I-T - Whether corporate death upon amalgamation invalidates assessment order cannot be resolved solely by applying Sec 481 of Companies Act; facts & terms of amalgamation of each case must be considered: SC

I-T - re-opening of assessment is unsustainable where not based on any new tangible evidence which goes to show that income escaped assessment: HC

GST - Since the documents as demanded by applicant never came to be issued at any point of time, matter is remitted to concerned authority who shall furnish all the documents: HC

GST - Since no notice was given to petitioner before contemplating to pass an adverse order, such a course of caution is prejudicial to interest of petitioner and same would be in violation of Section 75 (4) of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017: HC

GST - Petioner is eligible for refunds of IGST paid in respect of goods exported i.e. 'Zero Rated Supplies' with 6% simple interest from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund: HC

GST - For a mistake said to have been committed by Chartered Accountant, dealer under the Act should not be made to pay a very heavy price like cancellation of registration itself: HC

CX - Department cannot take disadvantage of wrong impression or mistaken action of petitioner in bonafidely applying under beneficial scheme: HC

Service matter - CAS introduced for teachers and Central Govt. employees to overcome problem of adequate promotion avenues, nowhere tinker with eligibility for appointment to cadre posts: SC

2022-TIOL-443-HC-AHM-GST

Dilipkumar Chandulal Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Cancellation of registration certificate - It was an inadvertent mistake committed by Chartered Accountant which led to cancellation of registration number of proprietaryship - The respondent should immediately look into the matter and see to it that the order cancelling the registration is recalled and the original registration under CGST is restored - For a mistake said to have been committed by Chartered Accountant, the dealer under the Act should not be made to pay a very heavy price like cancellation of registration itself - Let the needful be done within a period of eight weeks: HC

- Writ application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-442-HC-AHM-GST

RP Exim Vs Pr.CC

GST - The issue is with regard to sanction of refund of IGST paid in respect of goods exported i.e. 'Zero Rated Supplies' made in connection with shipping bills - Issue is no longer res integra in view of two pronouncements in case of Amit Cotton Industries 2019-TIOL-1443-HC-AHM-GST and Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd 2020-TIOL-2238-HC-AHM-GST - The case of Awadkrupa Plastomech was challenged by the Union of India before Supreme Court - Leave was granted, and ultimately, the appeal of the Union came to be dismissed - In view of aforesaid, respondents are directed to sanction the respective refunds of IGST paid in respect of goods exported i.e. 'Zero Rated Supplies' with 6% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund - If differential duty has not been paid, same shall be paid at the earliest: HC

- Writ applications allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-441-HC-AP-GST

Sree Constructions Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)

GST - The impugned order was passed in month of July, 2020 and Petition was filed in month of October, 2021 - Reason given by petitioner is that due to pandemic, he could not avail the remedy at the earliest - He further submits that in view of orders passed by Supreme Court extending the period of limitation, approaching this Court in year 2021 cannot be said to be with delay - It is very much evident that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given where a request was made in writing to the person chargeable with taxes and penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person - Failure to do so, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice - Admittedly, no notice was given to petitioner before contemplating to pass an adverse order - Such a course of caution is prejudicial to interest of petitioner and the same would be in violation of Sub-Section (4) of Section 75 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - Matter remanded to respondent for consideration of issues and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law afresh after giving notice of hearing to the petitioner: HC

- Matter remanded: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-440-HC-AHM-GST

Swati Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat

GST - A SCN came to be issued to applicant in Form GST DRC-01 calling upon the applicant to show-cause as to why an amount shall not be levied with interest and penalty for alleged contraventions as mentioned in SCN - Upon receipt of such SCN, a formal reply was filed wherein the applicant requested the authority concerned to furnish him few documents which were referred to and relied upon in SCN - Such documents as demanded by applicant never came to be issued at any point of time - It appears that, thereafter, the authority concerned proceeded to pass the final order in MOV-07 - Impugned order passed by authority concerned in MOV-07 is hereby quashed and set aside - Matter is remitted to concerned authority who shall furnish all documents: HC

- Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-31-SC-SERVICE

National Institute of Technology Vs Om Prakash Rahi

Whether Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) by its very nomenclature introduced for teachers and Central Government employees to overcome the problem of stagnation and hardship faced due to lack of adequate promotion avenues, tinker with the conditions of eligibility for appointment to the cadre posts - NO: SC

- Appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2022-TIOL-438-HC-MUM-CX

Datamini Technologies India Ltd Vs UoI

CX - Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking refund of amount which was deposited under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 - Refund is sought on the premise that the withdrawal of appeal filed by Tax Department under Government Policy made Petitioners legally entitled for refund of amount since there are no dues - The Petitioners came with specific case that they were unaware about CBIC instructions directing the department to withdraw pending appeals below specified sum i.e. 2 crores - In that case there was no reason for Petitioners to file declaration under scheme in bid to settle the matter by availing benefit of scheme - However, by virtue of CBIC instructions, pending appeal does not survive, therefore, no question remained for availing benefit of scheme - Department cannot take disadvantage of wrong impression or mistaken action of petitioner in bonafidely applying under beneficial scheme - On the date of issuance of CBIC instructions, nothing was due from Petitioners - However, to get out of legal conflict raised by way of department's appeal, Petitioners applied under the scheme - The authority despite knowledge that the appeal would not survive by virtue of CBIC instructions, still processed the declaration and raised demand by keeping the appeal pending - In that case there was no reason for Petitioners to apply under scheme and consequential deposit of amount as per the declaration - Taxing Department cannot enrich itself by unauthorized collection of amount which needs to be refunded - Respondents are directed to refund the sum to Petitioners within three months: HC

- Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT