Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

2021-TIOL-2231-HC-PATNA-GST

CEAT Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The impugned order have been passed pursuant to the issuance of SCN, as envisaged under Rule 100(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Even though the petitioner was noticed, but the order stands passed prior to expiry of statutory period envisaged under said Rule - Notice to show cause was issued on 14th of February, 2021 and as per the rules, petitioner was entitled to respond to the same, in writing, within 15 days, which he did vide response dated 24th of February, 2021, but, however, prior thereto, the authority passed the impugned order dated 23rd of February, 2021 - As such, there is clear infraction of not only the rules but also principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner's contention, as submitted in written reply was not considered, thus seriously prejudicing its case - The imposition of tax/ penalty does entail civil consequences - As such, on this limited ground of infraction, writ petition is disposed of: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: PATNA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-768-CESTAT-MUM

Rosy Blue India Pvt Ltd Vs CGST & CE

ST - The appellants have filed refund claims in terms of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 - Same was rejected by adjudicating authority - Appellant has no grievance against order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority - However, his grievance is against paras 8.3 and 9 of impugned order as the findings recorded in these paras are in respect of issues that were never before Commissioner (A) - His appeals are intended only to the extent of deleting the findings recorded by Commissioner (A) in these paragraphs - After deleting these two paras, remand order passed by Commissioner (A) to the adjudicating authority is upheld for consideration of refund claims in terms of provisions of law - In view of the provisions as contained in Sub section 1, 2 and 3 of Section 11B, the refund claim needs to verified for correctness by Assistant Commissioner and his satisfaction recorded after causing due verification - With the modification, order of Commissioner (A) is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT