2021-TIOL-1445-HC-DEL-MISC

Hajara Vs Govt. of India

Miscellaneous - The issue at hand pertains to several false claims and defences raised by the Government before the High Court.

Held -

+ All these cases shocked the conscience of this Court. It appears that the false claims are raised with impunity because there is no accountability of any Government officer for raising the false claims and Courts seldom take any action against the person concerned for raising false claims/ defences.

+ This Court is of the prima facie view that whenever a false claim is raised by the Government, it causes immense injustice to the litigant seeking justice; it also puts unnecessary burden on the Court and the Government also suffers but the concerned officer who has raised the false claim, does not suffer any action. If the facts given by the officers are found to be false/incorrect by the Court, the Government shall consider taking action and the copy of the judgment be kept in the ACR file of the officer. This will ensure that the officer is held accountable for the actions taken by him in the Court case.

+ The aim of the National Litigation Policy is to transform the Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. The core issue involved in the Court cases need to be focused and the same have to be managed and conducted in a cohesive, coordinated and time bound manner with the aim to reduce government litigation in Courts. All substantial questions of law in relation to special Economic Laws in view of the changing scenario and economic activity so as to achieve the goal in the national Legal Mission.

+ The National Litigation Policy should imbibe into it the compulsory mediation process by the Government. India has, as its dynamic doctrine, economic democracy sans which critical democracy is chimerical. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has observed that even constitutional problems cannot be studied in a socio-economic vacuum, since socio culture changes are the change of the new values and slogging of old legal thought will be part of the process of the new equity loaded legality. The Judge is a social scientist in the role as a constitutional invigilator.

- Writ petitions disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1443-HC-MAD-VAT

TVL Sri Renuka Electronics And Furnitures Vs ACCT

In writ, the High Court finds it to be settled position in law that ITC cannot be denied solely because original invoices are not produced, more so where the event of the purchases having been made from a registered dealer is not disputed. Hence the assessment orders in challenge are quashed, with directions being issued to the Revenue authorities concerned to re-do the assessment.

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1444-HC-ORISSA-GST

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs UoI

GST - Fraudulent ITC of Rs.40.66 crores - Petitioner is in custody for commission of offence u/s 132 of the Act, 2017 and has filed application u/s 439 of CrPC for his release on bail - Case against the petitioner is that he had created about ten firms and was generating fake bills, invoices in the names of the said firms and facilitating the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply/receipt of goods and services which were credited in the names of those firms in the bank accounts and that he was in fact actually handling all those accounts having taken signed blank cheques from the said account-holders  - Counsel for Revenue submitted that the petitioner is the kingpin and has defrauded the State exchequer to the tune of around Rs.40.66 crores by availing ITC simply by managing to have transactions reflected on papers without supply of goods/services in reality; that the petitioner has managed to destroy many more important documents; therefore, it is not a fit case for granting bail.

Held: Petitioner is involved in commission of Economic offences which are considered to be very grave - Such dubious activities in committing offences for making huge unlawful gain by causing huge loss to the State exchequer is a step towards not only scuttling the process of development in the country but also in standing as developed country in the globe in which our march is on -  I ntroduction of the GST is for simplification and harmonisation of Indirect Tax Regime in reducing cost of production, reducing inflation and making Indian trade and Industry more competitive, domestically as well as internationally and with seamless transfer of Input Tax Credit (ITC) from one stage to another in the chain of value addition; in creating in-built mechanism in the design of goods and services tax is with an aim to incentivise tax compliance by the taxpayers so as to finally broaden its base in lowering the tendency of evasion - Such roles alleged to have been played by the Petitioner stands in the direction of making unlawful financial gain by putting up the show that for such sincere involvement in business and carrying out the same, his entitlement to the huge sum as incentive in the form of Input Tax Credit (ITC) flowed which he received having the tendency of foiling the entire move in introducing this new Tax Regime - Court is not inclined to accept the move of the petitioner for grant of bail - Bail application stands dismissed: High Court [para 7, 8]

- Application dismissed: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-370-CESTAT-CHD

Lekh Raj Narinder Kumar Vs CCE & ST

ST - Initially, the appellant had filed seven refund claims but were decided by a common order - The order passed by Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation has discussed each and every aspect of the case and passed the order wherein the orders of rejection of refund claims were set-aside - As the said order has not been challenged by respondents, the only option left with them is to sanction the refund claim suo-moto and to release the same - Instead of sanctioning the refund claim to appellant, adjudicating authority has issued two SCNs which are illegal and in violation of legal provisions - The act of issuance of SCN to the appellant shows arrogance of departmental officers and that they have no faith in judiciary - The said act of departmental officer cannot be appreciated - As the appellant is entitled for refund claims, he is also entitled interest on delayed refund after 3 months from the date filing the refund claim till its realization in terms of the decision of Apex Court in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 2011-TIOL-105-SC-CX : CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-369-CESTAT-MAD

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd Vs CGST & CE

CX - The appellant had issued purchase orders for supply of furniture in the nature of Almirah - Said items were delivered to the site of customer in CKD condition and thereafter assembled / installed at the premises of customer for which the appellant had sub-contracted the services - They had availed cenvat credit on the service tax paid for such installation / assembling services - The department is of the view that the appellant is not eligible to avail such credit alleging that such assembling / installation services are post-manufacturing activity - This issue is settled in favour of appellant vide the earlier orders passed by Tribunal in the appellant's own case - The credit has been wrongly disallowed: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT