Rajasthan HC holds sale of ‘pizza’ and ‘sandwiches’ to be ‘cooked foods’, eligible to exemption from payment of VAT in excess of 5% vide notification dated March 09, 2010;
2/10
Perusing Notification and Entry providing for rate of tax @ 14% on goods notified therein, as well as ubsequent amendments to Rate Schedule, HC at the outset clarifies that the sale of ‘pizza’ and ‘sandwich’ would qualify as sale of ‘cooked food’;
3/10
Holds lower authorities i.e. The Additional Commissioner and Tax Board in err for holding that ‘pizza’ and ‘sandwich’ as ‘branded bakery product’ and not ‘food’;
4/10
HC finds that conclusion drawn by lower authorities that these products are not ‘food’ as per the common parlance theory because the general public do not see these items as a substitution to regular meals which include vegetables, chapatti/roti, rice etc,
5/10
is “reached without appreciation of any evidence whatsoever”; Pertinently, observes that the authorities have “reached a perverse conclusion” relying upon “extraneous, unsound, specious, and ill-founded factors” and mentions that, Revenue failed to substantiate its claim;
6/10
Concurs with assessee while citing the settled principle that subsequent legislation can be looked at in order to see what was the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier legislation when the earlier legislation is found to be obscure or ambiguous;
7/10
Thus, emphasizes on State Government Notification amending Schedule V of the RVAT Act inserting rate of tax 14% on the goods notified therein vide Entry 16 (v) and subsequent amendment in 2015 which includes
8/10
“(v) Cooked food like pizza, burger, fried chicken, French fries, sandwich, hot dog, noodles, potato chips, bakery items and any other cooked food item served or sold including home delivery thereof, under a brand name by any branded chain outlet of cooked food.”
9/10
in the said Entry; Accordingly, answers questions of law in favour of assessee and allows sales tax revision
[Devyani International Ltd. vs. The Additional Commissioner]
User Development Fee collected by International airport a ‘statutory-levy’, not liable to service tax
SC - Central GST Delhi vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd.
1/5
SC holds that no service tax is applicable on ‘User Development Fee’ (UDF) collected from domestic and international passengers departing from Delhi, Hyderabad and Mumbai international airports; At first blush, clarifies that
2/5
(i)User Development Fee is a statutory levy
(ii)Collection is not premised on rendering of any service
(iii)Amounts collected are deposited in escrow account (which does not make it any less a statutory levy or compulsory exaction), not within the control of the assesses
3/5
The Finance Bill 2023 was passed in the Lok Sabha without a discussion on Friday.
Finance Bill 2023 passed in Lok Sabha — check key amendments and highlights ⬇⬇
1/8
1⃣ Mutual Funds (MFs) having less than 35 percent AUM in domestic equity are to be taxed as short-term capital gains.
2⃣ Enhanced tax benefits to offshore banking units operating in GIFT City. Offshore banking units to get 100 percent deduction on income for 10 years.
2/8
3⃣ Tax on Royalty or technical fee earned by foreign (non-resident) Cos hiked from 10 percent to 20 percent.
4⃣ No Change in tax on non-par savings insurance products (Rs 5 lakh cap remains).
3/8
➡️ Hotel and restaurant industry may soon get relief on GST
➡️ Finance Ministry is considering their demand to change current GST structure
➡️ GST on Hotels/Restaurants may be increased to 12% from 5% with ITC benefit
2/5
Source says:
➡️ Alert: At present Hotels/Restaurants attracts 5% GST without input tax credit
➡️ Finance Ministry has sent the proposal to the fitment committee of the GST council
3/5
Bombay HC: Pre-arrest bail application ‘premature’ where only witness-summons were issued
Bombay HC rejects the pre-arrest bail application “premature” where Asst. Commissioner has only issued witness-summon to applicant for recording his statement and verify books of account;
Finding the apprehension of Applicant that he will be arrested without following due process as “unfounded”, Court clarifies that at this stage, the Asst. Commissioner only suspects Applicant’s involvement in the Platinum Trading Company scam.
Only after recording his statement, if Revenue finds “reason to believe that arrest is imperative”, the applicant may justify the apprehension of arrest; Opines that “applicant must first cooperate with the investigation, which is only for the purpose of recording his statement.
The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of M/s. Durga Raman Patnaik v. Additional Commissioner of GST [W.P.(C) No.7728 of 2022 dated August 4, 2022],
2/5
where the Petitioner opted for applying for revocation of the cancellation by complying with all the other requirements of depositing all the tax, penalty and interest due as payable and other formalities as required by law.
3/5