2021-TIOL-1040-HC-MAD-GST

Prateeksha Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak Vs STO

GST - Registration of petitioner came to be cancelled on 16.09.2019 - Two applications were filed by the petitioner u/s 30, the first one rejected by an order dated 24.07.2020 referring to non-compliance of the petitioner to notice issued by the assessing officer, and the second dated 09.09.2020, rejected on 12.09.2020, referring to outstanding interest on belated payment of tax dues and for allegedly wrongful claim of ITC - Petition filed.

Held:

++ The contention of the respondent Revenue that the revival of registration is conditional upon the petitioner satisfying tax dues and substantiating its claim of ITC, is misconceived. What is sought for by the petitioner is revocation/revival of registration only, and in the guise of considering the application for revocation, the authorities cannot embark upon the process of assessment. [para 7]

++ An assessment would have to be made by the authority in terms of Section 73 or other applicable provision after following the procedure set out therein, and it is only in the course thereof that the officer may consider and decide questions of leviability of tax and claim of input tax credit. [para 8]

++ Thus to state that registration will not be revived since the petitioner has incorrectly availed of ITC would be putting the cart before the horse.

++ It is seen that the petitioner has filed monthly returns as well as annual returns for the periods January 2017-18 to September 2019-20 and for financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and has also remitted late fee for filing of belated returns. Thus, and these being the only conditions that are to be satisfied by the petitioner for grant of revocation of registration, Bench is of the view that the cancellation of the registration in this case is incorrect and improper. [para 9]

- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1043-HC-MAD-CUS

YSI Automotive India Pvt Ltd Vs CC

Cus - Challenge is to an order-in-original dated 16.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of its shipping bills.

Held: The impugned order is a non-speaking order that has not adverted to the justification put forth by the petitioner and is hence set aside - The petitioner will appear before the Commissioner of Customs on Wednesday the 12th of May, 2021 at 10.30 am without awaiting any further notice in this regard and R1 shall, after hearing the petitioner and considering any material that may be furnished by the petitioner in support of its stand, pass a speaking order on the applications within a period of four weeks from 12.05.2021, on merits: High Court [para 8]

- Matter remanded/petition disposed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1042-HC-MAD-ST

NS Rathinam And Sons Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. CCGST & CE

ST - Petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 16.04.2021 which is a notice u/s 87 of FA,1994 for recovery of admitted dues - Petitioner fairly states that the arrears are admitted and the orders of assessment giving rise to such demands have attained finality; that they had sought to avail of the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme but were unable to meet the conditions set out thereunder; that representation for payment of dues in instalments were also sought and granted but they were unable to adhere to the same too.

Held: Since the impugned notice is only for collection of admitted dues that have become final and no legal flaw or infirmity has been raised in this regard, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed: High Court [para 3]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1041-HC-MAD-CUS

Vikram Jain @ Veerchand Jain Vs CC

Cus - Petitioner has filed an appeal before the CESTAT along with an application for condonation of delay - By its order dated 05.04.2021, the CESTAT has condoned the delay and the petitioner has also made the requisite pre-deposit - appeal is stated to be listed for hearing on 03.05.2021 - However, petitioner is in receipt of communication dated 13.04.2021, wherein, the Assessing Authority threatens disposal of the goods pending appeal - It is as against this that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondent from auctioning the watches seized pending disposal of his appeal before the CESTAT.

Held: In the light of the categoric statement of the Board [Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017] to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken for recovery of any balance of disputed dues, once the pre-deposit is made, the present communication has no legs to stand - Counsel for Revenue submits that the communication dated 13.03.2021 will not be pursued any more by the authorities in view of the contents of the Board Circular - In the light of discussion as above, the mandamus as sought for by the petitioner stands achieved and this writ petition disposed: High Court [para 9, 10]

- Petition disposed: MADRAS HIGH COURT