2021-TIOL-953-HC-MAD-GST

Chaizup Beverages LLP Vs Asstt Commissioner

GST - Refund - From a reading of Section 54(3), it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to one or the other of two benefits viz. ( i ) duty draw back or (ii) Input Tax Credit - Thus, an option has been extended to an assessee engaged in zero rated sale to either claim the benefit of duty drawback or the benefit of refund of ITC - That is why, in the present case, the petitioner, for the month of July, 2017 has opted to stick with the claim of duty drawback seeing as the amount of drawback is higher than the ITC for the months of August and September, 2017 - claim of refund is in order - Orders of the appellate authority are set aside and the authority is directed to refund the sanctioned amounts within a period of six (6) weeks - Petitions allowed: High Court [para 11, 12]

GST - Refund - Contents of paragraph 2.5 of the Circular No. 37/18-Customs will not stand in the way since a circular cannot stand in the way of a benefit offered under a statutory scheme - Paragraph 2.5 of the circular, insofar as it is contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 54(3) is bad in law: High Court [para 12]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-952-HC-MAD-GST

Mutharamman Iron And Steels Vs Pr.Addl Director General

GST - Petition has been filed challenging the provisional attachment of bank account pending proceedings for investigation - When the matter came up for admission on 7 th January, Bench had asked the respondent to consider the petitioner's request to attach only those bank accounts which are sufficient to protect the interest of the revenue and release the others to enable the petitioner to conduct their business - It is informed that the petitioner has made certain adhoc payments pending investigation as a consequence of which the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner has been lifted - since the challenge to the provisional attachment does not survive, petition is closed: High Court [para 3]

- Petition closed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-954-HC-MAD-CUS

Larsen And Toubro Ltd Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Cus - Petitioner challenges summons issued to nine officials of the petitioner company in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 calling upon the attendance of the addressees therein before the officials on various dates - The summons are challenged on the ground that the merits of the transactions sought to be enquired into relate to the taxability of Tunnel Boring Machines used for executing infrastructure products and the said issue is pending before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR); that since the AAR is seized of this very issue, the authorities should await the decision of the AAR before proceeding further.

Held: Bench is of the view that this request should be made before the authorities for their consideration, in accordance with law - The challenge to the summons itself is pre-mature, insofar as it only calls upon the addressees to appear before the officials for a preliminary hearing - One cannot assume or hypothesize on what the purpose of the summons is and the Bench is thus loathe to interfere, at this juncture - Petitioner has, in its submission dated 03.04.2021, made an incidental reference to 'pressure' being exerted by the revenue to make payment - However, since the matter is pending at the stage of summons, it is for the parties to take things forward in a proper manner and in accordance with law, bearing in mind that proper procedure and protocol should be followed in matters of conduct of enquiry, investigation and adjudication - Petitioner, citing the on-going pandemic, requests that the proceedings may be conducted virtually rather than by way of physical hearing - Such request may be made before the authorities for their consideration in accordance with mutual convenience as well as integrity of procedure - Writ Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 3, 6, 7, 8]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT