2021-TIOL-1033-HC-MAD-GST

Sivas S And S Products Pvt Ltd Vs DSTO

GST - Challenge is to a summary of order dated 14.03.2020 - Rule 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for uploading of an order of assessment under Section 62(1) as well as the summary thereof - Thus, the instant summary order dated 14.03.2020 must statutorily have been accompanied by a speaking order and it is only such speaking order that would be liable to be challenged, as there would be no reasoning on the basis of which the summary of order would be amenable to challenge.

Held: Respondent Revenue has submitted that the prayer for refund sought by the petitioner for excess payment of Rs. 5,46,641/- and 1,35,584/- are found to be correct and orders had been passed by the State Tax Officer, Thiruvallur Assessment Circle on 12.02.2021, as the assessee is assessed in that circle - Writ Petition is, therefore, closed: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1032-HC-MAD-GST

Gokul Traders Vs DSTO

GST - Petitioner challenges order of attachment (of bank account) dated 10.03.2021 - Petitioner states that the attachment is made consequent upon an order of assessment dated 17.02.2020, which has been served upon the petitioner only on 30.03.2021 by post – Counsel for Revenue submits that the order has been sent by e-mail on the same day and which is an accepted mode of service in view of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 . Held : Bench is not inclined to go into this disputed question of fact, since the petitioner, at this juncture, would state that it wishes to file a statutory appeal challenging order of assessment - The petitioner may do so within a period of four weeks from today in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in a series of judgments, viz., In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation = 2020-TIOL-77-SC-MISC-LB , 2020-TIOLCORP-17-SC-MISC-LB , 2021-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB 2021-TIOLCORP-21-SC-MISC and M/s .SS Group Pvt. Ltd. V. Aaditiya J. Garg & another (Civil Appeal No. 4085 of 2020 dated 17.12.2020) extending the time for filing of appeal till 14.03.2021 - As regards the interim relief sought, that is for lifting of attachment of bank account pending appeal, Bench is not in a position to consider the same, as the details in relation to the balance available in the bank account are not before it - Let the petitioner approach the first appellate authority with an application for interim protection - Writ Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 5 to 7]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1031-HC-TRIPURA-CUS

Goutam Roy Vs UoI

Cus -   Petitioner had imported soyabean oil of net volume of 55,200 kg. in 5000 cartons from Bangladesh through the Agartala Land Customs Station - According to the petitioner, he had submitted all requisite import documents without any complaint from the respondents - However, the imported goods were directed to be warehoused without assessing the duty under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and without assigning any reason - The copy of the Importer's Bill of Entry was not returned by the respondent No.3 - Based on the said Bill of Entry, the petitioner had deposited IGST amounting to Rs. 2,34,191/- on 13.01.2021 and the petitioner requested for clearance of the imported goods, but the respondent authority neither cleared the goods nor assessed the - It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate verification but they cannot hold up the assessment/clearance of the goods for any indefinite period without passing a reasoned order - According to the petitioner, the clearance of goods should have been allowed following the provisions of Sections 17 or 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, either accepting the concessional rate of duty as claimed by the petitioner under self assessment or rejecting it or by doing reassessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act - The petitioner submits that the assessment could not have been denied for indefinite period for such freely importable goods particularly when the goods are of perishable nature -  Petitioner has, therefore, urged this court for directing the respondents to release the goods imported by the Bill of Entry dated 26.12.2020 and to direct the respondent authorities to assess the duty under section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 without requiring bank guarantee furnished considering the goods being highly perishable and ware-housed since 27.06.2020 - Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court to Rule 6 of the CAROTAR, 2020 which mandates verification of the Certificate of Origin - Petitioner submits that they fall within the category of random verification and such verification is covered by para-5(b) of the circular dated 22.08.2016; that CBIC's instruction No.20/2020 dated 17.12.2020 has specifically directed not to disrupt the process of import for routine verification under the CAROTAR, 2020; that by the CBIC's notifications dated 05.06.2020, 30.07.2020 and CBIC's circular dated 04.09.2020, Turant Customs Clearance has been introduced which is faceless, anonymous assessment, self registration of the goods by importers, automated clearance of the Bills of Entry, digitisations of customs documents etc.; that the said policy has been given a go-by by the respondents. Held: Pertinent question which emerges and falls for consideration is whether the verification is random verification falling under Rule 6(1)(c) of the CAROTAR, 2020 or the verification falls under the category levelled by Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 - The petitioner has brought categorical allegation against the respondents that he has furnished all requisite documents and information for clearance but the imported goods have been warehoused without any reason being disclosed to the petitioner as to whether those goods were held up for any verification regarding the Certificate of Origin produced by the petitioner for availing the concessional rate of the customs duty or for any other reason - This allegation has been levelled in para-7 of the writ petition and in reply thereof, the respondents have evaded any specific reply by simply stating that "assessment/clearance of goods has not been stopped. Only preferential treatment of customs duty has been denied till the doubt on the Country of Origin certificate is resolved." -  The said reply does not conform to any verification under Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 which is structured on the failure to provide the requisite information, as no such information was asked from the petitioner - The said verification cannot be treated as prima facie verification under Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020, rather it would prima facie come under Rule 6(1)(c) of the CAROTAR, 2020 - Thus, clause 5(b) of CBEC's circular No.38/2016-customs dated 22.08.2016 will apply in the present case - After thorough verification, if some defects is located, such verification will take a different character - In the present case, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has furnished the subsequent statement which conforms to the nature of container - Respondents are directed to release the imported goods on obtaining an indemnity bond to be submitted by the petitioner binding himself to deposit the duty meaning the difference between the duty that would be assessed by the competent authority on verification and the preferential duty which has been paid by the petitioner - It is made absolutely clear that in the event of failure to deposit the assessed duty on completion of verification within seven days from the date of such assessment, such duty shall carry interest @ 15 p.a. from 26.09.2020 till the said duty is deposited - The imported goods, as warehoused, is to be released within twenty four hours from the time when the petitioner shall file such indemnity bond - Petition allowed: High Court [para 15, 16]

- Petition allowed: TRIPURA HIGH COURT