2021-TIOL-1197-HC-KOL-GST

Abdul Mannan Khan Vs Goods & Services Tax Council

GST - Issue relates to the rejection of claim of petitioner for rectification of accounts for period January 2018 to March 2018 - It is to be noted that the Act does not provide any provision for appeal - Furthermore, there is no provision for condoning of such a delay - No reason found to interfere as the statute has provided a period of limitation for seeking rectification - The writ court cannot, by itself, condone such a limitation period - Condoning such delay would make the provision otiose and open the floodgates for similar cases: HC

- Writ petition dismissed : KOLKATA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1196-HC-DEL-GST

Satguru Agencies Vs Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax

GST - The petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.01.2021, whereby, its registration has been cancelled - The record shows that prior to the issuance of aforesaid order, a SCN was served on the petitioner and the petitioner was called upon to file a reply to the same within seven working days - The said SCN ended with a direction that the petitioner's registration had been suspended from that very date, i.e. with effect from 05.01.2021 - However, a perusal of SCN shows that it is internally inconsistent - The impugned order, while referring to the petitioner's reply to the SCN, curiously states that no reply to the SCN has been submitted - This apart, the petitioner contends that the respondents could not have straightaway cancelled the petitioner's registration - According to him, suspension of registration on the very day SCN was issued, was inexplicable - Petitioner has referred to Rule 21A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents via all permissible modes including email: HC

- Matter listed : DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1188-HC-MAD-CT

State Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Whether secured creditor will have precedence over the dues payable to the Commercial Tax Department - YES: HC

- Assessee's petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1187-HC-MAD-VAT

Super Fab Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Whether writ petition filed with intention of stalling assessment proceedings by getting the petition numbered & obtaining an interim order, merits being allowed - NO: HC

- Writ petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-292-CESTAT-MAD

Punjab And Sind Bank Vs CGST & CE

ST - The only issue that was urged on behalf of appellant was the levy of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - A SCN was issued alleging that the appellant was not correctly paying Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism ('RCM') on the 'Legal Opinion' received from their empanelled advocates - Section 78 can be invoked in case where there is non-levy, short-levy, short payment or erroneous refund of Service Tax by reason of fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act or the rules made thereunder with the intention to evade payment of Service Tax - A perusal of draft O-I-O points out that initially, the appellant itself had raised a fundamental doubt as to the very applicability of Service Tax, on the bona fide belief that they had not made any accounting entry as the payment or receipt in question was neither income nor expense for the bank - They had also explained that payments made to advocates on behalf of customers was debited to the concerned customer account and accordingly, details of such payment was neither captured in the system of bank nor was there any regulatory requirement for the same - The draft O-I-O, however, has ignored the very taxability without clearing the above doubts - This is sufficient to hold that the appellant has only acted in good faith being a public sector undertaking - Moreover, the alleged liability captured in form of tables in draft O-I-O apparently were all picked up from appellant's Books available with the Revenue - Thus, the condition precedent for invoking Section 78 ibid. viz. that there should be non-levy, short levy, short payment or erroneous refund of Service Tax by reason of fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter or the rules made thereunder with the intention to evade payment of Service Tax, is not satisfied and accordingly, Section 78 ibid would not be attracted - In addition, the appellant being a public sector undertaking of Government of India is also an additional factor to hold that any mala fide intention to evade payment of Service Tax would not be attributed, to levy penalty under Section 78 ibid - The penalty levied under Section 78 ibid is not justified and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT