Sri Sharada Ganapathi Cold Storage Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

GST - Petitioner is providing service of renting space in the cold storage to the agriculturists and traders for storage of agricultural produce like ground nut seeds, lentils, ginger, chillies, onion seeds, coriander seeds, toor, moong, etc. - upon inspection of the business premises, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) viewed that that some goods are not agricultural produce and are liable to tax under the GST, pursuant to which, the petitioner has obtained registration under the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and appears to have paid the taxes relating to the said activity carried on by it - It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2 violating the principles of natural justice issued the notice dated 21.03.2019 proposing to confiscate the goods and has simultaneously passed the prohibition order detaining the goods without affording an opportunity to file written reply and arbitrarily detaining the perishable goods belonging to third parties without there being any liability to make the payment of taxes on the said detained goods by the petitioner.

Held: In view of the enquiry proceedings having been initiated by respondent No.2 to ascertain the genuineness of the ownership of the goods stored in the cold storage in question and certain release orders being passed, Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be sub-served in directing respondent No.2 to conclude the enquiry relating to the goods in question in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than two weeks - petitioner to co-operate for the service of summons on the unserved persons/dealers - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7, 8]

- Petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

2019-TIOL-1480-CESTAT-MAD

C P Aquaculture India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - Application for early hearing - The applicant merits out-of-turn hearing on account of the tax value in the present matter exceeding Rs 5 crores - Matter be posted for hearing on 11.06.2019: CESTAT

- Application allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT

Erode Milk Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - The assessee acts as an agent of district Milk producers cooperative union for sale of Milk and Milk products as well as other allied products - During the relevant period, the Revenue issued an SCN on grounds that the assessee received commission from the union on which TDS had been deducted & TDS certificate was issued - It was alleged that the assessee acted as a commission agent & so was liable to pay tax on the commission received - The SCN invoked extended limitation on grounds that the assessee did not pay tax on such amount - Such demands were confirmed upon adjudication - Hence the present appeal.

Held - The Apex Court in The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Bhopal had held that while interpreting the terms of the agreement therein has held that what is to be looked into is the substance and not the form of it - Hence it is clear that the substance or the true relationship between the milk union and the assessee is what is to be looked into and not the way it appears - Hence the adjudicating authority is directed to keep in mind such judgment & pass a fresh order in this regard: CESTAT

- Case remanded: CHENNAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

2019-TIOL-1107-HC-DEL-CUS

Gaurav Paul Vs UoI

Cus - Whether the Revisionary Authority was justified in dismissing the Petitioner's revision petition against the order of Commissioner (A) only on the ground of short payment of requisite fee - Initially the petitioner tendered a fee of Rs.200/- along with his revision petition - Later on being told that the fee was Rs.1,000/- he made good the difference by depositing a challan of Rs.800/- and this was also accepted by the Revisionary Authority - Respondent No.1 states that she has written instructions to the effect that the records do not show that the balance fee of Rs.800/- was deposited - Nevertheless, this Court is of the view with the objection not having been pointed out at the time of hearing of the petition on merits, ought not to have led to the petition's dismissal on such technical ground - Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4th September 2018 passed by the Revisionary Authority is set aside: HC

- Petition disposed of : DELHI HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-1476-CESTAT-BANG

Cochin Port Trust Container Freight Station Vs CCT & CE

Cus - The assessee is approved as a Custom Cargo Service Provider under Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 for storage of containers and imported goods, de-stuffing of all FCL/LCL containers, Customs Examination before clearance, storage, examination and stuffing of export cargo into containers and storage of export and import transshipment containers under Section 8(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - The assessee submitted a Bond for Rs.3 Crores on 16.06.2015 for a period of three years with a validity up to 16.06.2018 - After the review, assessee was told to submit a Bond for a value of Rs.11 Crores but instead of submitting a new Bond, a letter was addressed to Commissioner on 07.06.2018 requesting the Commissioner to extend the validity of current Bond for a period of three months i.e. up to 15.09.2018 on the ground that for furnishing a fresh Bond, sanction of the Board of Cochin Port Trust is required and as there is likelihood of delay in the Board meeting and the assessee was not in a position to submit a new Bond of Rs.11 Crores immediately - Subsequently, assessee submitted a Bond of Rs.11 Crores on 20.06.2018 which was accepted by Competent Authority but as per the Customs, assessee has violated the provision of Regulation 5(3) as assessee was carried out operations without a valid Bond for a period of three days and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the Commissioner has found them guilty of violation of Regulation and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- - Though the Bond which was executed by assessee for Rs.3 Crores was due to expire on 16.06.2018 but assessee vide their letter dated 07.06.2018 requested for extension of the Bond on the ground that filing of the fresh Bond of Rs.11 Crores will take some time as the same needs approval of the Board of the Port Trust - Further, imposing the penalty without issuing the notice thereby denying an opportunity to oppose the imposition of penalty is in violation of the principles of natural justice - Further, the Department did not respond to the request of assessee made vide letter dated 07.06.2018 - In view of all these infirmities, imposition of penalty is not sustainable in law: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT