2022-TIOL-1521-HC-DEL-ST
Serendipity Infolabs Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - Petitioner has sought a direction seeking waiver of pre-deposit in the appeal filed by the petitioner against O-in-O dated 28.01.2022 without insistence on payment of pre-deposit of 7.5%; that the CESTAT admit and hear the appeal filed by the petitioner against the O-in-O without insistence of payment of pre-deposit @7.5% of the disputed tax liability - Petitioner submits that they have suffered huge losses and, therefore, are not in a position to make the mandatory pre-deposit quantified at Rs.1.45 crores for filing an appeal before the CESTAT.
Held: Prima facie , the controversy is not in relation to any question of fact but to a question of law - whether the petitioner is required to pay service tax on the commission received or the gross amount for the taxi service - Given the mitigating circumstances and the financial condition of the petitioner, the Court considers it apposite to direct that if the petitioner makes the pre-deposit of a sum of Rs.50 lakhs within a period of two weeks, the petitioner's appeal shall be heard by CESTAT on merits - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1520-HC-MUM-CUS
Eastern Agencies Aromatics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petitioner challenges SCDN dated 26th September 2013 issued by DRI - Petitioner submits that the Superintendent of Customs, Adjudication(Export), by letter dated 26th August 2022, for the first time called upon the Petitioner for personal hearing scheduled on 8th September 2022 - Hence, they filed the present Petition challenging the show cause notice as well as sought directions, thereby restraining the Respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the show cause notice - Petitioner, inter alia, upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Raymond Limited = 2019-TIOL-1864-HC-MUM-CX which held that delay in adjudication of show cause notice amounts to breach of principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed and set aside the show cause notice on the ground of delay.
Held: In the present case, reasons given by the Respondents for the delay caused in seeking to revive the show cause notice do not constitute any reasonable ground and the delay caused is not sustainable, as the same is in breach of the principles of natural justice - Though in Affidavit-In-Reply it is sought to be contented that the period of limitation prescribed by the amending Act, 2018 is not applicable to the present show cause notice of the year 2013, nothing was argued before the Bench in support of this contention - In the view of the Bench, even otherwise, the powers of such nature of adjudicating the show cause notice are required to be exercised within reasonable time - Bench does not find any justification for the inaction on the part of the Respondents for keeping the adjudication of the show cause notice pending and for seeking revival of the same after a period of 9 years - Show cause notice impugned in the Petition is required to be quashed and set aside and it is also necessary to prohibit the Respondent from adjudicating the show cause notice any further - Ordered accordingly: High Court [para 17, 18]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1519-HC-DEL-CUS
Hyatt India Consultancy Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - Petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned para 3.08(f) of FTP 2015-20 along with impugned deficiency memos dated 03.06.2020 and 21.07.2020 issued by Respondent No.3; that paragraph 3.08(f) of the FTP 2015-20 is ultra vires its parent Act i.e., the FTDR Act so far as it directs the export service provider to have an IEC at the time of making export of its service - Further, the Petitioner has prayed for this Court to direct processing of the SEIS application dated 22.03.2020 filed by the Petitioner - Submission of the Petitioners is that they cannot be denied the substantive benefit for a mere procedural lapse and that the actions of the Respondents has violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) as well as rights under Article 300A of the Constitution - Counsel for Revenue states that the controversy in the present case does not subsist any longer as the Centre has taken into account the grievances raised by the exporters and has decided to inter alia amend para 2.05 of the FTP 2015-20.
Held : A perusal of the Notification 24/2015-2020 dated 8 August 2018 shows that para 2.05 of the FTP 2015-20 regarding IEC has been amended and the Government has taken a decision that for services exports, the Importer Exporter Code shall be necessary as per the provisions in Chapter 3, only when the service provider is taking benefits under the FTP - Respondents submitted that the Petitioner has also not exhausted its remedies available under Section 15 of the FTDR Act and para 2.59 of Handbook Provisions and which provide for filing appeals - Therefore, the principal grievance of the exporters that the Government cannot insist upon IEC at the time of export stands satisfied in light of the above stated amendment - Petitions are disposed of: High Court [para 22, 24, 26, 30]
- Petitions disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT |
