Indirect Tax case update

• In the tax regime, generally, the tax department rejected the unutilized credit on the ground the same has not been reflected in the return. Means the Department has allowed the credit only when the credit has been reflected in the return. Credit reflected in the books of account has no more relevance in the eyes of department. Henceforth, to overcome this situation, the Hon'ble CESTAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Wardurg Pincus pronounced the wonderful judgment wherein the court has allowed the refund of unutilized cenvat credit which has not been reflected in the return. Meaning thereby, books of account has to be maintained properly in terms of the provision of law so that the unutilized credit has to be claimed.   
• The Petitioner before Orissa High  Court seeks a direction to the Opposite Parties to permit the Petitioner to rectify the GST Return filed for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 ie. on 16th October 2017, 25th November 2017, 30th January 2018 and 30th March,2019 in FormB2B instead of B2C as was wrongly filed under GSTR-1 in order to get the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit by the principal contractor.  
• Supreme Court requires purchasers to prove actual movement of goods to claim GST credit   
• Orissa High Court  allowed rectification of GSTR-1 return filed for the period September 2017 and March 2018.
• The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the department or Proper Officer has no power under section 70 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 to summon of Party to stop all GST Payment
• As per Kolkata CESTAT GST not applicable on TDS relating to Foreign Supplier payment.   
• Delhi High Court has settled the air around much litigated concept of ‘intermediary’ under the GST Laws. Hon’ble High Court has held that intermediary is a mere arranger or facilitator of service of a third party, i.e., a person who only acts as a bridge between a service recipient and provider of service. An assessee who provides the service can never be an intermediary. 
• DGFT Has No Authority To Violate The Foreign Trade Policy, Power Lies Only With Central Govt Karnataka High court  
• SC in the case of Edlweiss Financials held that there is no element of service when a holding company provides corporate guarantee to subsidiary company, there is no element of service and hence not taxable. 
• Karnataka HC quashes amendment to Rule 89(4)(C) which restricts refund of unutilized ITC under GST.  
• Andhra Pradesh AAR held that GST is not applicable on amount recovered from employees for canteen & transport facilities provided by a third-party.
• Employee recoveries for subsidized food provided, especially when provided due to statutory mandate is now clearly emerging as not a "supply" on the recovery portion and hence no GST. Even ITC is held to be available to the extent of food provided to the direct employees and limited to the cost borne by the employer after 1.2.2019. Encouraging to note!!. Refer Gujarat AAR in Cadilla Pharma 
• SC holds import of customized Designs and Drawings on paper was liable to service tax
• Madras High Court dictates that a mechanism must be put in place to restore ITC for recipient if the supplier remits the tax subsequently