2021-TIOL-100-SC-NDPS-LB

Sk Sakkar @ Mannan Vs State Of West Bengal

NDPS - The appellant is an individual, who was apprehended during a raid - The car in which the appellant was travelling was searched, whereupon 11 Kgs of Cannabis was found and seized - FIR was registered and charge sheet was submitted against the appellant - Susequently, the appellant was convicted by the court of the Special Judge for offences u/s 20 of the NDPS Act - The appellant was also sentenced to 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and was awarded fine of Rs 20000/-, failing payment of which one additional year of RI would be imposed - The appellant's appeal against such order was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.

Held - It is worth noting that the appellant committed the crime in 1997, which is must before the NDPS Act came into force in 2001 - The punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant or any other provision of the NDPS Act, in his case, would thus be regulated by the unamended Section 20 of the NDPS Act, as it stood before the amendment of 2001 - It is manifest from Section 20(i) of NDPS Act (as it stood in 1997), that even though a maximum sentence of five years RI and a fine of upto Rs 50,000/- was prescribed but there was no minimum mandatory sentence - The Legislature had in its wisdom left it to the judicious discretion of a court to award the minimum sentence albeit guided by the well known principles on the proportionality of sentence - Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to us that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the extent of the period he has already undergone - Hence the judgment of the Special Judge and that of the High Court are modified and the sentence of 5 years RI is reduced to the period already undergone - The bail bond is discharged: SC

- Appeal partly allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-341-HC-SIKKIM-CX

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd Vs UoI

CX - Petitioner herein assails the restrictions imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support, issued under the Goods and Services Tax regime vide Notification F.No . 10(1)/2017-DBA-II/NER, dated 05.10.2017, by the Respondent No. 1, reducing the quantum of benefits earlier availed by the Petitioner, thereby reneging on the promises made under the erstwhile Tax regime and adversely affecting the Petitioner.

Held: Grievances of the Petitioner raised in the matter at hand is soundly quelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in all aspects by the ratio in V.V.F. Limited ( 2020-TIOL-83-SC-CX-LB ) and this Court does not intend to venture further - Hence, in view of all of the foregoing discussions, Bench finds no merit in the Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 15, 16]

- Petition dismissed: SIKKIM HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-340-HC-MUM-ST

Viztar International Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - Rejection of application filed under SVLDRS, 2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remark that DGGI had informed that the quantification was not done prior to 30.06.2019.

Held: Question as to whether eligibility of a declarant for making a declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of 'investigation, enquiry or audit' or maintainability of such a declaration on the ground that the amount of tax dues was not quantified on or before 30.06.2019 is no longer res integra - It is evident from the decisions in Thought Blurb 2020-TIOL-1813-HC-MUM-ST , G.R.Palle Electricals 2020-TIOL-2031-HC-MUM-ST & Saksham Facility P Ltd. 2020-TIOL-2108-HC-MUM-ST that all that would be required for being eligible under the above category is a written communication which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit - Though petitioner was granted a personal hearing by the designated committee on 26.02.2020, there is nothing on record to show that the above information or letter of DGGI was furnished to the petitioner - It is a well settled principle of natural justice that if an authority relies upon a document which is adverse to the person concerned and results in an adverse decision, copy of such a document is required to be furnished to the person concerned so that he can put up an effective defence - Devoid of the same, any personal hearing granted would be an empty formality - In the course of his statement, the authorized representative acknowledged that service tax liability of the petitioner for the year 2016-17 was to the tune of Rs.1,61,01,194.00 and for the year 2017-18 (up to June, 2018), the service tax liability was to the extent of Rs.14,60,823.00 - This admission was reiterated by Shri. Nipun Radhu in his subsequent statement recorded on 13.03.2019 - Both the statements were made prior to the cut-off date of 30.06.2019 - Therefore, petitioner was clearly eligible to file a declaration in terms of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit -order dated 27.02.2020 and remand the matter back to respondent No.5 to consider the declaration of the petitioner afresh in terms of the scheme as a valid declaration under the category of ‘investigation, enquiry or audit' and grant the consequential relief(s) to the petitioner - exercise to be completed within eight weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 13, 17 to 21]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAYHIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-339-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs Nice Foto Lab

Cus - Refund less than Rs.1 lakh - Revenue in appeal - It is seen that the assessee had imported a used Konica Nice Print System with standard accessories and the import appears to be for personal use of the importer - Therefore, the facts clearly show that the issue is not a recurrent issue and, therefore, the case would be covered by the monetary policy issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect and the substantial questions of law raised are left open: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Appeal dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-338-HC-DEL-CUS

New Era Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 24.01.2020 issued by DRI on the ground that the same is time barred as per provisions of s.28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Held: Case of the respondent as set out in the SCN is that the petitioner had fraudulently availed Special Focus Market Scheme (SFMS) benefits by producing forged house BLs and Landing Certificate, wherein consignee country was deliberately mis-declared by them for availing undue benefits under the Scheme - It goes without saying that investigation to unearth fraud and/or collusion with respect to as many as 203 shipping bills, with the involvement of several Departments cannot be completed overnight - Looking at the allegations in the SCN and the details of the investigations carried out as well as the provisions of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962, Bench is of the prima facie view that the SCN is not time barred - Writ petition is premature as the petitioner is yet to file reply to the SCN - Since the matter is at the stage of SCN, which in the opinion of the Bench is prima facie not time barred, especially looking to Section 28 AAA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the facts of this case, Bench is not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage - Writ petition is hereby disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-336-HC-TRIPURA-CUS

Pijush Banik Vs UoI

Cus - Import of Soybean oil from Bangladesh - Respondents have admittedly initiated a verification regarding the Certificate of Origin produced by the petitioner for availing the concessional rate of customs duty - Petitioner has seriously alleged that he has been left remediless as the respondents have not passed any order but have held up the assessment/clearance for an indefinite period without passing an order following the principles of natural justice - Petitioner has not challenged the process of the verification, but the petitioner has made serious allegation that without affording any opportunity to the petitioner in respect of meeting any deficiency, the petitioner had been asked to opt or request for provisional assessment for purpose of clearing the goods on furnishing the security [100% bank guarantee] for the difference between the duty provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Act and the preferential duty claimed.

Held: Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to meet the purported deficiency for which the clearance has been refused - No observation on the legality or regularity of the process of verification on merit is called for at this stage, considering that the verification is still inconclusive - But in the emerged circumstances, the assessing officer and the other respondent-authorities are directed to provisionally assess the duty and to release the goods on obtaining an indemnity bond, to be submitted by the petitioner binding himself to deposit the duty or the difference between the duty that would be assessed by the competent authority on verification and the preferential duty within a period of 7(seven) days - In the event of failure to deposit the assessed duty on completion of verification within the said stipulated time, the payable duty shall carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 26.09.2020 till the said duty is deposited - The provisional assessment in respect of the goods covered under the Bill of Entry dated 26.09.2020 shall be completed within a period of two days - After furnishing of the indemnity bond, those goods be released within next 24 hours - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 26]

- Petition disposed of: TRIPURA HIGH COURT