GST - Officer, who would be competent to investigate would be the officer, who is stationed in Chennai within whose jurisdiction the appellant is located and not Officers of DG, GSTI at Coimbatore or Madurai: HC

CX - CENVAT - An allegation of fraud must necessarily be proved by the person who levels such an allegation and where department succeeds in prima-facie proving its allegation, the onus would shift to the assessee to prove genuineness of transaction: HC

Cus - Issues involved are entirely factual and no substantial question of law is involved - Revenue appeal dismissed: HC

Cus - Notification was uploaded at 8.45 p.m. after working hours - If impugned Notification is made applicable to goods imported earlier in the day, it would amount to retrospective application, which is not permissible in law: HC

2022-TIOL-1532-HC-MAD-GST

St Thomas Mount Cum Pallavaram Cantonment Board Vs Addl. Director Govt. of India DG of GST Intelligence

GST - In Writ appeal, the appellant submits that the appellant is located in Chennai and all its properties are also only in Chennai, therefore, there is no territorial nexus between the appellant and the respondent Officers of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence at Coimbatore or Madurai. Held : Though the officer from the Intelligence Department of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence is competent to investigate into the affairs of the appellant, the officer, who would be competent to investigate would be the officer, who is stationed in Chennai within whose jurisdiction the appellant is located - Considering the above, Bench is inclined to allow this writ appeal - Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to depute an officer in Chennai to investigate into the affairs of the appellant and issue summons as to whether there is any evasion of tax under the provisions of respective GST enactments, 2017 - Appeal allowed: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1535-HC-P&H-CUS

Shweta International Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner is stated to have imported a consignment of dry dates and ingredients -Goods entered India on 16.02.2019 through the Land Customs Station, Road Cargo, Attari Road, Amritsar, wherein the petitioner filed the checklist Bill of Entry, after making self-assessment and payment of Customs Duty of Rs.2,14,534/- - In the late evening hours of 16.02.2019 after sunset, the respondents issued Notification No. 05/2019-Cus. whereby the Customs Duty on the goods imported from Pakistan were subjected to 200% duty - Case projected on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned Notification dated 16.02.2019 can only be prospective in operation - Co-ordinate Bench [in Rasrasna Food P Ltd. = 2019-TIOL-1950-HC-P&H-CUS - affirmed by the Supreme Court] took a view that the petitioners in the bunch of 27 writ petitions had placed import orders prior to 16.02.2019 and had received goods in India on or before 16.02.2019 i.e. before the impugned Notification was issued/uploaded at 8.45 p.m. on 16.02.2019 after working hours and as such if the impugned Notification is made applicable, it would amount to retrospective application, which is not permissible in law.

Held: Counsel for Respondent Revenue is not in a position to controvert that the petitioner has placed the import orders prior to 16.02.2019 and has also received goods on or before 16.02.2019 and in any case prior to issuance of the impugned notification which was uploaded on 16.02.2019 at 8.45 p.m. - Generation of Bill of Entry is to be seen as a mere procedural fallout - Writ petition is allowed in terms of judgment dated 26.08.2019 rendered in M/s Rasrasna Food Pvt. Ltd. (supra): High Court

- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1534-HC-KOL-CUS

CC Vs Gopal Kumar Agarwal

Cus - Alleged Smuggling of gold - Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by CESTAT - Tribunal has held on facts that no evidence could be adduced by the Department in the subsequent investigation that the seized gold was of foreign origin and smuggled into the country - Further, the Tribunal held that the respondent had submitted all the relevant document including GST, purchase invoice etc. covering the gold which have been examined by the Department and no discrepancies were pointed out. Held: Issue is entirely factual and the substantial questions of law which have been suggested by the revenue do not arise for consideration in this appeal - Appeal is dismissed: High Court

- Appeal dismissed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1533-HC-P&H-CX

Anurag Alloys And Die Cast Pvt Ltd Vs CCE

CX - Appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the final order dated 30.08.2013 passed in Excise Appeal No. E-756/2011 = 2013-TIOL-1489-CESTAT-DEL in terms of which the CESTAT has upheld the demand of duty and levy of 100% penalty upon the appellant - Case of the Revenue is that the first stage dealer and second stage dealer have passed cenvat credit to the appellant without actual delivery of the goods - A specific ground has been taken that the appellant after receipt of goods had manufactured the finished goods and had cleared the same upon due payment of duty; that in the show cause notice there was no allegation that the appellant had not manufactured and cleared the finished goods without payment of duty from inputs on which Cenvat Credit had been availed of. Held : In a similar factual premise, a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s SMI Electrowire Pvt. Ltd. = 2015-TIOL-383-HC-P&H-CX has inter alia observed that an allegation of fraud must necessarily be proved by the person who levels such an allegation; and where, however, the department succeeds in prima-facie proving its allegation of fraud, the onus would shift to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction - Bench is, therefore, of the considered view that the facts of the present case also warrant and justify a remand to the CESTAT for adjudicating the matter afresh and after examining the entire material in the nature of statutory returns/registers in question as also the declaration etc. that had been filed by the appellant - Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CESTAT for passing of orders afresh - Appeals disposed of: High Court

- Matters remanded: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT