Article
Reconciling labelling requirements applicable under various Rules and Regulations for goods imported into India
Certain labelling laws target goods by category - food, drugs, etc., while there are others which target goods based on other aspects like form of packaging (LM Rules) or applicability of quality standards (BIS). As the ambit of these laws is varied, a single product might require complying with labelling requirements set out in more than one law. The authors (Anaya Bhide and Srinidhi Ganeshan) in this issue of Indirect Tax Amicus observe that the overriding effect of specific laws over the LM Rules is only for certain declarations, i.e. only where it is specified, and that the specific laws vary with LM Rules in numerous ways. They also illustrate a few differences for this purpose. According to them, importers must be aware of all laws applicable to their product and must ensure complete compliance with the same and must be careful to ensure that compliance under one law does not amount to violation under another law.
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Notifications and Circulars
- GST liability clarified for certain services
Ratio decidendi
- Assignment of leasehold rights by lessee to third party is transfer of immovable property, thus not liable to GST – Gujarat High Court
- Appeal to Appellate Authority – Delay in filing certified copy of order is condonable if online filing was timely completed, during period prior to amendment to Rule 108 – Delhi High Court
- Refund permitted of GST paid through cash, when ITC could not be transitioned due to delayed operationalization of TRAN-1 form – Madras High Court
- Interest is imposable when transitional credit is wrongly availed – Gujarat High Court
- Penalty – Section 122(2)(b) cannot be invoked in absence of intention to evade – Gujarat High Court
- Services provided to the parent company when covered as exports and not as intermediary services – Gujarat High Court
- Solar Power Generating System is not ‘immoveable property’ – Supply covered as ‘composite supply’ and not as ‘works contract’ – Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Recovery of dues of society not permissible from its members, treating former as ‘Association of Persons’ – Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Registration – Consent of co-owner is not required for grant of registration – Allahabad High Court
- No GST on regulatory services by Electricity Regulatory Commissions – Bifurcating adjudicatory and regulatory roles is not correct – Delhi High Court
- Demand – No requirement to issue separate SCNs for each financial year – Bombay High Court
- Non-registration of an additional place of business is only technical and venial breach of provisions – Madras High Court
- Refund of IGST on exports when PAN in Shipping Bill and GST return mismatched – Reflection of shipping bill amendment in ICEGATE directed – Gujarat High Court
- Arrest/detention – Continued detention at stage of investigation when not required – Gauhati High Court
- Refund of GST paid on advance payments, to buyer, in case of cancellation of contract, is permissible – Karnataka High Court
- Absence of corresponding notification by State Government does not make notification by Central Government ultra vires – Chhattisgarh High Court
- Section 129 does not envisage an inevitable levy of tax and penalty – Non-obstante clause in Section 129 does not override mandate in Section 126 – Delhi High Court
- Cross-empowerment of State GST officers as CGST officers – Separate notification is not required as statutory mandate available under Section 6(1) – Kerala High Court
Customs
Notifications and Circulars
- India-Australia FTA – Fourth tranche of concessions notified
- Authorised Economic Operator – Automated Out of Charge for AEO T2 and T3 from 1 January
- Foreign Trade Policy amendments – Stakeholder consultation introduced
- Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations – Applicability for Ports (Other than certain specified ports) further deferred till 31 March 2025
- SCOMET – Guidelines issued for voluntary disclosure of failure to comply with the Regulations
- Seeds and Planting Materials – SOP issued for export authorisations for restricted goods
Ratio decidendi
- Penalty not imposable under Customs Act for alleged misdeclaration before DGFT to obtain an authorization – CESTAT New Delhi
- ‘Liable to penalty’ can only mean ‘may be penalised’ – Discretion to be judiciously exercised – CESTAT New Delhi
- Exemption – Condition of specific use after import does not mean ‘actual user’ condition – CESTAT New Delhi
- Customs cannot question an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate issued by DGFT – CESTAT New Delhi
- Exemption to WAP products using MIMO technology – Word ‘and’ in Sl. No. 13(iv) in Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. is to be read disjunctively – Delhi High Court
- SEZ – Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs to investigate various issues – CESTAT Allahabad
- Investigation Report is not an appealable order – CESTAT Chennai
- Rate of duty when BE could not be filed due to a system error and the rates got revised subsequently – CESTAT Chennai
- Adjudication – Placement of matter in call book does not constitute valid ground to condone delay in adjudication – Delhi High Court
Central Excise, Service Tax & VAT
Ratio decidendi
- Intra-group transactions, between foreign HO and Indian branch, does not automatically lead to service tax liability without actual provision of services – CESTAT Mumbai
- Branch office in India is not liable to service tax for services rendered by foreign CRS/GDS companies to HO located outside India – CESTAT Larger Bench
