CX - Changes made in Tariff (six digit to eight digit) were not with the intent to withdraw the existing benefits or withdraw an exemption which had been given and had been enjoyed by assessee for the last twenty years: SC

GST - Issuing invoices without actual supply of goods - Loss of Rs.14.33 crores government revenue - Pre-trial prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule - Bail granted: HC

GST - Contentions of Petitioner are in the nature of disputed facts which requires adjudication on the basis of documents available on record and evidence to be adduced during the course of adjudication process: HC

2022-TIOL-311-HC-ORISSA-GST

Sri Rajendra Narayan Mohanty Vs CT & GST

GST -  Petitioner questions the Show Cause Notice dated 25.01.2022 issued u/s 74 of the CGST/OGST Act on the ground that the Proper Officer has no jurisdiction to invoke said provision.

Held:  Since the Petitioner has come up before this Court without raising any objection or filing any reply to the said Show Cause Notice, Bench is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage - The contentions of the Petitioner are in the nature of disputed facts which requires adjudication of fact on the basis of documents available on record and evidence to be adduced by the Petitioner during the course of adjudication process before the Proper Officer - Petitioner is at liberty to file his Show Cause reply and raise objections including jurisdictional issue - It is open to the Proper Officer to deal with each objection and pass reasoned order therefor - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 4, 6, 7]

- Petition disposed of: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-310-HC-HP-GST

Prateek Garg And Akshit Bansal Vs Intelligence Officer, DG of GST Intelligence

GST - Petitioners have been booked for offences u/s 132 of the Act on the allegations that the petitioners in connivance with each other facilitated M/s Mahesh Trading Company, M/s Rajshree Trading Company and M/s Balaji Trading Company and other firms in issuing invoices only without actual supply of goods with the motive to earn benefits by fraudulent means and thereby have caused a loss of Rs.14.33 Crores to the government revenue - Petitioners were arrested on 21.07.2021 and are in custody since then - Petitioners have prayed for grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC - It is submitted that the investigation qua them is already complete and complaint stands filed against them in the court of ACJM, Kasauli; that the allegations levelled against them are not true and evidence has been created to implicate them at the instance of persons having inimical relations with them; that the statements were recorded under duress and are not voluntary; that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which is already in the custody of the respondent department.

Held:   Though there are serious allegations against the petitioners but the same are required to be proved against them, in accordance with law, in order to secure their conviction, which is likely to take sometime - The offences, for which the complaint has been filed against the petitioners, attract punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine - Petitioners are in custody since 21.7.2021 - The investigation qua the petitioners has already been completed and, therefore, the complaint stands filed against them on 19.9.2021 - Pre-trial prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule - No presumption of guilt can be attached against the petitioners as cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence in our legal system is to presume innocence of accused till proved otherwise - It is also not the case of the respondent that petitioners had not cooperated with the investigation agency during investigation - Petitioners are permanent residents and there is no likelihood of their absconding from the course of justice in view of the facts that they have their families to support - Even otherwise, such possibility, if any, shall be taken care of while imposing conditions on the petitioners - No previous criminal history of the petitioners has been shown to exist - Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail  on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to conditions as laid down: High Court   [para 7 to 10]

- Petitions allowed: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-309-HC-KOL-GST

Ashok Kumar Sureka Vs Asstt. CST

GST - Petitioner has challenged the order passed under section 129 of West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 for detention of goods on the ground that e-way bill relating to consignment in question had expired one day before, i.e. in the midnight of September 8, 2019, and that the goods was detained in morning of September 9, 2019 on the grounds that the e-way bill has expired which is even less than one day and extension could not be made and petitioner submits that delay of few hours even less than a day of expiry of validity of tenure of e-way bill was not deliberate and willful and was due to break down of vehicle in question and there was no intention of any evasion of tax on the part of petitioner - The petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of penalty and tax paid on protest subject to compliance of all legal formalities: HC

- Writ petition allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-308-HC-AHM-GST

Trishna Trading Service Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The issue relates to legality and validity of action on the part of respondent in passing three distinct orders of provisional attachment of three bank accounts of applicant - On being inquired, it is informed that applicant is ready and willing to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1.25 Crore - Respondent is directed to de-freeze the three bank accounts upon the applicant furnishing a bank guarantee and individual undertakings of Directors of the company in writing before this Court on oath that ultimately if any liability of Company is fixed, they would discharge the same so far as the balance amount is concerned i.e. approximately 1.12 crore - The bank guarantee shall continue till the statutory time period of all the three orders passed under Section-83 of the Act comes to an end - If the Department deems fit to continue with the provisional attachment or pass a fresh order, it may do so, but then, the bank guarantee shall also continue.

If it is the case of Department that the Company has indulged in fraudulent transactions or company has committed gross violations of provisions of the Act or the amount due and payable is huge, then it is expected of Department to expedite the inquiry and ultimately, if it is convinced of the case put up so far, should not delay the issue of SCN: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-19-SC-CX

CCE & ST Vs Dharani Sugars And Chemicals Ltd

CX - A ppellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar - During the course of manufacture of sugar, molasses emerges, which is further utilized by the process of fermentation and distillation to produce alcohol - Exemption  Notification No.67/95-CE is not available in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products which are exempted from whole of duty or chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty - D epartment had denied the benefit of the above Notification to the extent molasses have been consumed in the manufacture of non-excisable ethyl alcohol -  The question for consideration before CESTAT was whether alcohol for human consumption which is not charged to Central Excise duty will fall under either of the above categories -  CESTAT observed that the  above question is answered in favour of the appellant in the case of Manakpur Chini Mills Ltd. ( =  2017-TIOL-2083-CESTAT-ALL ) and accordingly allowed the appeal - Revenue is in Appeal before the Supreme Court against inter alia this order in Bannari Amman Sugar Ltd. [ 2018-TIOL-1359-CESTAT-BANG ] as well as the Tribunal order in Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.  2015-TIOL-323-CESTAT-MAD & Dharani Sugars Ltd.   Order No.- 511-512/2005 dated 10 February 2005.

Held:   No merit in the appeal as the respondent/assessee has enjoyed the benefit of the exemption notification no. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 till financial year 2005-2006 - The Revenue has predicated their case on the addition of the  item "other" in heading 22.04 made vide sub-heading 2204.90 with effect from 01.03.2005 - In the opinion of the Bench, the aforesaid addition is not a substantive change or modification - Tribunal has pointed out and it is accepted that the changes were made pursuant to adoption and restructuring of tariff from six digit to eight digit - Changes made were not with the intent to withdraw the existing benefits or withdraw an exemption which had been given and had been enjoyed by the respondent/assessee for the last twenty years - Appeals stands dismissed:  Supreme Court

- Appeals stand dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA