ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - For being eligible under the Scheme, a written communication of amount of duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit would be a quantification: HC

GST - Penalty - Once it is found that selling dealer was bogus firm, goods carrying e-way bill is of no benefit to petitioners as the same has been used for transiting goods from non bona fide dealer from undisclosed place: HC

GST - Gold ornaments - Discrepancy of 100 gms in documents produced and quantity recovered itself is sufficient for Department to suspect evasion of tax - No malice or ill-will or lack of jurisdiction in initiating proceedings u/s 130: HC

GST - Blocking of Electronic Credit ledger - Intimate appellant, who passed the order and for what reason - Objections to be filed within one week and speaking order to be passed: HC

2023-TIOL-155-HC-DEL-VAT

Mahadev Enterprises Vs Commissioner of VAT

Whether the VAT Tribunal, being a fact-finding authority, is well within its power to remand a matter for ascertaining certain facts - YES: HC

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-153-HC-ALL-GST

Amil Vs State of UP

GST - Petition has been filed challenging the show-cause notice dated 29.04.2022 issued by respondent no. 4 and order dated 14.05.2022 imposing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 by respondent no. 4 and the appellate order dated 30.06.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 - On 26.04.2022, goods were intercepted by the mobile squad. On 29.04.2022, detention order was passed in form GST-MOV-06 and notices were issued to the seller firm as well as the buyer - An inquiry was conducted by the tax authorities about the details of the seller and it was found that firm was bogus and its registration was suspended on 04.05.2022 - On 14.05.2022, a penalty order was passed by respondent no. 4 imposing penalty of Rs.18,77,085/- - Appeal against this order was also dismissed and hence the petition - Petitioner submits that  appellate authority should not go into the question whether the seller is a  bona fide  dealer or not, as at the time of sale it was registered under the provisions of the Act and the e-way bill was generated - It is further contended that once the goods in transit were carrying all the documents as required under Rule 138, the proceeding initiated by the respondents authorities was not justified.

Held: Sole question engaging the attention of the Court is as to whether, the orders under challenge need any interference of this Court once specific finding has been recorded to the extent that the selling dealer was non-existent at the place where his firm is said to have been registered and only through the e-way bill generated, goods were being sent from some other undisclosed place and ITC was to be claimed - On physical verification of the premises of M/s. Sunshine Overseas, it is clear that no business transaction was being done from that place and the GST registration was suspended on 04.05.2022 - The selling dealer till date has not responded to the notice of the tax authorities nor has come forward to state that goods were sent by him through the e-way bill alleged to have been generated from the portal from the address mentioned therein - The tax authorities had also scrutinised the records of the selling dealer for the assessment year 2021-22 and found that it was not indulging in any sale and purchase and bogus transactions were only made for claiming ITC - Once, it is found that selling dealer was bogus firm, the goods carrying the e-way bill generated by such firm is of no benefit to the petitioners as the same has been used for transiting the goods from  non  bona fide  dealer from undisclosed place - No interference is required in the orders impugned - Writ petition is dismissed: High Court

- Petition dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-152-HC-KERALA-GST

Sasi Pathirakunnath Vs Asstt. State Tax Officer

GST - First petitioner is proprietor of an establishment “A One Gold” - Second petitioner is an acquaintance of the first petitioner and was travelling on a train from Thrissur to Alleppy on 07.09.2022 carrying some gold ornaments at the instance of the first petitioner - Second petitioner was detained by RPF and on being questioned showed certain documents on his mobile phone but the same did not appear to be satisfactory to the RPF - Later, the first petitioner brought certain documents which according to the first petitioner were sufficient to establish that the gold being bonafidely transported with full compliance of GST laws - It is submitted that notwithstanding the above and completely ignoring the documents available the second respondent initiated and concluded proceedings u/s 130 of the Act and which is under challenge in this writ petition.

Held: There is no satisfactory explanation for the fact that there was a discrepancy in  the quantity mentioned in the documents produced by the 1 st  petitioner in the evening before the Tax authorities and the quantity actually recovered from the petitioner - The contention of the petitioners that the 2 nd  petitioner had forgotten to hand over about 100 gms of gold, which was being carried in his pocket, cannot be accepted, at least at this stage - The fact that there was discrepancy in the quantity in the documents stated to have been produced and the quantity  recovered from the 2nd petitioner itself, is sufficient for the Department to suspect the evasion of tax - Therefore, this question is being considered only for the purpose of deciding whether the officers were right in initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts - In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench is unable to find that there was any malice or ill-will or lack of jurisdiction in initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts - Without interfering with the order and holding the it will be open to petitioners to raise all their contentions before the appellate authority - The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed: High Court [para 6]

- Petition dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-151-HC-KOL-GST

Vijay Jaiswal Vs Asstt.Commissioner, West Bengal GST

GST - Appeal filed against the order dated 11th May 2022 of Single Judge as the prayer for interim relief was not granted inasmuch as the petitioner had challenged the vires of rule 86A - In appeal, the appellant submitted that he is ready to give up the prayer to challenge the constitutional validity of rule 86A but requests that the order of blocking the electronic credit ledger  be withdrawn and ITC utilisation be restored.

