NDPS - Absence of recovery of contraband from possession of petitioner cannot be said to be a ground for non-application of parameters of s.37(1)(b) - bail application dismissed: HC

GST - Rule 89 - Restriction which has been read into the provision by Revenue that only a 'supplier' to a SEZ can file refund claim is misplaced: HC

GST - There can be no insertion of a word or phrase in a statutory provision or in a Rule which must be read and applied, as framed: HC

GST - Considering that a period of one year from the date of provisional attachment under section 83(1) of CGST Act, 2017, has expired despite which order of provisional attachment has not been lifted, this petition is allowed: HC

Cus - Amendment to IGM - Without taking a decision on the application made, auction of goods cannot be undertaken by respondent: HC

GST - The pendency of petition is not a bar for completing adjudication proceedings contemplated under Section 129 of CGST Act, revenue is directed to complete the same within ten days: HC

2021-TIOL-2018-HC-MUM-GST

Evertime Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - It is the case of petitioner that in respect of goods that have been supplied, they are entitled to claim the refund under sub-section 3(b) of section 16 of IGST Act, 2017 - It is submitted that the claim for refund is not being processed by revenue on the ground that the investigation is pending against petitioner - There is no order or decision on record on the application claiming refund - Revenue is directed to process the application made by petitioner for refund and pass a reasoned order: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2017-HC-MUM-GST

Guru Nanak Motor House Vs UoI

GST - The issue is considerably narrowed down for consideration of petitioner's prayer that the provisional attachment order ceases to exist by operation of law - Considering that a period of one year from the date of provisional attachment under section 83(1) of CGST Act, 2017 , has expired despite which the order of provisional attachment has not been lifted, this petition is allowed - The Joint Commissioner is directed to immediately communicate to the petitioner's banker that the attachment order ceases to be operative and that the petitioner may be permitted to operate the relevant bank account which was under attachment - Let this exercise be completed within seven days: HC - Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2016-HC-MAD-GST

Platinum Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CGST & CE

GST - Petitioner, a SEZ unit, filed applications for refund of the taxes erroneously remitted on various dates - Appellate orders dated 07.08.2020 which reject the refund claims are the subject matter of the present writ petitions - Issue for resolution is as to 'whether a SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC)'. Held : Ordinarily, though zero rated supplies are not subject to the levy of taxes, the petitioner, in this case has remitted the same as raised in the invoice, albeit erroneously -The provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, providing for a refund, apply to any person who claims such refund and who makes an application for the grant of the same - The language of the provision is clear and does not contain, or admit of any restriction in its operation - Statutory scheme for refund admits of applications to be filed by any entity that believes that it is so entitled, including the petitioner SEZ - The language of Rule 89, echoes that of Section 54, and both the aforesaid provisions and Rule commence with the phrase 'any person' - Contention of Counsel for Revenue that Rule 89, particularly, the second proviso thereto, as well as Clause (f) of sub-Rule 2, refers to an application filed by a supplier to a SEZ and, therefore, the reference to a supplier, will exclude, by virtue of such reference, other applicants, is not agreeable - On a combined reading of Section 54 and Rule 89, the restriction which has been read into the provision by the Revenue is misplaced - It is a settled position that there can be no insertion of a word or phrase in a statutory provision or in a Rule which must be read and applied, as framed - No restrictions or amplifications of the Rule are permissible by interpretation - On the legal issue of entitlement to refund, Bench holds in favor of the petitioner - Writ petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 13 to 17]

- Petitions disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2019-HC-MUM-CUS

Blue Spring FZE Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioners seek a mandamus directing respondents no.3 and 5 to permit the amendment to IGM and to allow the name of the consignee to be changed from M/s.Venture Impex to M/s.Amit Petrolubes.

Held: It would be in the interest of justice if the Competent Authority viz. the Joint or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs grants a personal hearing to the petitioners and considers the prayer of the petitioners on its own merits well within the scope of sub-section 3 of section 30 of the Customs Act, by a reasoned order after hearing all parties following principles of natural justice - The application made for amendment or substitution to the Import General Manifest be considered in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event with a period of 6 weeks - Till such time the decision is taken on the application for amendment and till further orders are passed by this court, the respondents are restrained from taking any further action for auction of the goods - Petition listed on December 3, 2021: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Matter listed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2015-HC-DEL-NDPS

Toufiq Vs NCB

NDPS - Petitioner has sought bail u/s 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act read with Section(s) 439 & 482 of Cr.P.C. - 4200 Tablets of Zolpidam (1.050 Kg), 6000 Tablets of Alprazolam (1.200Kg) and 12,000 Tablets of Tramadol (4.800 Kgs.) were recovered and seized.

Held: Present case is a case of commercial quantity and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are applicable - Standard prescribed for the grant of bail is 'reasonable ground to believe' that the person is not guilty of the offence - Test which is required to be applied while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit an offence while on bail - Given the seriousness of the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed - Insfoar as the arguments of the petitioner regarding the absence of recovery of contraband from the possession of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said to be a ground for the non-application of parameters of Section 37(1)(b) of NDPS Act in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case Rattan Mallik = 2009-TIOL-13-SC-NDPS and merely absence of possession does not mitigate the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act - application lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed: High Court [para 24, 26, 27, 28, 29]

- Application dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT