2021-TIOL-1924-HC-MAD-GST

Bright Steels Vs STO

GST - On the ground of violation of the mandatory requirement of giving personal hearing to the Assessee, the writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders - Revenue counsel would stress the point that, it is not the first time, at least two or three times, such an opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner, however, the same had not been utilised by the petitioner - Lastly, on 29.12.2020, such an opportunity was given, on that day, the petitioner had not chosen to appear, however, on the very next day, ie., on 30.12.2020, he appeared and he filed the objection along with the documents, and on that date, the personal hearing was given, having utilised the personal hearing he has left and that has been recorded in the order, which is impugned herein, therefore, reason cited by the petitioner's side is not tenable in view of the facts, which had been recorded in the order - Moreover, petition needs to be dismissed on the ground that appeal can very well be filed by the petitioner against the order impugned, under Section 174 of the Act.

Held: It has been recorded that, more than twice, an opportunity had been given and last such opportunity was given on 30.12.2020, where the petitioner did appear and, therefore, it cannot be stated that no opportunity had been given, and thus, respondent has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 75 (4) of the Act - Writ petitioner, on the ground of violation of Section 75(4), has not made out any case and, therefore, the challenge made in this writ petition is liable to be rejected, accordingly it is rejected - Since under Section 107 of the Act, within 90 days, appeal can be filed by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order, it is open to the petitioner to file such appeal before the Appellate Authority - Writ petitions cannot be entertained and hence are dismissed: High Court [para 17, 18]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1923-HC-MP-GST

Uttam Caters Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

GST - Petitioner has challenged the order whereby his appeal has been dismissed against the cancellation of his registration - The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal has not been filed within the time allowed for filing the appeal u/s 107 of the Act.

Held:  Upon perusal of the appellate order, it is evident that the appeal was dismissed on the very first date on the ground of limitation without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the appeal -  In the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench deems it proper to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits within a period of two months - Petition is disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-1930-HC-KERALA-VAT

Camelot Resort Letchmi Estate Vs STO

VAT - Challenging the orders of assessment, petitioner preferred statutory appeals before Deputy Commissioner (A) - Since the first appeals were allowed only in part, petitioner preferred second appeals before Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal - Along with appeals, petitioner preferred petitions to condone the delay in filing appeals as well as for staying the orders under challenge - Considering the fact that the appeals and stay petitions are pending consideration, Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on delay petitions as well as stay petitions within a period of three months: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-619-CESTAT-DEL

Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE & CGST

CX - The issue involved is, whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid for availing Goods Transport Agency Service for despatching their finished goods (outward transportation) on FOR destination basis to their buyers - The 'place of removal' is the premises of the buyer, not the factory gate of the buyer, as the finished goods are cleared by appellant on 'FOR destination basis' - Accordingly, appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on GTA service for outward transportation of goods on FOR destination basis: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-618-CESTAT-HYD

Divi's Laboratories Ltd Vs CC

Cus - The appellant has been importing various goods for their EOU unit under procurement services issued by concerned Central Excise Authorities - They filed various shipping bills and transfer bonds for movement of goods as IPA - Toulene and Methyl Alcohol to their EOU unit Chippada with transfer shortages were mentioned in re-warehouse services received from Central Excise Authorities - Department, based on those shortages proposed the same to be recovered from appellant - The said amount was paid by appellant, however, under protest citing the shortages except for one within the permissible limit of less than 1% - Thereafter, the importer filed an application seeking refund of said duty paid under protest - Same was proposed to be rejected on the ground that the transfer bonds in which the goods were transferred from Vizag Customs to EOU Bheemli have been closed which was duly intimated to appellant but was not contested at the appropriate stage - The provision makes it clear that Procedure for submission of transfer bonds and the closure thereof is not possible in the absence of executor of the bonds who requests removal of imported goods from one warehouse to another - Hence, the allegations of appellant are observed to be wrong - The intentions of Commissioner (A) in impugned order are in terms of Circular No. 96/2002 but are observed to be not applicable because the Circular refers to the finalisation of provisional assessments made - Apparently and admittedly present is not the case of provisional and the final assessment since the appellant accepted while executing the transfer bonds the noticed shortage but has failed to explain sufficient cause for the silence to contest the same for almost one and half year, the subsequent refund application is nothing but an after-thought - The noticed shortage is apparently more than 1% - Accordingly, no infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: HYDERABAD CESTAT

2021-TIOL-617-CESTAT-DEL

LIC of India Vs Service Tax Commissionerate

ST - The appeal of assessee is against the confirmation of demand while the appeal of Revenue is against non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 of FA, 1994 - Since the matter appears to have attained finality by virtue of common understanding between the Revenue and the assessee as reflected in O-I-O dated 27 January 2016 for the subsequent period, matter needs to be decided accordingly - Therefore, without going into the merits of case, impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Original Authority with a direction to decide the matter afresh: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT

2021-TIOL-616-CESTAT-MUM

Sachin Rent A Car Service Vs CCE

ST - Appeal has been filed by appellant against O-I-O - Tribunal can grant adjournment to either side in appeal for a maximum number of three times - In this case whenever the matter has been posted for hearing, appellant has chosen to abstain from hearing - He has not even cared to file any request seeking adjournment at any time - The conduct of appellant clearly shows that he is not interested in pursuing this appeal - Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: MUMBAI CESTAT