Held: Writ petition as well as appeal and the connected application are disposed of by directing the appropriate authority to intimate to the appellant within ten days the reasons for which the electronic credit ledger of the appellant was blocked along with the information as to which authority had passed such an order - On receipt of such reasons, the appellant is entitled to file his objections within seven days there from after which the authority  concerned  shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant or his authorised representative and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of two weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6]

- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-150-HC-AHM-GST

GSM Industries Vs UoI

GST - The ground of SCN being cryptic and order of cancellation of registration also being one liner is thrust of arguments - Petitioner having approached the Appellate Forum, which had not entertained it on the ground of delay in preferring appeal is the line of arguments respondent has adopted - Petitioner is ready to pay taxes, which he shall do and will also move the concerned officer seeking revocation - Apex Court's direction for enlargement of time during COVID-19 also will come to rescue - Court also notice the powers given to officer concerned under Rule 23 of CGST Rules where the proper officer if, is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that there are sufficient grounds for revocation of cancellation is obligated to revoke cancellation by an order in Form GST REG No. 22 within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of application and communicate the same to the applicant - The period which petitioner has spent before this court in pursuing this remedy shall also be construed and therefore, statutory time period shall needs to be reckoned accordingly - Let this process be initiated within a period of one weeks and payment of taxes and filing of return shall be done within a period of two weeks - Matter is adjourned to 08.02.2023: HC

- Matter adjourned: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-149-HC-AHM-GST

L M Corporation Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner is before this Court challenging proceedings initiated by SCN which culminated into order canceling the registration of petitioner Firm under provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act - In the instant case, SCN is this-wise- collects any amount as representing tax but fails to pay the same to account of Central/State Government beyond a period of three months from the date on which such payment becomes due - The Court had not only quashed and set aside and frowned upon such action on the part of authority concerned, but had also, at some stage, contemplated to initiate proceedings for contempt against the officer for not abiding by decision of this Court - Now all actions have already been initiated and also directions have come from higher authorities - There shall not be any cause for grievance on the part of assessee for order being non-speaking or cryptic in nature - Order of cancellation of registration is quashed and set aside - The respondent authority is directed to permit the petitioner to file returns and is also permitted to issue fresh SCN within four weeks of receipt of copy of this order and avail an opportunity to petitioner in accordance with law: HC

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-154-HC-MUM-ST

K Raheja Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - It is the Petitioner's case that Petitioner never received the said communication of rejection of the SVLDRS declaration on 20 March 2020 either from Respondent No.4 or from the Designated Committed, prior to the 4th Respondent's letter dated 17th February 2022, by which the letter dated Nil March, 2020 rejecting the declaration was enclosed - Aggrieved by the aforesaid, Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition submitting that rejection of the declaration filed by Petitioner under Section 125(2) of the Finance Act, 2019 is ex- facie, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the scheme and in breach of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

Held: SVLDR Scheme is a legislation introduced for liquidation of legacy disputes on the one hand and recovery of unpaid taxes to the government on the other - For being eligible under the SVLDR Scheme, a written communication of the amount of duty liability admitted by the person concerned during enquiry, investigation or audit would be a quantification on or before 30 June 2019, which need not be determined upon completion of investigation by issuance of Show Cause Notice or upon adjudication - It is only pursuant to communication dated 14 February 2022 when request was made by Petitioner to issue Form SVLDRS-4 that vide communication dated 17 February 2022, the Respondent No.4- Additional Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise informed Petitioner that Form SVLDRS-1 filed by Petitioner had been rejected on 20 March 2020 and enclosed a copy of the said letter dated nil March 2020 - Admittedly, the communication was handed over to the Petitioner on 17 February 2022 - It is only in the affidavit-in-reply that reasons are sought to be given that personal hearing on 22 January 2022 at 3.00 p.m. was to clarify the matter - Except a bald statement that tax amount has not been quantified as on 30 June 2019 and that the Designated Committee was informed of the said fact by the investigating agency on 27 February 2020 without affording an opportunity to the Petitioner of dealing with the same, the application of Petitioner is sought to be rejected - It is not explained as to why if information was furnished to the Designated Committee vide letter dated 27 February 2020, a clarification was sought from the Petitioner on 22 January 2020, a date prior to the communication by the investigating agency - Once SVLDRS-2 has been issued and there has also been a follow up from the Respondents with respect to the said Form as well as the hearing that was fixed at the appointed date and time, the Respondent-Authorities cannot renege on the same - Particularly so in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where admittedly, the rejection of SVLDRS-1 was not communicated to Petitioner on 20 March 2020, but only communicated to them on 17 February 2022 i.e. after a request came from Petitioner to issue Form SVLDRS-4 - Communication dated nil March, 2020 as well as the Show Cause Notice dated 21 June 2021 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside - Respondents are directed to constitute Designated Committee to consider the SVLDRS-1 declaration filed by Petitioner as well as SVLDRS-2 issued by the Designated Committee and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to Petitioner issue Form SVLDRS-3 and Form SVLDRS-4, within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order – Petition allowed: High Court [para 56, 64, 65, 67, 68]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT