2021-TIOL-1414-HC-CHHATTISGARH-GST

Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner seeks ad interim relief - Petitioner submits that as per the Press Release of GST Council dated 04th May 2018, there shall not be any automatic reversal of Input Tax Credit of buyer on non-payment of tax by the seller; that in case the seller has not paid the tax, a recovery has to be made from the seller and here in this case, the petitioner has come out with the purchases made, but it did not tally/match with 2A ITC shown by the seller meaning thereby the seller may not have filed return to remove the same; that Madras High Court in M/s. D.Y. Beathel Enterprises = 2021-TIOL-890-HC-MAD-GST held that if the default is made by non-payment of tax by the seller, the recovery shall be made from the seller and only in exceptional circumstances, it can be from the recipient, therefore, the Input Tax Credit which was claimed by the petitioner cannot be denied for the reason that the seller has not uploaded their invoices on time. Held: A perusal of the notice and recovery order dated 22.01.2021 would show that the issue raised by the petitioner needs consideration - Petition is admitted for hearing - It is directed that on petitioner's depositing 5% amount of Rs.14,93,79,211/- demanded vide order dated 22.01.2021 within a period of 15 days, no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the said order - Matter listed 02nd August, 2021: High Court

- Interim relief granted: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1413-HC-MAD-GST

NCR Corporation India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

GST - Relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to quash the order of assessment passed by the respondent. Held: Preferring an appeal is the rule - Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception - Statutory appellate authorities are the final fact finding authorities - Thus, the finding to be made by such appellate authorities with reference to the documents and evidences are of paramount importance for the purpose of exercise of judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authority, by following the procedures as contemplated, but not the decision itself - Therefore, the routine entertainment of a Writ Petition by dispensing with appellate remedy is not preferable and such an exercise would cause injury to the institutional hierarchy and the importance attached to such appellate institutions - The appellate institutions provided under the statute, at no circumstances, be undermined by the higher Courts - Importance of fact finding by the appellate forums is of more value for the purpose of providing complete justice to the parties approaching the Court of law - Petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority, by preferring an appeal in a prescribed format, following the procedures contemplated, within a period of two weeks -Appellate authority, in the event of receiving any such appeal from the petitioner, shall entertain the same, condone the delay if any, and adjudicate the appeal on merits, in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible – Petition disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 7]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1412-HC-UKHAND-GST

Vimal Petrothin Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

GST - Petitioner's input tax credit available in its electronic ledger was provisionally blocked on the ground that petitioner had availed input tax credit, amounting to Rs.1.5 crores, based on fake invoices issued by non-existing firms - The said blockage was made on 15.01.2020 under Rule 86(A)(1) of Rules, 2017 - Feeling aggrieved the present petition was filed. Held : Counsel for the respondent Revenue, on instructions, concedes that petitioner's electronic credit ledger cannot be blocked for any period in excess of one year, in view of express provision contained in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 86(A) of C.G.S.T. Rules - Thus, petitioner's contention to this extent is correct that continuance of blockage of his input credit ledger after 14.01.2021 is not supported by any law - Writ petition, therefore, stands allowed - Respondent no. 1 is directed to forthwith unblock input tax credit availed by the petitioner in its electronic credit ledger: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Petition allowed: UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-189-SC-ST

CC, CE & ST Vs Sikkim Manipal University

ST - Application for condonation of delay - Delay of 350 days out of 1134 days is completely unexplained. Held: Aforesaid itself shows the casual manner in which the petitioner department has approached this Court without any cogent or plausible ground for condonation of delay - If the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences - The irony is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens - Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, Bench considers it appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner(s) of Rs.25,000/- for wastage of judicial time and the same be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks - The amount to be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the same period of time - Civil Appeal is dismissed as time barred: Supreme Court

