just as for goods, the goods and services tax (GST) Council is planning to bring different rates of tax for services as well. The highest rate would be for "luxury" services.

Notification dated 12th January by Revenue Department, import ocean freight and ancillary charges would be subject to a service tax at the rate of 4.5 per cent.

The Centre and the states reached consensus on a number of contentious issues during the GST Council meeting.The entire tax base would be shared between the Centre and States in a predetermined ratio. The Centre agreed the States would have the powers to administer 90 per cent of assessees with an annual turnover of up to Rs 1.5 crore. The Centre will have the powers to audit, send notices and scrutinise the remaining 10 per cent. Only West Bengal did not agree and said that this agreement pertained to services only. 

Assessees with a turnover over Rs 1.5 crore will be administratively controlled by the Centre and States in equal measure. However, no assessee would be controlled by two authorities and there would be computer-based enforcement at both  the Centre and the States. Those assessees who fall under the integrated GST (IGST) - for the movement of goods and services between states - will also be administered by the Centre and States, depending on their annual turnover (Rs 1.5 crore, or more).

The Supreme Court of India held that Where two assessees, namely, 'GSFC' and 'GACL' received acid through common pipeline from Reliance Industries and said acid came first to premises of 'GSFC', where handling facilities were installed, and from there it was shared between 'GSFC' and 'GACL' in ratio of 60:40 respectively and further by an agreement handling facilities expenditure was shared equally by both parties, payment of handling expenditure which was made by 'GACL' to 'GSFC' was share of 'GACL' and it could not be treated as common service provided by 'GFSC' to 'GACL' in order to levy service tax upon 'GSFC'.