I-T - Writ remedy cannot be entertained where assessee has option of appellate remedy but does not avail of it : HC

I-T - assessment order merits being quashed where passed without giving assessee an opportunity to file reply to SCN: HC

SVLDRS - Object of the settlement scheme is to encourage persons who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019: HC

ST - Reasons not forming part of the order impugned cannot be supplanted by respondent Revenue in the affidavit-in-reply: HC

GST - Transporters are expected to refuse transportation of goods where their employer utilises forged or expired e-way bills; detained vehicles to be released: HC

2022-TIOL-160-HC-MAD-GST

C Ranganathan Vs CCT

GST - The petitioner is the owner of vehicles which were utilised for transport of goods - The vehicle was intercepted and seized along with the goods therein, on grounds that the e-way bills had lapsed - The petitioner filed the present petition seeking release of the seized vehicle and the consignment, stating that the 10% tax had been paid pursuant to order passed u/s 129 of the CGST Act and also claimed there to be no further amount payable.

Held - The petitioners are in the business of transportation of goods & they have to be careful and cautious while transporting goods - They cannot allow the employer who employs them for transportation of the goods to evade tax - If the goods are being removed in the clandestine manner on the strength either expired e-way bills or forged/fabricated invoice, the petitioners are not expected to transport the goods - At the same time, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the vehicles to be detained any longer as the vehicles will lose their intrinsic value - There is also no evidence to suggest that the respective petitioners conspired with the said M/s.Prime Gold International Private Limited to facilitate evasion of tax: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-159-HC-MUM-ST

Mpower Facility Services Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Designated Committee passed the impugned order rejecting the SVLDRS-1 declaration by holding that they obtained a verification report dated 17th December 2019 from the DGGI and who informed that the tax dues were not quantified finally on or before 30th June 2019 - On 30th December 2020, the DGGI issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to recover the specified amount of service - Since the petitioner's request for a copy of the report dated 17th December 2019 of DGGI was not acceded to, the present petition as the petitioner apprehends coercive action - Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to restore and reconsider SVLDRS declaration filed by them, on merits and to issue necessary discharge certificate and for other reliefs.

Held : - Respondents for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply have taken a stand that the petitioner had admitted liability only for the 2nd half of the financial year i.e. from October 2015 to March 2016 and not for the 1st half i.e. April 2015 to September 2015 - Bench is of the view that reasons not forming part of the impugned order cannot be supplanted in the affidavit-in-reply - Court in case of Nabeel Construction Pvt. Ltd.( 2022-TIOL-97-HC-MUM-ST ) after considering identical facts has held that what is relevant under the scheme is an admission of tax dues or duty liability by the declarant before the cut-off date which need not be of the exact figure upon determination by the authorities post 30th June, 2019 - Court held that it is not necessary that the figures on such admission should have mathematical precision or should be exactly the same as the subsequent quantification by the authorities in the form of show cause notice etc. post 30th June, 2019 - It is held that under the said scheme, quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show cause notice or the amount that could be determined upon adjudication - In this case, on 25th March 2019, the statement of one of the Directors was recorded when he admitted service tax liability of Rs.72.37 lakhs for the period October 2015 to June 2017 - The object of the scheme is to encourage persons to go for settlement who had bonafidely declared outstanding tax dues prior to the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019 - Impugned order is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions and also contrary to the objectives, reasons and intent of the said Scheme introduced by the Central Government to liquidate the huge outstanding litigation and free the taxpayers from the burden of litigation and investigation under the legacy taxes - Impugned order is set aside - Respondents shall pass a fresh order granting relief to the petitioner under the said Scheme on the basis that the petitioner is eligible to avail the benefits under the said Scheme - Writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms: High Court [para 16, 19, 20, 21, 22]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-156-HC-MUM-CUS

Indian Pvt Ltd And Terminals Association Vs UoI

Cus - The Petitioner claims various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and placed reliance on Notfn 48/2015-2020 to submit that the last date of submitting applications for Scrip based FTP Schemes is extended till 31 January 2022 for various schemes of Government of India - Petitioner sought permission to submit the application online on or before 31 January, 2022 - The Petitioner would be at liberty to file online application for SEIS and other benefits, which are part of this petition - If such application is received, same shall be processed in accordance with law - The Respondents are at liberty to file an affidavit-in-reply on or before 15 March, 2022 with copy to be served upon petitioner simultaneously - Since this issue is pending before Court in this petition, Respondents are directed to accept application proposed to be made by Petitioner on portal, if submitted on or before 31 January, 2022: HC

- Matter listed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT