RR India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, in pursuance of the search operation which was conducted between 01.11.2019 and 30.11.2019, at various places of the petitioner, under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, proceeded to issue provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act dated 02.12.2019 and 03.12.2019, which have also been impugned in the present petition - petitioner states that bank accounts have been attached under Section 83 of the Act; that they had filed objections to the original attachment, which have been rejected vide order No. 01/2020 dated 06.02.2020, only on the ground that the petitioner had not moved under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules within a period of 7 days of attachment - Petitioner further submits that under the CGST Act or Rules, there is no provision which mandates the filing of objections to provisional attachment within 7 days and that no consequence of delay in filing objections is provided; that the respondent does not suffer any adverse consequence on account of delay on the part of the objector in moving the objections which is beyond the period of 7 days of the date of the provisional attachment - Counsel for Respondent Revenue submitted that petitioners are bound to comply with the letter of the law and since sub-Rule 5 of Rule 159 stipulates that the person whose property is attached, may within 7 days of attachment under sub-Rule (1), file an objection, the petitioner ought to have filed the same within the aforesaid stipulated period, however, since, admittedly, the objections were preferred beyond the period of 7 days, respondent were bound to reject the same.

Held: It is clear that the period of 7 days prescribed in Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 is a directory and not a mandatory period, therefore, on account of delay on the part of the objector, if he prefers his objections beyond the period of 7 days, the objections cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - No consequence is prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules to say that if the objections are not preferred within 7 days, they shall not be entertained - Moreover, it is the objector who would suffer adverse consequence on account of delay on his part in raising the objections - The respondents do not suffer any adverse consequence on account of delay, if any, in moving the objections - Bench, therefore, holds that the period of 7 days prescribed in Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules for moving the objections to the provisional attachment is merely directory and not mandatory - Objections raised by the petitioner, therefore, could not be rejected on that ground alone - Order No. 1/2020 dated 06.02.2020 is accordingly set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the authority concerned for passing a fresh order on the merits of the objections - Officer concerned is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order within two weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9 to 11]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-561-HC-KOL-GST

Rishi Graphics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Though the time-limit for uploading of TRAN-1 is extended till March 31, 2020, sub-rule 1A of Rule 117 extends this benefit only to those registered persons who could not upload the form in time on account of technical difficulties on the common portal and in respect of whom, the GST Council forwards a recommendation for extension - In the present case, the request of the petitioners has not been accepted by the respondent authorities and, therefore, the benefit of the extension till March 31, 2020 is not available to these petitioners - Therefore, the petitioners have filed Writ petitions with a prayer for allowing them to file/upload GST TRAN-1.

Held: Request of the petitioners before the authorities along with the averments made in the writ petitions to the effect that they faced technical glitches are sufficient - Bench is of the view that assessees transitioning into a new procedure set out under the GST regime are bound to face complications and in some cases may be completely unable to carry out the new procedure - Bench, therefore, finds no reason to take a different view from that of the judgments cited by the petitioners - A procedural law should not take away the vested rights of persons that are provided to them by statute - Needless to mention, this vested right is subject to scrutiny by the Department, therefore, the petitioners should be allowed to upload the TRAN-1/revised TRAN-1 so that their claim of transfer of available credit may be considered by the authorities in accordance with law - GSTN authorities (Authority that manages the portal) are directed to open the portal for the petitioners till March 31, 2020 - Writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 4, 11, 12, 13]

- Petitions disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-445-CESTAT-MUM

ATA Freightline India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

ST - Application for early hearing is allowed as the issue involved is recurring in nature and on the ground of financial hardship - nonetheless, Bench makes it clear that since by allowing request for early hearing, the normal queue of listing the matters is compromised no request for adjournment made on that date shall be entertained and case if either of sides chooses to abstain or seek adjournment, matter shall be taken up for consideration and disposal ex-parte: CESTAT [para 4]

- Application allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

2020-TIOL-446-CESTAT-MUM

Amar Tubes Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Undisputed facts are that the appellant has surrendered their Central Excise Registration certificate on 09.07.2015 and at the time of surrendering of their registration, the CENVAT Credit amount lying unutilized was Rs.1,44,47,255/- which they claimed as refund in cash, initially under Section 11B and later under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - Main argument of the appellant is that during the period April, 2011 to October, 2011, since they defaulted in making monthly payment of duty, the Range Superintendent directed them to discharge duty through PLA without utilization of CENVAT Credit in compliance with the Rule 8(3A) of CER and which they did leading to the accumulation of CENVAT credit in their account - therefore, on closure of the factory, the CENVAT Credit amount should be refunded to them in cash - Appellant had filed a cash refund claim for Rs.1,44,47,255/- on 04.09.2015 of the unutilized CENVAT Credit lying in balance on the ground of closure of the factory - said claim was rejected by the original and the first appellate authority, therefore, appeal before CESTAT.

Held: Bench does not find merit in the contention of the appellant inasmuch as the present refund claim arose four years after the compliance of the Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by discharging the duty in cash for which a separate proceeding has been initiated by claiming refund in cash before the adjudicating authority, which on rejection, appeal is pending before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as claimed by the appellant - The present refund claim in cash arose as the CENVAT Credit amount was lying in balance as on date of closure of the factory - In the opinion of the Bench, the issue is squarely covered by the larger Bench of the judgment of Bombay High Court in Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd. - 2019-TIOL-1248-HC-MUM-CX-LB and wherein it is held that such a cash refund is impermissible - following the same, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner(A) - appeal is rejected: CESTAT [para 7, 9]

- Appeal rejected: MUMBAI CESTAT

TP - it is fit case for remand where issue of TP adjustment by way of interest income, raised by assessee, is not looked into by Tribunal, which then sets off to determine cost of interest on the international transaction in respect of interest to be charged on loan advanced to AE: HC

I-T - Stay merits being allowed on recovery of duty demanded, where issue based on which duty has been demanded, is pending for consideration & settlement before SC: ITAT

TIOL CORPLAWS

Arbitration - DRT & not Arbitral Tribunal is correct forum for settlement of private textile mills dues which are taken over by National Textile Corporation: SC Larger Bench

SEBI - Commencing restrained activities indirectly qualify as conducting such activities directly under normal circumstances: SAT

SEBI - FIR against defaulter on advice of whom GDRs were created & its proceeds were floated to various entities, is no relaxation for involvement in fraudulent scheme : SAT