2021-TIOL-1408-HC-MAD-VAT

Karur Pharmacy Vs ACST

Whether it is fit case for re-consideration of assessment, where revisionary order has been passed without considering the explanations furnished by the assessee - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1407-HC-MAD-GST

Hitatchi Payment Services Pvt Ltd Vs JCCT

GST - As per the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the period of limitation for filing of first appeal is 90 days, extendable by 30 days at the discretion of the appellate authority - Issue is whether the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, i.e., Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) dated 18.02.2021 are liable to be set aside in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [ 2020-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB ] [ 2021-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB ] wherein suo motu cognizance has been taken of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and limitation for various purposes including filing of statutory appeals is extended.

Held: In the light of the aforesaid undisputed position, the first respondent is directed to take it on file the appeals filed by the petitioner, hear the same and dispose the same on merits after hearing the petitioner, either virtually or otherwise in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures in this regard, in accordance with law - writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1406-HC-TELANGANA-CX

Deccan Tobacco Processors Ltd Vs UoI

CX - Case has been registered against the petitioners/accused on a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioners for the offences under Sections 9, 9(10(b), 9(1)(bb), and 9AA of the CEA, 1944 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code - Criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused to quash these proceedings.

Held : Prosecution is launched, in view of the fact that the Commissioner (Adjudication), directed the department to initiate further proceedings in law for time being in force, as the accused company was found to have evaded payment of duty under Rule 9(2) of the CER, 1944 read with Section 11-A of the Act and confiscation was ordered and penalty was levied under the relevant Rules - It is settled law that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher than the standard of proof in civil/departmental proceedings - In a reverse case, where criminal proceedings ended in acquittal but simultaneous departmental proceedings continued, the result of the criminal proceedings will not have any bearing on the departmental proceedings, as judgment of the criminal Court is not binding in civil or departmental proceedings - However, in the instant case, when the departmental proceedings ended in favour of the accused and moreover, when the prosecution launched is on the same set of facts and allegations, the continuance of prosecution would be gross abuse of process of law - In the instant case, complaint was filed pursuant to the observation made by the Commissioner (Adjudication) - The order of the Commissioner (Adjudication) merged with the order of CESTAT wherein the appeal was allowed reversing the order of the original authority - Further appeal filed by the department before the High Court came to be withdrawn - In view of the above observations, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.170 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused, are hereby quashed: High Court [para 15, 16]

- Petition allowed: TELANGANA HIGH COURT