CASE LAWS
2017-TIOL-421-HC-GUW-VAT
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD Vs STATE OF ASSAM: GAUHATI HIGH COURT (Dated: January 17, 2017)
Assam Value Added Tax Act - Sections 81 & 108
Assam General Sales Tax Act - 17(4) & 18
Keywords - Limitation Period, Re-assessment of Tax, Revision Petition.
Whether Re-assessment of tax can be done beyond the period of limitation - NO: High Court
The assessee filed Revision Petitions u/s 81 of the AVAT Act. Assessee alleged that re-assessment for period 2001-02 & 2002-03 was done after 8 years, beyond the period of limitation. Hence not tenable in law.
Having heard the parties, the High Court held that,
++ While State permitted to recover tax which escaped assessment, through retrospective application of the concessional rate notification, State is not simultaneously allowed to exercise their taxing power in situations, where the right to recovery stood extinguished by operation of law. Thus the re-assessment legally impermissible even for a situation of wrongful assessment at a lower rate where beyond limitation period.
Assessee's Appeal Allowed
2017-TIOL-420-HC-MUM-ST
CCE & ST Vs KUMAR BEHERAY RATHI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 13, 2017)
ST - Office objections having been removed by Revenue, the technical delay of 2 days in filing appeal is condoned and Revenue appeal which was dismissed for non-removal of office objections is restored - as the Registry has been assured by the Commissionerate that it would follow up the matters with the assistance of all Advocates on the Panel, notice of motion is made absolute: High Court [para 3, 4]
Appeal restored
2017-TIOL-419-HC-AHM-CUS
CC Vs CORA CHEM: GUJARAT HIGH COURT (Dated: February 14, 2017)
Cus - It is not in dispute that the dispute in the present Tax Appeal is with regard to Notification No. 203/92-Cus - value based advance license scheme, the goods imported against which relates to rate of customs duty to be charged, and therefore, in view of Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, with respect to such dispute, an appeal before this Court shall not be maintainable and it shall lie only before the Supreme Court - It is open for the Revenue/appellant herein to prefer appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court if they so choose and/or so advised Tax appeal disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
Appeal not maintainable
2017-TIOL-418-HC-KOL-CUS
B GHOSH AND COMPANY PVT LTD Vs UoI: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (Dated: February 22, 2017)
Cus - Allegation of shortlanding of goods made in the SCN is on the basis of the notings made on the Green Boat Notes - Customs authority acknowledge in their affidavit that the Green Boat Notes are required to be prepared by the Customs officers and countersigned by the representative of the ship - In the present case, the Green Boat Notes have not been prepared by an officer of the Customs authorities - Therefore, allegation of shortlanding of goods remains unsubstantiated and unsupportable in view of such Green Boat Notes not being signed by a person duly authorized by the Customs authorities - impugned show-cause notice remains unsupportable and is, therefore, set aside - All steps taken pursuant to such show-cause notice are also set aside: High Court [para 18, 19]
Petition disposed of
2017-TIOL-417-HC-KOL-CUS
CYGNET INDIA PVT LTD Vs UoI: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (Dated: December 22, 2016 )
Cus - Petitioner assails two orders of two different authorities, one is of DGFT dated August 31, 2005 and the other is of the Custom Authorities dated August 25, 2009 - petitioner did not prefer any appeal against DGFT order despite having complete knowledge of such proceeding - petitioner became aware that a demand was raised by DGFT consequent upon an adjudication in the proceeding, however, petitioner did not take any steps even in spite of such knowledge - No documents have been annexed to the writ petition to establish the so-called ill health of the director of the petitioner - in the matter of the order passed by the Customs authorities, the petitioner was afforded three opportunities to appear in the adjudication proceeding, however, the petitioner chose not to - petitioner is well aware of such adjudication proceeding but chose not to prefer any appeal from the order passed in the adjudication proceeding - No explanation is given in the writ petition for the delay - adjudication orders having attained finality, any direction on the Authorities to consider the representation made at the behest of the petitioner will be an idle formality - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 7 to 10]
Petition dismissed
2017-TIOL-416-HC-DEL-CUS
CC Vs YOGESH KUMAR: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: February 20, 2017)
Cus - Revocation of CHA license - Tribunal found that the party was genuine and the requisite documents had been verified - No substantial question of law arises: HC
Appeal Dismissed
2017-TIOL-415-HC-KAR-CUS
AGARWAL COAL CORPORATION PVT LTD Vs CC: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (Dated: February 1, 2017 )
Customs - Modification of Stay - The present appeal is directed against the interim order passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the application for modification of the interim order passed earlier has been rejected.
Held: When the first interim order was passed by the Tribunal on the stay application, wherein, the stay came to be granted on a condition to deposit 50% of the amount with proportionate interest, the said order is accepted by the appellant in as much as the said order was not challenged before higher judicial forum - after a period of about nine months, another application has been filed for modification of that order, seeking unconditional stay - The Tribunal found that there is no change in the circumstances and therefore, rejected the application. [Para 4]
Once interim order is passed, unless there is change in the circumstances particularly on facts, the judicial forum cannot modify or review its own order - So far as appellant is concerned, for a period of about nine months though the order has operated, no deposit is made - There are no change in the circumstances so far as the factual aspect is concerned; subsequent change in law cannot be said to be a valid ground for modification of the earlier interim order, which is accepted by the parties and remained challenged before any forum - Even in the present appeal the challenge is to subsequent order but not the original interim order - the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application; has exercised the judicial discretion which cannot said to be erroneous - the litigation appears to be a frivolous litigation to delay the recovery of the revenue - If the appellant was dissatisfied with the first conditional order for deposit of 50%, nothing prevented the appellant to approach the higher forum; and has merrily enjoyed the time - The application filed for modification has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal - the appellant should be saddled with the cost for wasting of public time; the appropriate cost should be Rs.20,000/- and the appellant be directed to deposit the said amount within two weeks, with the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the benefit of the poor litigants. [Para 7-12]
Appeal dismissed
