2022-TIOL-1133-HC-MUM-ST
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd Vs UoI
ST - Petitioner has approached court in view of the refusal on the part of respondents to issue discharge certificate in respect of tax dues covered by the declaration in Form 1 under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - It is petitioner's case that they have paid the amount indicated in accordance with the SVLDRS within the permitted time but still the discharge certificate is not being issued - Petitioner was facing severe liquidity crunch, therefore, decided to utilize a sum of Rs.2,89,15,115/- from its electronic cash ledger to discharge the estimated amount determined as payable by petitioner as per SVLDRS Form No.3 issued by Respondent No.4 - Respondents acknowledge that petitioner has made this payment but according to respondents, Section 127(5) of the Finance Act, 2019 prescribed the method in which the payment is to be made and it says that the payment shall be made electronically through internet banking within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of statement by the designated committee.
Held: There is nothing to indicate the definition of 'pay electronically or through internet banking' - Admittedly, the amount has been paid by electronic cash ledger maintained by petitioner under the CGST Act - Therefore, the fact that the Government of India has received the amount of Rs.2,89,15,115/- cannot be disputed - The fact that this amount has been paid on 30th June 2020 which was the last extended date, also is not disputed - The only objection seems to be that it was not paid through the window provided for such payments - Bench is of the view that this is a hyper technical objection being taken by respondents and if due to the method of payment used by petitioner, Form No.4 cannot be auto generated, Respondent No. 4 can issue manually the Form No.4 discharge certificate - Respondents should adopt a reasonable and pragmatic approach so that a declarant can avail the benefits of the scheme and a declarant like petitioner cannot be put in a worse off condition than he was before making declaration under the Scheme - In the view of the Bench, the SVLDRS has to be given a liberal interpretation and not a narrow interpretation, it's intent being to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes - In the absence of any definition as to what amounts to “pay electronically through internet banking”, even payment made by electronic cash ledger maintained by petitioner under the CGST Act also amounts to payment through internet banking - Respondent No.4 is directed to issue within four weeks discharge certificate in Form SVLDRS - 4 - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7, 9, 10, 11, 12]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1132-HC-MUM-ST
Sai Siddhi Hospitality Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner, deeming itself eligible and being desirous of availing of the benefits of the SVLDRS scheme, on 15th January, 2020, filed Form SVLDRS-1 declaring therein an amount of Rs.1,30,37,261/- as service tax - S ole reason given by Respondent No. 4 for holding Petitioner ineligible was that the tax dues were not quantified as on 30th June, 2019, which is the cut off date prescribed in SVLDRS scheme - Aggrieved, petitioner is before the High Court and submits the the rejection was in the teeth of the SLVDRS scheme and Circular dated 27th August 2019 -
Held: When one reads the provisions of Section 121(r) with Clause (c) of Section 123 read with Circular dated 27th August, 2019 and the answer given to Question 1 and 45 of the FAQs, the same leaves no manner of doubt that there has been a valid quantification and admission of duty/tax by Petitioner before 30th June, 2019 - The statement of Petitioner's Director Mr. Shetty recorded by Respondent No.2 on 28th March, 2019 would clearly qualify as admission and quantification under the SVLDRS scheme - Thus, the Petitioner was eligible to make a declaration in terms of Section 125 of the SVLDRS scheme - Respondent No.4 holding Petitioner ineligible for the reason that the tax dues were not quantified as on 30th June, 2019 is entirely misconceived and unjustified - It is pertinent to note that the purpose of the scheme is quantification and acceptance by a declarant of tax dues before the cut-off date - In this case, not only has there been a valid quantification before the cut-off date, but the quantification is in fact of a higher amount - Respondent No.4 was completely unjustified in rejecting the Form SVLDRS-1 filed by Petitioner for the reason so stated in the impugned communication - Respondent should issue petitioner, either form SVLDRS-3 or SVLDRS-2 within four weeks electronically or in physical format - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 19, 20, 21]
- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-772-CESTAT-AHM
Navyug Ship Breaking Company Vs CC
Cus - Controversy at hand narrows down to question whether the transaction value of vessel is to be priced mentioned in original MOA or reduced price indicated in addendum - In light of statutory provisions, factum of actual payment of price in terms of addendum cannot be ignored while determining value of vessel under Section 14 of the Act - In such a situation genuineness and necessity of reduction in price are required to be scrutinised very carefully - Commissioner (A) passed the impugned order only by relying the finding of lower adjudicating authority - Commissioner (A) has not examined the genuineness of addendum, and has proceeded to reject the appeal of appellant - For all these reasons, Commissioner (A) needs to examine the matter afresh - Accordingly, matter is remitted back for fresh consideration, particularly in relation to genuineness of addendum entered into between the appellant and the supplier: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-771-CESTAT-AHM
Avdhesh Mishra Vs CCE & ST
CX - Appellant is in appeal against common impugned order whereby, Commissioner (A) upheld the penalty of Rs.20,000 /- & Rs.8,000/- respectively - The penalty were imposed under Rule 26 with reference to a case of duty evasion made against employer company of appellant - From the statement of appellant with reference to case against company, there is a clear admission that appellant have manipulated cost of product and goods were clandestinely removed from premises of Job Worker - Appellant's plea is that he was working as Import/Export Manager and not dealt with transaction made with Job Worker - From the entire records, it is found that he is the sole Authorised Signatory for company and he has given statements with reference to offence committed by company - Therefore, his submission that he was not involved in activity of Job Work has no support - The Commissioner (A) has already taken a lenient view and substantially reduced the penalty from Rs.50000/- and Rs.20,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively - The role of appellant is clearly established therefore, no further relief can be extended to appellant - Accordingly, impugned orders are upheld: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-770-CESTAT-MUM
Hapag-Lloyd Global Services Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CGST
ST - Appellant availed cenvat credit on services such as car hire charges, travels, event management, mandap keeper, security services, hotel banquets, photography, decoration and transportation charges - Revenue was of opinion that these services against which appellant has taken cenvat credit were having no nexus to output services provided by them - Periodical SCNs were issued to them from 2005 to 2014-15 - For subsequent period i.e. 2015 to June 2017 also, SCNs were issued to appellant to deny and recover inadmissible cenvat credit - Issue that is before Tribunal for consideration is vis-à-vis input services of security agent, air travel and hotel stay - Since Commissioner (A) has in remand proceedings allowed the credit in respect of these services, no reason found to differ with order of Commissioner (A) in case of appellant itself - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
