GST - Petitioner is directed to deposit amount of tax and penalty and to furnish a bond for fine in lieu of confiscation of goods before authority for release of goods and conveyance: HC

GST - In view of sections 67(2), 67(3), 74(2), 74(10), Court does not deem it appropriate to direct release of computer, laptop, documents and other things seized vide punchnama: HC

GST - Merely because the debit was not made in sequence mentioned in Circular, the refund claim could not have been rejected: HC

Cus - Smuggling of gold - Authorities have been more than liberal in deciding the revision application - Petition dismissed: HC

Cus - Broker licence - Doctrine of proportionality is a well-recognized concept of judicial review which Courts invoke to test punishments imposed which are disproportionate to alleged misconduct: HC

2022-TIOL-1556-HC-AHM-GST

Balkrishna Industries Ltd Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner claimed refund of untilised input tax credit on the ground that it had made zero rated supplies. Section 16 of the Act permits registered person to take credit of input tax credit of GST paid on capital goods and input services subject to such conditions and restrictions and in the manner as prescribed in Section 49 of the Act - When the entitlement of petitioner for refund is not in dispute and appellate authority has confirmed the claim of petitioner and conditions of section 54(3) of the Act and Rule 89(4) of Rules are complied with, even if the procedure laid down in circular for getting refund stands at variance or if it was not observed by petitioner for non culpable reasons, providence and procedure in circular would not prevail over the statutory prescription under which the right of petitioner to get refund is established - The respondent shall make the payment of refund to the petitioner with statutory interest within eight weeks: HC

- Appeal allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1555-HC-DEL-GST

Dhruv Krishan Maggu Vs Pr. Director General DGGI

GST - The Petitioner seeks return of his laptop, computer, documents and other things which were seized by revenue in a search conducted - A conjoint reading of Section 74(2) and Section 74(10) would clearly show that maximum period for issuance of SCN is six months prior to five years from date of erroneous refund - As per Section 67(3), if documents, books or things are not being relied upon for issuance of notice under CGST Act, 2017 , same are supposed to be returned within a period not exceeding thirty days from issue of said notice - Thus, by a conjoint reading of sections 67(2), 67(3), 74(2), 74(10) the 'documents or book or things' can be retained for a maximum period of four and half years, within which period the notice has to be issued, plus thirty days from the date of erroneous refund - In present case, said period had not yet lapsed - Accordingly, this Court does not deem it appropriate to direct release of computer, laptop, documents and other things seized vide punchnama - Authorities shall proceed in accordance with law and adhere to timelines which are prescribed in law: HC

- Writ petitions are dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1554-HC-AHM-GST

Arafa Traders Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner received order for supply of arecanuts from M/s. Bharath Matha Enterprises - It is their case that the proprietor of recipient of goods was out of station when order had been placed by Manager and therefore, proprietor not being aware about such order, filed a complaint with GST authority that e-way bill was wrongly generated by someone in his name - Based on such complaint, check-post authority detained the goods and conveyance of petitioner - Petitioner's case is that despite the fact that the very reason for detention and proposed confiscation of goods did not survive, respondents were neither dropping the confiscation proceedings nor releasing the goods and conveyance - Appellate Authority has not considered the facts of the case, as it emerges with regard to pre-deposit, more particularly, when the petitioner has stated before Appellate Authority that 25% of demand was already deposited by petitioner and challan was also produced before Appellate Authority - Appellate Authority has passed impugned order without considering the submissions made by petitioner and therefore, same is required to be quashed and set aside by remanding the matter back to Appellate Authority to pass a fresh de novo order after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner - Petitioner has shown willingness to deposit amount of tax and penalty and to furnish a bond for fine in lieu of confiscation of goods before authority for release of goods and conveyance - Accordingly, petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,300/- towards tax and a sum of Rs. 6,00,600/- for penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance, totalling Rs. 9,00,900/- before authorities within a period of two weeks on furnishing a bond of Rs. 60,06,000/- - The respondent authority is therefore, directed to release the goods and conveyance: HC

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1558-HC-MUM-CUS

Pr.CC Vs Mahavir Logistics

Cus - Revenue is in appeal - CESTAT upheld the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, however, it set aside the Order to the extent of revocation of Customs Broker Licence while upholding and confirming the forfeiture of the security deposit and the imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- - According to the CESTAT, the Order to the extent of revocation of the Customs Broker Licence of the Respondent was highly disproportionate.

Held : Bench has dealt with an identical matter on facts and in law in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. Unnati Shipping Agency P. Ltd, Customs Appeal No.6 of 2022, decided on 23 November 2022 - In that case also names of M/s Unnati Shipping Agency P. Ltd. and M/s Mahavir Logistics, both figured in the show cause notice, which was served on the Respondent - Tribunal, however, while upholding the Order as regards the imposition of penalty and forfeiture of the security deposit had set aside the Order to the extent of revocation of the Customs Broker Licence of M/s Unnati Shipping Agency P. Ltd. on the ground of proportionality - This Bench by virtue of judgment and Order dated 23 November 2022 upheld the Order of the CESTAT by placing reliance on the doctrine of proportionality - Doctrine of proportionality is a well-recognized concept of judicial review which Courts invoke to test the punishments imposed which are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct - Bench does not see any justification or reason to take a different view in this case than the one taken in the case of Unnati Shipping - Although the Respondent failed to discharge its obligation under CBLR, 2013, yet it cannot be denied that efforts were made by the said Respondent to discharge a part of its obligations under the said Regulations and, therefore, the Order with regard to revocation of the Broker Licence would be excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case - Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 10, 11, 12, 17, 18]

- Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-1557-HC-MAD-CUS

Hajara Mariyam Seyed Vs Addl. CC

Cus - Smuggling of gold - Petitioner had been intercepted on her arrival at Chennai International Airport from Dubai - Three gold chains and two gold bangles weighing 732.5 grams and Nine gold bars weighing 1048.5 grams were found on her person and no declaration was made or permission was sought for import of gold - Resultantly, gold valued at a sum of Rs.46,05,666/- was confiscated and a penalty of Rs.4,60,000/- had been imposed - Appeal was dismissed was the first appellate authority and in revision proceedings, the revisional authority has set aside the confiscation of the gold and has permitted redemption for re-export on payment of redemption fine - Penalty was also reduced to Rs.4,00,000/- - This order has been challenged by the petitioner. Held : Authorities have been more than liberal in deciding the revision application - No justification is made out for intervention in the impugned order - In light of the fact that the petitioner has, admittedly, brought in gold without either a declaration or a permit, there is no avenue to intervene in the impugned order, particularly seeing as the order is discretionary one and no error, much less perversity, is made out in the same - There is no merit in this writ petition - The impugned order is confirmed and this writ petition is dismissed: High Court [para 6, 7, 10]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT