|
2022-TIOL-16-HC-MP-MISC Rajendra Kumar Gautam Vs State of MP
Miscellaneous - Prevention of Corruption Act - There was neither any occasion for the departmental authorities to examine the aspect of violation of provisions of P.C. Act, the presumption clause etc. in the departmental inquiry nor their findings can be read to hold that no contravention of provisions of the Act namely, P.C. Act is established - In the domestic enquiry, the culpability of petitioners were examined on the touchstone of Conduct Rules based on limited evidence produced in the enquiry - In the criminal case, Court will examine the evidence in the light of provisions of P.C. Act - Court is empowered to summon witnesses and in their absence, issue warrant to secure their presence for the purpose of recording their statements in order to separate the wheat from chaff - Bench is unable to hold that exoneration of petitioners in the departmental inquiry draws such an iron curtain on the case of prosecution because of which prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed with the criminal case - No interference is warranted on the FIRs and on the criminal cases by this Court - Finding in the departmental inquiry cannot foreclose the right of the prosecution to proceed with the FIRs and criminal cases against the petitioners - Petitions fail and hence dismissed: High Court [para 30, 34, 35]
- Petitions dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-15-HC-KERALA-GST
Jose Joseph Vs ACCT & CE
GST - Refund of unutilized ITC for the months of July, August, September and October, 2017 - Grievance of the writ petitioner arises from the allegation that Ext.P1 order was never uploaded on the web portal of the respondents and hence, the petitioner could not file appeals in the electronic form, which is mandated as per the present provisions of law; that the order was communicated to him only on 10.04.2019 and instead of filing the appeals in the electronic form, petitioner preferred appeals in the physical form, but in so doing, a delay occurred -Appellate authority rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals are barred by limitation and that there is no provision for condoning the delay of more than 30 days -Petitioner further submits that since Ext.P1 order was never uploaded on the web portal, petitioner could not have, under any circumstances, preferred an appeal in the electronic form, that too, within the time prescribed; that, therefore, the order of the 2 nd respondent Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and the appeals ought to be considered on merits. Held : Appellate Authority went in a mechanical manner without appreciating that the orders though required to have been uploaded in the web portal, were never uploaded -Period of limitation will start to run, as per the provisions of the Act, only when the order is uploaded on the web portal and not when the order is received in the physical form by the petitioner - When admittedly there was a failure on the part of the respondents to upload the order in the original, petitioner cannot be mulcted with the responsibility of preferring appeals within the time period stipulated -When the mode of appeal prescribed by Rules is only the electronic mode, the time limit of three months can start only when the assessee had the opportunity to file the appeal in the electronic mode - The assessee cannot be blamed if he waited for the order to be uploaded to the web portal, even if he had in the meantime received the physical copy of the order - It is appropriate to notice that there is no provision for filing an appeal manually - Technical glitches are occurring in the transition phase - In such circumstances, a different approach is required, especially since the electronic mode of uploading the order and the electronic filing of appeal had not attained its technical perfection, at least till the recent past - Petitioner is entitled to have his appeals that were filed manually, to be treated as having been filed within time, in the light of the failure of the department to upload Ext.P1 order in the web portal - 2nd respondent is directed to treat the appeals as filed within time and thereafter, to pass final orders in the appeals on merits, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner: High Court [para 9, 10, 11, 12, 15]
- Petitions allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-14-HC-TELANGANA-GST
Ambika Food Industries Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has challenged legality and validity of the show cause notice dated 12.04.2021 issued by Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Customs, Hyderabad, Audit - I Commissionerate, Hyderabad - Petitioner contends that Additional Commissioner is not a 'proper officer' having jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice - reliance is placed on the apex court decision in Canon India P Ltd. 2021-TIOL-123-SC-CUS-LB in this regard. Held: In terms of Board's Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018, more particularly in paragraph No.4 thereof, it is clarified that all officers up to the rank of Additional / Joint Commissioner of Central Tax are assigned as the 'proper officer' for issuance of show cause notices and orders under sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10) of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, corresponding to Section 3 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act - Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax have been assigned functions as the 'proper officer', and the monetary limit of the said officers for issuance of show cause notice and orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act is above Rs.2 crores - Admittedly, the monetary limit in the present case is above Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) - In such circumstances, and having regard to the above, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that respondent No.4 is not the 'proper officer' competent to issue the impugned show cause notice - Issue before the Supreme Court in Canon India Private Limited (supra) was completely different and distinct from what is being canvassed by petitioner to support his contention that respondent No.4 is not the 'proper officer' under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act - Bench is not inclined to entertain the writ petition - Three weeks' time given to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice dated 12.04.2021 - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 11 to 13, 16]
- Petition dismissed: TELANGANA HIGH COURT
|
|