- Appeal dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-188-SC-CX

Pr.CCE Vs Design Dialogues India Pvt Ltd

CX - Impugned order was passed by the CESTAT on 20-05-2019 and proposal for filing appeal was sent by to the Ministry of Finance on 06-01-2020 - Plea raised by department is that similar matters are pending in Civil Appeal No. 6550/2015 and other connected matters - Held: Merely because similar matters are pending is not a ground to grant leave and take the matter when the authorities have been negligent in filing the appeal – On the submission by the petitioner that more than Rs. 5 Crores is at stake, Bench observes that if that be, the authorities should recover it from the officer concerned – Bench would like to know the steps which have been taken by the appellant against the officers concerned - If it has not been done, then an inquiry must be held, responsibility fixed and the action taken against the officers be placed – Bench further notes that it has taken a year's delay apart from the 90 days period to file the special leave petition and three months further are required (as per the request made by the Additional Solicitor General) to complete action against the officers concerned – Matter listed on 03-09-2021: Supreme Court

- Matter listed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-1416-HC-MAD-CUS

Ankit Ispat Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

Cus - Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned recovery notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Held : Original orders were passed right from the year 2011 onwards and the same have become final since not appealed against - Notice of demand to the defaulter was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for the recovery Government Dues) Rules, 1995 - Thus, the grievances, if any exist, regarding the recovery, the petitioner has to approach the competent authorities and this Court cannot entertain a writ proceedings as the original orders passed by the authorities right from the year 2011 became final and based on those orders, actions are initiated to recover the arrears - Petitioner is at liberty to approach the authorities concerned, in the manner known to law - petition disposed of: High Court [para 2, 3]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1415-HC-MAD-CUS

First Choice International Vs CC

Cus - Relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the 1st respondent and his men and agents from bringing Fresh Apple of 23,184 kgs and Fuji Apple of 76,375 kgs in the online auction notification dated 13.10.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to destroy the same by following due process - Petitioner reiterated the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture that import of apple from China is impermissible but contrary to the orders, such apples are sought to be imported. Held: Interim order was passed by this Court at the time of admission and the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the apples imported had became rotten and were destroyed – In these facts and circumstances, no further consideration is required with reference to the grounds raised in this writ petition - Writ petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 4 to 6]

- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-356-CESTAT-BANG

Koeleman India Pvt Ltd Vs CCT

CX - The issue arises is, whether the appellant is entitled for refund when the same amount has already been debited and reversed in GSTR-3B - When appellant filed the refund claim for respective periods, there was no facility to debit the refund claim in ER-2 Returns after the GST Act came into force - By the time the refund claim was filed, appellant had already carried forward the closing balance of credit through TRAN-1 - Since no Return in ER-2 could be filed under GST Law and the appellant in order to satisfy the debit condition under Para 2(h) of the Notification No. 27/2012-C.E., debited the refund claim amount in GSTR-3B in respective month, in fact, the credit was reversed under GST Law at the time of filing refund claim - An identical issue has been considered by Tribunal in case of Global Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. 2019-TIOL-3534-CESTAT-MAD - Rejection of refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. is not sustainable in law and therefore the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT

2021-TIOL-355-CESTAT-DEL

Vandana Global Ltd Vs CCGST, CE & C

ST - The appellant is engaged in manufacture of Sponge Iron, M.S. Ingots, M.S. Billets and dolachar - It appeared to Revenue that services in question like Association Membership fees, constructions services, rent-a-cab services, general insurance services of vehicles, repair services, catering services and civil work are not input services - It further appeared that the appellant have suppressed availment of such credit from the Department in order to avail wrong credit - Accordingly, SCN was issued proposing to recover cenvat credit along with interest and further penalty was proposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11AC(1)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Records of the appellant were audited regularly as mentioned in the Audit Report of Auditor General and also mentioned in para 3.1 of the grounds of appeal - It is evident that the affairs of appellant regarding taking of cenvat credit were also in the knowledge of Department - As such, invocation of extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue - The ground with regard to limitation is allowable - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT