2020-TIOL-1463-HC-DEL-GST

Dish Tv India Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the FAQ released in January, 2018 and the Guidance Note on CGST Transitional Credit dated 14th March, 2018 issued by respondent no. 2 - Petitioner also challenges legality and validity of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 notified on 29th January, 2019 with effect from 1st July, 2017 as well as the provisions of Circular dated 2nd January, 2019 issued by respondent no. 2 giving retrospective/retroactive effect to Section 28(a) & (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 1st July, 2017 - Petitioner further seeks setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 27th May, 2020 issued to the petitioner as well as allowing of the refund application dated 15th May, 2018 – Petitioner also relies upon the Madras High Court decision in Suthland Global (P). Ltd. 2019-TIOL-2516-HC-MAD-GST - counsel for the respondent states that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is pending challenge before the Division Bench of Madras High Court.

Held: Respondent is permitted to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing - To await the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, list on 07th December, 2020: High Court

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1462-HC-MP-GST

GST - Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to allow it to avail the short transitioning of input tax credit ("ITC) by either updating electronic credit ledger at their back end, in accord with the details of credit submitted by the petitioner or allowing them to revise form GST TRAN-1, in conformity with the returns filed under the existing laws that stand repealed by the Act 2017 – Petitioner submits that they were facing technical difficulty in uploading the form TRAN-I, therefore, the petitioner relentlessly raised the grievance before the respondent authorities but of no avail - Various representations were submitted to the authorities but their grievance fell on deaf ears and no action was taken by the respondent authorities – Petitioner submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgments in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P&H-GST and Brand Equities Treaties Ltd 2020-TIOL-900-HC-DEL-GST .

Held: Court deems it proper to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the judgments cited before this court within a period of seven days before the Jurisdictional Commissioner from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order - In case, the petitioner files representation within the aforesaid period, the Jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to decide the same in the light of various judgments passed by the High Courts and the Apex Court and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter: High Court

- Petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1461-HC-KERALA-GST

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 detention notices issued to him by the 1st respondent detaining a consignment of used generators that was being transported at his instance - the reason for detention was the non-mention of the IGST payable in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods – petitioner contends that as per Rule 138A of the SGST Rules there is no requirement of mentioning the IGST applicable in the e-way bill and hence, the authorities are not justified in detaining the consignment.

Held: Bench finds force in the contention of the petitioner that as per the SGST Act and R.138 A of the SGST Rules, there is no requirement to mention the details of the tax payment in the copy of the e-way bill that accompanies the goods - It is not in dispute that the details of the tax paid were shown in the invoice that accompanied the transportation and there is no dispute raised by the respondents with regard to the accompaniment of the invoice along with the transportation - Under such circumstances and taking note of the judgment of this Court dated 12.08.2020 in W.P(C).No.16356 of 2020, Writ Petition is allowed by quashing Exts.P6 and P7 detention notices and directing the 1st respondent to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner: High Court [para 3]

- Petition allowed: KERALA GST

2020-TIOL-1460-HC-KERALA-GST

GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order passed against him - Petitioner submits that before passing Ext.P11 order he was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing or an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice, which is mandated as per the Rules - Counsel for Revenue submits, on instructions, that it is a fact that there was no proper hearing afforded to the petitioner pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice as mandated under the Rules, and the officer is ready to reconsider the matter, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to take copies of the documents sought to be relied against it in the proceedings, as also to consider any reasonable request for cross examination of persons.

Held: Taking note of the said submission, Bench allows this writ petition by quashing Ext.P11 order and directing the respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter after following the principles of natural justice - To enable the respondent to pass fresh orders as directed, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent at his office at 11 am on 07.09.2020 - Fresh orders to be passed by the respondent within three months: High Court [para 2]

- Matter remanded: KERALA HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1459-HC-AHM-GST

GST - Goods in question came to be seized and detained under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Writ applicants have submitted that they are seeking to confine the relief only to the extent of getting the goods released - petitioner points out that the notice issued under Section 130 of the Act is yet to be adjudicated and pray that pending confiscation proceedings, the goods may be ordered to be released as the liability towards tax, penalty and fine has also been determined by the competent authority - Bench drew the attention of the applicants to s.67(6) of the Act, 2017 and suggested that they should prefer an appropriate application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods - the applicant agrees to make such application at the earliest and accordingly, the competent authority is directed to look into the same at the earliest and pass an appropriate order on such application within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of such application - Writ application disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1458-HC-AHM-GST

GST - Subject matter of this writ application is the levy of tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the Ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs stations of clearance in India and the levy of collection of tax of such Ocean freight under the Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28th June 2017 - Court in Mohit Minerals ( 2020-TIOL-164-HC-AHM-GST ) and allied petitions declared the Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and the Entry No.10 of the Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax dated 28th June 2017 as ultra vires the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground that the same lacked legislative competency – Inasmuch as both the Notifications referred to above were declared to be unconstitutional - In such circumstances referred to above, this litigation succeeds and is hereby allowed - The respondents are directed to sanction the refund and pay the requisite amount of IGST already paid by the writ applicant pursuant to the Entry No.10 of Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28th June 2017 declared to be ultra vires by this Court in Mohit Minerals (supra) - The respondents shall undertake the process of refunding the requisite amount of IGST at the earliest and see to it that the same is paid to the writ applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order: High Court [para 4, 6]

- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-55-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Shree Infra

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Period involved is July 2017 to October 2018 - Authority by its order dated 21.10.2019 [ 2019-TIOL-50-NAA-GST ] held that the respondent had not passed on the benefit of ITC to its customers - the profiteered amount was held to be Rs.2,13,468/- and the respondent was directed to pay the same along with interest @18%; that since the respondent had indulged in profiteering and violation of the provisions of the s.171(1) of the Act, 2017 penalty was imposable and   a SCN is required to be issued u/s 171(3A) of the Act r/w rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules - accordingly, SCN dated 26.11.2019 was issued and the respondent made their submission on 09.01.2020 contending that s.171(3A) cannot be invoked as the same has come into force only on 01.01.2020; that the same cannot be applied retrospectively.

Held:  Period involved is  July 2017 to October 2018 -   Vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 [Notification 1/2020-CT], by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f.  01.01.2017 to 31.10.2018  when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 26.11.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-54-NAA-GST

Director-General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Aryan Hometec Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Applicant alleges that the respondent had included VAT and Service Tax in the MRP of the flat at the time of booking in the respondent's project 'Aryan Fountain Square' and demanded 12% GST on the pending amount which had resulted in double taxation, whereas the respondent was actually required to pass on the benefit of ITC for the construction done after the GST implementation and which had not passed on - DGAP in its report has stated that though there was provision to avail CENVAT credit in the pre-GST era and to avail ITC in the post-GST era but the respondent had availed credit of VAT and had not raised any demand in the pre-GST period i.e. from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2017; that in the post-GST period from 01.07.2017 to 30.04.2019, the respondent had not availed any ITC but received amount on account of prices of the flats and hence no comparison of credit available in the pre and post GST periods could be made; that, therefore, in absence of any credit availability in the post-GST period there might not be any commensurate reduction in prices on account of ITC accrual; that section 171(1) of the Act is not attracted in the present case.

Held: On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP's report that there has been no reduction in the rate of tax in the post GST period and hence the only issue to be examined is as to whether there was any additional benefit of ITC with the introduction of GST availed by the respondent or not - It is revealed from the DGAP report that no ITC has been availed by the respondent in the post-GST period and, therefore, there was no additional benefit of ITC which had accrued to the respondent post-GST as compared to pre-GST period - it can, therefore, be concluded that this case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-profiteering provisions of s.171 of the Act as the respondent had not availed benefit of additional ITC in the post-GST regime - Therefore, allegation of not passing on the benefit of ITC is not established against the respondent - accordingly, the respondent is not liable to pass on the benefit of ITC to the applicant and the other recipients - inasmuch as the provisions of s.171(1) of the Act have not been contravened in the instant case - since the application requesting action against the respondent for alleged violation is not maintainable, same is dismissed: NAA

- Application dismissed: NAA

2020-TIOL-52-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Man Realty Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Period involved is July 2017 to September 2018 - Authority by its order dated 05.11.2019 held [ 2019-TIOL-55-NAA-GST ] that the respondent  had not passed on the benefit of ITC availed by him by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the said flat; that  the quantum of profiteered amount  is arrived as Rs.1,27,84,694/-;  respondent was directed to pass on the profiteered amount along with interest @18% to the flat buyers within a period of three months; that  for the offence committed, respondent is liable for imposition of penalty and SCN in this regard is to be issued - accordingly, SCN was issued on 18.12.2019 seeking imposition of penalty mentioned in s.171(3A) read with rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules - vide their submissions dated 09.01.2020, respondent stated that penalty u/s 171(3A) cannot be imposed retrospectively since the same has come into force from 01.01.2020.

Held:  Period involved is  July 2017 to September 2018 -   Vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 [Notification 1/2020-CT], by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f.  01.01.2017 to 30.09.2018  when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 18.12.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 171(3A) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-51-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Bhutani International Medicos

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Authority vide its order dated 26.06.2019 [ 2019-TIOL-41-NAA-GST ] had held that the respondent had profiteered in the supply of Sanitary Napkins by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate from 12% to Nil  for the period 27.07.2018 to 30.09.2018 - Authority determined the profiteered amount as Rs.5283/- and which was held payable by the respondent - it was also held that for the offence  committed u/s 122(1)(i) of the Act, the respondent is liable for penalty - accordingly, sCN was issued on 03.07.2019 asking the respondent to explain why penalty mentioned in s.122 r/w rule 133(3)(d) should not be imposed - respondent made submission on 24.09.2019 stating that since they had accepted and paid the profiteered amount as directed by the Authority, penalty is not imposable; that there is no mens rea on their part.

Held:  Period involved is 27.07.2018 to 31.03.2018 - Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f.  27.07.2018 to 31.03.2018  when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 03.07.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-50-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Period involved is 15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 - Authority held that the respondent had profiteered by not passing the benefit of reduction in the GST rate to customers - accordingly,  Respondent was directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,253/- to the Applicant along with interest @ 18% p.a. and since the other customers of the product were not identifiable, the Respondent was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.88,525/- along with the interest at 18% P.A. till the date of deposit in the respective Central or State Consumer Welfare Fund within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order - Authority also directed issuance of SCN for imposition of penalty prescribed under Section 122 of the Act read with rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - accordingly, SCN was issued on 10.10.2018 for imposition of penalty - respondent replied vide submission dated 26.11.2019 stating that penalty cannot be imposed as the profiteered  amount as determined has been paid by them and there is no mens rea involved.

Held: Period involved is  15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018 -   Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f.  15.11.2017 to 28.02.2018  when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 10.10.2018 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

- Penalty dropped: NAA

2020-TIOL-49-NAA-GST

Director General Of Anti-Profiteering Vs S3 Infra Reality Pvt Ltd

GST - Anti-Profiteering - s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Period involved is 01.07.2017 to 31.08.2018 - Authority by its order dated 27.02.2019 [ 2019-TIOL-12-NAA-GST ] held that the  respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of commensurate reduction in the price after implementation of GST w.e.f 01.07.2017 and charged GST on full amount of instalments;  that there were a total of 663 other recipients who were not applicants in present proceedings and the additional amount of Rs.57,65,329/- was required to be returned to the eligible recipients along with interest @18%; that s ince respondent has denied benefit of ITC to buyers in contravention of s.171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has realized more price from them than he was entitled to collect and had compelled them to pay more GST than what they were required to pay, by issuing incorrect tax invoices, they have committed an offence u/s 122(1)(i) of the Act and are liable for imposition of penalty - accordingly, SCN was issued on 11.03.2019 proposing imposition of penalty for the offence committed under s.122(1) of the Act read with rule 133(3)(d) of the Rules - respondent made submissions by letter dated 04.04.2019 that penalty should not be imposed as they had accepted and paid the profiteered amount which had been determined by the authority; that there is no mens rea  involved.

Held: Period involved is 01 .07.2017 to 31.08.2018 -   Perusal of Section 122(1)(i) makes it clear that the violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) is not covered under it as it does not provide penalty for not passing on the benefits of tax reduction and ITC and hence the above penalty cannot be imposed for violation of the anti-profiteering provisions made under Section 171 of the above Act - Furthermore, vide Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2019 specific penalty provisions have been added for violation of the provisions of Section 171(1) which have come in to force w.e.f. 01.01.2020, by inserting Section 171(3A) - However, since no penalty provisions were in existence between the period w.e.f.  01 .07.2017 to 31.08.2018 when the Respondent had violated the provisions of Section 171(1), the penalty prescribed under Section 171(3A) cannot be imposed on the Respondent retrospectively - Accordingly, the notice dated 11.03.2019 issued to the Respondent for imposition of penalty under Section 122(1)(i) is hereby withdrawn and the present penalty proceedings launched against him are accordingly dropped: NAA

- Penalty dropped: NAA

Deepak Fertilisers And Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

In writ, the High Court notes that the Revenue already recovered a major portion of the duty demanded. Hence it directs that the assessee's appeal be disposed off by the Appellate Authority, conditional on the assessee pre-depositing an additional sum.

- Writ petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1456-HC-MAD-CT

In writ, the High Court finds that the issues at hand stand settled in favor of the assessee, through the judgment in the case of M/s The Ramco Cements Ltd & Others v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Hence the court disposes of the present appeal accordingly, with directions to be Revenue to issue the necessary forms.

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2020-TIOL-1449-HC-KERALA-VAT

Whether it is fit case for remand where the AO needs to examine certain agreements between the assessee & its clients, for a better understanding of the exact nature of the transactions - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

SERVICE TAX

Chaque Jour Hr Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Petitioner is aggrieved with rejection of its declaration filed under the amnesty scheme- Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Petitioner asserts that entire admitted tax liability of Rs. 1,75,63,982/- stands deposited, as on 1st September, 2018 and further sum of Rs. 16 lacs, towards interest on the admitted liability, stands paid between 3rd December, 2018 to 10th May, 2019 - In order to avail the benefit of this Scheme, Petitioner filed a declaration on the online portal, under Form SVLDRS-1 dated 21st November, 2019, premised on the understanding that the Service Tax amount stood quantified prior to the 'relevant date' i.e. 30th June, 2019 - However, on 10th December, 2019, the designated committee for Delhi-South Commissionerate rejected Petitioner's declaration holding it to be ineligible on the ground that there was no quantification of 'tax dues' - Subsequently petitioner filed W.P (C). No. 1999/2020, before this Court, impugning the rejection and vide order dated 11th March, 2020 = 2020-TIOL-625-HC-DEL-CX , this Court allowed the writ petition in favour of the Petitioner, with a direction to the Respondents to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner -Petitioner was directed to appear in person before the designated authority on 16th March, 2020 - However, prior to the date of hearing before the designated authority, Respondent No. 3 issued a demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 73(1) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of the GST Act - Respondents declined to accept Petitioner's contentions and vide order dated 16th March 2020, the declaration was rejected, second time - Aggrieved with the rejection, Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Held: By virtue of the circulars dated 12th December, 2019 and 27th August, 2019, the Respondents have clarified that the benefit of the Scheme can also be given to those cases where the duty involved is quantified by way of an admission made by the declarant in a statement made on or before 30th June, 2019 and this admission can be during an enquiry, investigation or audit report etc. – Director of the petitioner has in his statement dated 26 th July 2018 stated that the Service Tax liability as on 26.07.2018 is Rs. 1,75,63,982/- - The question that arises for the consideration of the Bench is whether by virtue of the aforesaid admission, the 'tax dues' can be said to quantified by the Investigating Authority before 30th June, 2019 - The demand-cum-show cause notice dated 13th March, 2020, on the face of it relates to tax dues which are much more than the amount admitted by the Petitioner - No doubt, insofar as the Service Tax liability is concerned, which is one of the components of the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 13th March, 2020, there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the quantum - However, the aforesaid admission of liability of Service Tax, to our understanding, cannot be held to be quantification of the entire 'tax dues' - It is admission of Service tax liability only - Petitioner's contention that this should be treated as the quantified tax dues, is therefore, plainly incorrect - Interpretation of the Section 129(2)(b) of FA, 2019, as sought to be given by the Petitioner, is plainly incorrect - The Section nowhere contemplates fragmented settlement of tax dues - The discharge certificate issued under Section 126 with respect to the amount payable under the Scheme is considered to be conclusive as to the matter and the time period stated therein - Under Clause (b) Sub Section 2 to Section 129, despite issuance of discharge certificate with respect to 'a matter' for 'a time period', the department is not precluded to issue a show cause notice, for 'the same matter', for 'a subsequent time period' or for 'a different matter' for 'the same time period' - In this case, none of the aforesaid conditions would perhaps be attracted if the declarant is issued a discharge certificate - The extracted portion of circular No. 1074/07/2019-CX dated 12th December, 2019 also has no application and deals with entirely different situation - All the demands in the show cause notice dated 13th March, 2020 arise from the same investigation - Thus, the demands raised therein pertain to the same matter and also same time period, although under different heads - Petitioner's statement admitting its liability only to the extent of Service Tax, cannot be construed as quantification of 'tax dues' prior to 30th June, 2019 - Certainly, SVLDR is a beneficial scheme and purposive interpretation of its terms is desirable - However, Bench cannot give an interpretation that would run counter to its objective - The scheme is a one-time measure for liquidation of past disputes under the erstwhile regime and affords an opportunity of voluntary disclosure to non-compliant tax payers - The declarants are thus expected to come clean in order take its benefit - During investigation, Petitioner only admitted Service Tax liability and did not make any disclosure with respect to the other tax dues and as a result whereof, after investigation, Respondents have issued the demand-cum show cause notice for an amount of Rs. 13,77,13,890/- - This show cause notice would have to be adjudicated in entirety and cannot be done in a piecemeal manner - Bench cannot construe admitted tax liability to be 'matter' and the remainder dues as per show-cause notice to be a 'separate matter', especially since the investigation was still ongoing on the relevant date - Settlement under the SVLDRS scheme with respect to the Service Tax due, with continuation of parallel proceeding for the remainder or differential amount by way of adjudication of the show cause notice, would also not result in resolution of the legacy dispute, which is the predominant aim of the scheme - no infirmity in the rejection of Petitioner's declaration - The petition is without any merit and hence it is dismissed: High Court [para 17, 20, 21, 22]

- Petition dismissed: HIGH COURT OF DELHI

2020-TIOL-1308-CESTAT-DEL

Trivedi Science Research Loboratory Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST, C, CE & ST

ST - Refund – 27/2012-CE (NT) – Appellant filed refund claim for Rs.3,20,120/- on 17.1.2017 for the period October to December, 2016 for refund of cenvat credit which they were unable to utilise as they were exporting 100 % of their services – Refund denied on the ground that the appellant does not have any receipt and/or billing for export of services during the said quarter – Appellant submitted that they had stated before the lower authorities that out of the receipt of 50,000 USD received in 2nd quarter, they have rendered services only for 20,000 USD during the 2nd quarter and the services for 30,000 USD was actually rendered in the third quarter - However, erroneously, in the refund claim for the second quarter, they disclosed the total receipt of 50000 USD for the second quarter itself; that as the appellant is exporting 100% of their services and not providing any services in DTA, there is no question of any proportionate disallowance of refund claim.

Held: Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purposes of verifying the aforementioned bill which has been raised for the two quarters, as the copy of the same is not available before this Tribunal: CESTAT [para 8]

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2020-TIOL-1307-CESTAT-DEL

Talanpur Ramsabha Bhawan Vs CCGST, C & CE

ST - Appellant applied for refund of service tax by application dated 01.06.2015 - The ground taken for refund in the application is that the appellant have got a building constructed for charitable purposes and they being Charitable Trust recognized under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which entitles to exemption from service tax in terms of S.No.13(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - adjudicating authority denied the refund observing that the Certificate of Registration dated 08.12.1998 under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 appears to be an acknowledgement of the application for registration, and is not a certificate of registration as referred to under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act as mentioned in para 13 of the exemption notification – as Commissioner(A) upheld this order, the appellant is before the CESTAT.

Held: Bench is satisfied that the appellant is in possession of the certificate of registration under Section 12A(a) read with Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act - The certificate is granted under Section 12A and the procedure for grant of certificate is given in Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act - It is evident from the certificate of registration dated 08.12.1998, that the appellant is having the status of being registered under the provisions of Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act - Further, the appellant has also led evidence that they are continuing the status as the Charitable Trust/Organisation, as they have been granted exemption in their assessments for the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16 by the Income Tax authorities which is applicable to Charitable Trust registered under Section 12AA, as is evident from the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act issued by the Income Tax Department - Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed - appellant is entitled to refund with interest as per Rules: CESTAT [para 8]

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

2020-TIOL-1441-HC-DEL-CUS

CC Vs KVS Cargo

Cus - The appellant, a Customs Broker filed BoE in respect of M/s Shiva Enterprises for clearance of goods as per the details given to him by importer - On examination of goods, apart from declared goods, other goods like cosmetic items of different brands, mobile phones of different brands, electronic items of various brands were also found - The appellant was alleged to have violated Regulation 11(a) of CBLR, 2013 in as much as they have failed to obtain authorization from actual importer - The investigation made by Customs has established that in addition to declared goods, huge amount of contraband was also found undeclared - The proprietor of M/s Shivay Enterprises in his statement has admitted that he was not the actual importer but he has only lend his name - The IEC code number of M/s Shiva Enterprises was also allowed to be utilized for import - The Tribunal held that the appellant has obtained authorization from Shri Dinesh which becomes null and void since he was not the actual importer - Consequently, infraction of Regulation 11 (a) stands established - Regarding Regulation 11(d), assessee is expected to advice their client, to comply with provisions of Customs Act, it stands established that assessee has not met the actual importer - Failure to observe Regulation 11(d) stands established - Regulation 11(e) requires due diligence by assessee to ascertain correctness of information by importer and 11(n) requires CB to verify the antecedents, correctness of IEC code number, identity of the client - Assessee has made no efforts to verify the functioning of his client at the given address and correctness of IEC code number -It was held that assessee failed to verify antecedents and correctness of IEC details - The appellant was held guilty of having violated the provisions of the CBLR, but considering the peculiar circumstances, revoking Customs Broker's license was held to be too grave a punishment - Hence fine of Rs 50000/- was imposed.

Held - The counsel for the repondent-Customs Broker mentioned that the Tribunal's order was quashed by a Coordinate Bench whereby the decision of the Tribunal to set aside the order of revocation was upheld but the penalty and forfeiture were set aside - However, the respondent's license had not been restored so far - Hence the Revenue is directed to restore the respondent's Customs Broker Licence within three weeks' time - No merit in the present appeal: HC

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT