2022-TIOL-1121-ITAT-CHD

2022-TIOL-1120-ITAT-PUNE

2022-TIOL-1266-HC-KAR-GST

G G Agencies Vs State of Karnataka

GST - Petitioner has sought for quashing of order dated 19.02.2022 as being illegal and untenable in law; refund the taxes and penalty already paid - Petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by respondent no.3, they preferred an appeal on 30.03.2019 within the prescribed period as provided u/s 107 of the Act, 2017; that though the said appeal had been electronically filed, the respondent has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the main ground that the appeal was barred by limitation by assigning wholly invalid reasons and also without providing an opportunity of being heard. 

Held: The order impugned has been passed without considering or appreciating the aspects narrated and proceeds on the erroneous premise that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation which is factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record warranting interference and particularly when neither sufficient nor reasonable opportunity was provided by respondent before passing impugned order - So long as the appeal was preferred electronically within the prescribed period, merely because the certified copy was subsequently filed physically, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period - Findings recorded by respondent/appellate authority is set aside and matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Matter remanded: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1265-HC-DEL-GST

Mohd. Sabahuddin Vs CGST

GST - Petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 17.02.2022 by the CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts - Various conditions were imposed and which were to be complied by the petitioner - Court below has noticed that there was disobedience/violations of the conditions imposed -Petitioner submits that there was no deliberate disobedience by on account of inadvertence, the Google pin could not be dropped to the investigating officer and for which the petitioner apologises - Petitioner also states that he has been appearing on each date as and when called for but certain information that was sought could not be produced as it related to some old documents and which he needed time to procure.

Held:   Impugned order relates to certain non-compliances of the terms and conditions to which the petitioner has given sufficient explanation - In addition, since the petitioner has already undertaken that he would appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called for and explain the reason if, at all, any document or information is not available to him, it would be up to the Investigating Officer after perusal or consideration of the explanation by the petitioner to form an opinion as to the whether the applicant is at all not cooperating with the investigation - If the Investigating Officer feels that the petitioner is not cooperating and violating any of the terms and conditions imposed by the court concerned, he is always at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail - Order of lower court set aside - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 7]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1267-HC-KAR-ST

Senate Vs Designated Committee

ST - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to issue form SVLDRS-4 and quash the SCN dated 31.12.2021 issued by them.

Held: Material on record clearly establishes that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.1,49,27,961/- and who had accepted the entitlement of the petitioner under the SVLDRS Scheme - Petitioner having paid the aforesaid sum on 27/31.12.2019 within a period of 30 days from 02.12.2019 on which date form SVLDRS-3 was issued, respondent no.2 clearly fell in error in issuing SCN without considering or appreciating that the payment was already made - Impugned SCN is clearly contrary to the undisputed facts and circumstances - Petitioner is clearly entitled to the benefit of the SVLDR scheme and issuance of form SVLDRS-4 in his favour - SCN dated 31.12.2021 is quashed and respondent is directed to grant benefit of the scheme within a period of four weeks: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Petition allowed: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1264-HC-MAD-CUS

Lonovo India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Petitions have been filed seeking refund of terminal excise duty (TED) claimed by the petitioner in regard to the duty paid on supply of laptops to licence holders of Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme - Refund claims filed came to be rejected on various dates between February and August 2013 - Single Judge by order dated 24.10.2016 had allowed the petitions by applying decisions of Delhi High Court in Kondoi Metal Powers Mfg. Co. - 2014-TIOL-230-HC-DEL-EXIM ] and Madras High Court in Raja Crowns and Cans P Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-2323-HC-MAD-CX - As far as another batch of refund claims was concerned, the authority rejected the same on 13.08.2018, as against which the petitioner filed appeals before the appellate authority - Appeals came to be rejected by the DGFT as non-maintainable in terms of s.15(1) of the FTDR Act, 1992 - This order is being challenged in the current writ petition.

Held: Factum of payment of duty by the petitioner stands established. In the case of Sandoz Private Limited- 2022-TIOL-03-SC-CUS-LB , the Supreme Court has directed credit of the duty paid to the CENVAT Register of that assessee for the reason that, pending litigation, the era of Central Excise had been subsumed into Goods and Services Tax regime with no avenue available for receipt of the amount in cash - Position of law in regard to refund not being res integra any longer as well as the admitted position that the petitioner has, indeed, paid the duty in the first instance, the impugned orders are set aside and R3 is directed to grant credit of the amount of duty paid in the electronic credit register of the petitioner -  Exercise is to be done within a period of eight weeks  - Petitions allowed: High Court [para 11, 12]

- Petitions allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1263-HC-DEL-CUS

Aromatrix Flora Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner had approached this Court essentially aggrieved by the alleged delay caused by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in the grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for clearance of imported goods resulting in prohibitive demurrage charges coming to be levied - Petitioner had contended that in terms of the provisions made in Section 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act), FSSAI was obliged to duly inspect the imported food articles and accord clearance within a period of 5 days of taking the requisite samples - It was contended that FSSAI had on innumerable occasions caused delay in the grant of the NOC resulting in the petitioner being foisted with huge liabilities towards demurrage charges - Reliefs as claimed stand restricted to appropriate directions being framed for FSSAI expediting the process of inspection of imported articles and for permission being accorded to enable an importer to move the goods from a custodian warehouse to a public warehouse.

Held: It becomes relevant to note that the articles which were imported in the present case were hops, an ingredient which is used for providing a bitter flavor to beer. The article was thus liable to be duly inspected and cleared by FSSAI before it could be released for home consumption -  The manner in which imported food articles are to be inspected and NOC's granted is then governed by the provisions contained in the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017 (Import Regulations) -  It would be pertinent to note that Regulation 8(2) contemplates the imported articles of food being stored in a customs warehouse pending analysis and clearance by the competent authorities of the FSSAI - From the submissions of parties, it is manifest that none of them question the permissibility of the movement of imported articles from a custodian warehouse to a public warehouse - It was also conceded before the Court that no provision, statutory or otherwise, prohibits such a choice being exercised by an importer - In view of the above and bearing in mind the provisions which are made in Section 49 of the 1962 Act, the Court records that pending clearance of imported articles by the competent statutory authorities, it would in principle be permissible for an importer to apply to the competent authority of Customs to be granted the permission to move such articles from a custodian warehouse to a public warehouse - This would thus enable the importer to move the goods out of the airport or the cargo terminal and to store the same in a public warehouse - The movement of those goods would, however, necessarily have to be regulated by the Customs authorities since the goods while transiting from the custodian warehouse to the public warehouse are still to be cleared for the purposes of home consumption - It would not be prudent to prescribe or stipulate a particular timeframe within which that exercise of inspection, taking of samples and clearance is ultimately completed - This, since it would be impossible for the Court to predict the vagaries of a particular situation as well as the volume of imported articles of food that may be pending for inspection at any particular point of time by FSSAI - However, the apprehension which has been expressed in the writ petition stands duly taken care of and laid to rest in light of the unanimous position as struck by and on behalf of respondents 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8 who had stated that the transportation of imported articles from the custodian warehouse to a public warehouse is not prohibited under the provisions of the 1962 Act - All that would need to be observed is that FSSAI would not refuse inspection merely on the ground that the goods are stored in a public warehouse - Writ petition disposed of: High Court  [para 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19] 

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT