Click to Nomination Visit: tiolawards.in

GST - Contention that petitioner had indulged in similar commission of offence after release on bail is without any evidence as investigation is still in progress - Order of CMM setting aside bail is set aside: HC

GST - Petitioner had flouted the order of CMM to surrender by contending that their petition is pending - As there was no stay of the order of CMM, costs imposed of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited with the Legal Services Committee: HC

Cus - The importer having paid duty on declared value and having accepted to pay entire differential duty, condition to furnish Bank Guarantee equivalent to 30% of value of goods is waived.

2021-TIOL-2355-HC-DEL-GST

Kabir Kumar Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence

GST - Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22.12.2021 of the CMM and also seeks restoration of the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 05.12.2020 - Respondent had sought cancellation of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner had flouted the condition no.4 of the order dated 05.12.2020 which reads to the effect that the accused shall not indulge in similar offence in future - Inasmuch as it was submitted by the respondent that while taking forward its investigation, the applicant/department has arrested two associates of the applicant/petitioner namely Manish and Vikas who were then in judicial custody (who have since been granted bail); that in their statements these persons had stated that the petitioner (respondent in that case) was still engaging himself in issuance of fake paper invoices and thereby passing fake/ineligible ITC running into crores of rupees and the said statements were specific in nature; that the statements have not been retracted; that the illegal actions of the accused led to the generation of black money and hawala transactions which were used to fund anti-national activities and which was a threat to the society and the nation; that the accused was at the helm of a well established network of defrauding the exchequer and was the perpetrator of a grave economic crime and was destroying the framework of the nation's economy.

Held:  In reply to a specific Court query whether there was any further incriminating evidence that had been collected in relation to any further offence committed after the date 05.12.2020 by the applicant, the response (of the respondent) is in the negative submitting to the effect that investigation is in progress - Contention of the applicant  that the mere disclosure statements by the accused Manish and Vikas per se would not suffice to allege to the effect that the applicant had committed any offence appears to be correct since there is no other material to incriminate the applicant / petitioner herein in relation to any further commission of offence beyond the date 05.12.2020, though presently, the investigation is still in progress - Therefore the contention that the petitioner had indulged in similar commission of offence after release on bail and the condition no.4 of the order dated 05.12.2020 had been defied with the impunity cannot be accepted - It is essential to observe that direction dated 22.12.2021 of the CMM, New Delhi whilst disposing of the application seeking cancellation of bail as filed by the respondent, after the cancellation of bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 05.12.2020 directing the applicant/ petitioner to surrender by 23.12.2021 has not been complied with, qua which, it is submitted that the petitioner did not surrender because of the pendency of the present petition - Apparently, the petition has been listed for hearing today and there was no stay of the operation of the order dated 22.12.2021 - Thus though the order of the CMM, New Delhi is set aside, the same is set aside subject to deposit of the costs of Rs.1 lac  in the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee during the course of the day with a direction to place on record the receipt of said cost - Petition is disposed of: High Court  

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2352-HC-DEL-GST

Vardhman Exim Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner challenges the impugned order issued under Form GST DRC- 22 provisionally attaching their current Bank Account with IndusInd Bank Ltd under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 - The petitioner states that though the order of provisional attachment dated 14th July, 2020 has ceased to have effect on 13th July, 2021 yet they are still not allowed to operate its bank account which had been provisionally attached by impugned order - She relies on the order in M/s. Shri Dhan Laxmi Trade House 2021-TIOL-2243-HC-DEL-GST where the Court directed the Respondents to de-freeze the current account of Petitioner therein - It is also stated that the impugned order is not maintainable as it does not disclose pendency of any proceeding under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74 of GST Act - The statement made by petitioner is accepted by Court and the petitioner is held bound by the same - In view of Section 83 of the Act, respondents are directed to defreeze the petitioner's bank account: HC

- Writ petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2351-HC-AHM-GST

Utkarsh Ispat LLP Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The petitioner seeks direction against respondent to release the provisional attachment of bank accounts, plant & machinery and factory premises on the ground that provisional attachment made is dehors the provisions of Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 and Gujarat GST Act, 2017 - Petitioner has given a chart showing worth of his movable and immovable properties and possible statutory liability, if at all, that is finalized by authorities - He therefore has urged that the business transaction should be permitted and non-attending to his grievances within statutory time period is the reason for him to approach this Court - The objections have been filed by petitioner well within time - The commissioner has also afforded opportunity of hearing - However, he needs to pass an order which since has not come, the petitioner is before this Court - Let such order be passed within 3 days: HC

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2350-HC-AHM-GST

Deep Alloys Vs State of Gujarat

GST - The chronology of details point out that on 15.02.2021, respondents blocked the input tax credit of petitioner lying in Electronic Credit Ledger - The representations had been made, however, authorities did not act upon the same nor it had responded - The SCN came to be issued by respondent wherein it is mentioned that M/s. Vinayak Traders has not been found at the business place and the dealer and purchaser has claimed ITC wrongly - Both the parties, on instruction, has admitted that no response has been given although the request has come from the petitioner twice - Without fail, representations made by petitioner shall be decided within a period of two weeks: HC

- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-2353-HC-KERALA-VAT

State of Kerala Vs Malayala Manorama Company Ltd

On considering the revision petition, the High Court directs that tax amount already deposited by the assessee be kept in mind when working out the tax payable or the tax refundable to the assessee. Hence the Court quashes the assessment orders in question.

- Revision petitions allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-846-CESTAT-CHD

SRK Manufacturing Vs CC

Cus - On receiving intelligence that the importer is indulging in import of old used CRGO sheets/coils and old & used gas cylinders by way of concealment/misdeclaration in guise of consignment of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS), an alert was issued for examination of consignments in presence of DRI officers - On examination of goods, it appeared that the importer had misdeclared goods - According to importer, goods imported are Heavy Melting Scrap - The Pre Inspection Certificate issued by agency 'Wize Services FZE' has certified the goods to be Heavy Melting Scrap - Importer has furnished photographs of these goods held by department to be CRGO Sheets - These are end cuttings and used pieces of metals having homogenous holes in all the pieces - The Commissioner (A) has directed to subject the impugned goods to mutilation before release of the same - When similar import declared as HMS and reclassified and reassessed as CRGO sheets were ordered to be released after mutilation and payment of duty, no reason found to interfere with the view taken by Commissioner (A) directing provisional release of impugned goods - Coming to the issue of import of goods in nature of old and used gas cylinders, Commissioner (A) has ordered for mutilation of these goods so as to render them as scrap - Contention raised by Revenue adverting to Gas Cylinder Rules and Explosives Act is without any basis - The view taken by Commissioner (A) to allow provisional release of goods is legal and proper - The next question would then be as to legality and propriety of conditions imposed in impugned order for provisional release of goods - Importer has submitted that they have no objection to comply with all conditions except the condition to furnish Bank Guarantee equivalent to 30% of value of goods - It is submitted that they have paid entire duty on declared value and also willing to pay differential duty if any assessed by department - When the importer has made such payments and goods having been mutilated to render them as scrap so as not to be reused as such for any purpose, condition to furnish Bank Guarantee in addition to bond is not warranted or justified - Impugned order is modified to the limited extent of setting aside the direction to furnish Bank Guarantee of 30% equivalent to value of goods: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT