Shri P Thiaga Rajan, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Tamil Nadu

I-T - Extended limitation of 10 years u/s 149(1)(b) for reassessment of income escaped more than Rs. 50 lakhs cant be invoked by AO based only on assessee's express disclosure: HC

GST - Issues involved are all matters turning on facts; not a fit case for interfering with the impugned notice - Petition dismissed: HC

GST - Petitioner has concealed material facts of the case which dis-entitles him to any relief in writ jurisdiction - Cost imposed: HC

Cus - NBW received unexecuted - Trial Court was required to issue proclamation against Olga Kozireva for appearance at specified place and at specified time and not drop proceedings: HC

2023-TIOL-28-HC-MAD-GST

New Royal Ferrous And Non Ferrous Trading Corporation Vs Deputy State Tax Officer

GST - Notice issued u/s 129(3) of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to release the vehicle and consignment.

Held : Issues involved are all matters turning on facts - This is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned notice - Let the petitioner respond to 04.12.2022 notice, let the respondent consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner - It is made clear that if the order is adverse to the writ petitioner, it is open to the writ petitioner to assail the same in a manner known to law - Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed: High Court [para 6, 7]

- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-27-HC-ALL-GST

Jambudwip Exports And Imports Ltd Vs State of UP

GST - Petitioner submits that after issuance of DRC-01A, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and straightaway the impugned assessment order was passed u/s 74 of the Act in form DRC-07; that, therefore, the same has to be quashed in view of the provisions of s.75(4) of the Act and the law laid down in the case of Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals - 2022-TIOL-450-HC-ALL-GST .

Held: F inding of the Assessing Officer regarding issuance of show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01A, under Section 74(5) of the Act, 2017 requiring the petitioner to show cause and avail opportunity of personal hearing on the date, time and place fixed in the notice, has not been denied by the petitioner in the writ petition - Fact of issuance of notice in Form GST-DRC-01 dated 14.1.2022 is clearly mentioned at internal page 12 of the impugned assessment order but the petitioner has neither filed copy of the aforesaid show cause notice nor disclosed it in the writ petition nor disputed the finding of fact recorded in the impugned order regarding issuance of said notice and affording of opportunity of personal hearing to him - Petitioner has concealed material facts of the case which also dis-entitles him to any relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - No merit in the submission of the petitioner regarding breach of principles of  natural justice by respondent while passing the impugned order - Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be deposited by petitioner with the High Court Legal Services Committee: High Court [para 10, 12, 13]

- Petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-26-HC-DEL-CUS

Air Customs Vs State

Cus - Revision Petition is filed to impugn the order dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in case titled as Air Customs V. Olga Kozireva & Others - Court of ACMM, New Delhi passed orders dropping/dismissing the proceedings against Olga Kozireva by observing thus - '… NBWs against the accused No.1 cannot be executed except through extradition channel. Hence when the complainant has failed to take steps for execution of NBWs against accused No. 1, this Court is left with no option but to drop/dismiss the proceedings against accused No. 1…'

Held : Accused no.1 i.e. Olga Kozireva in the complaint was admitted to bail but absconded thereafter - The non-bailable warrant has already been issued against the Olga Kozireva but could not be executed - Thereafter the appropriate procedure which was required to be followed by the Trial Court was to issue the proclamation against Olga Kozireva for appearance at specified place and at specified time - The Trial Court was not required to drop the proceedings as per the impugned order - The impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly set aside - The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps further in accordance with law [section 82 Cr.P.C .] in case the non-bailable warrant received unexecuted due to reason whatsoever - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT