VAT - Mere production of invoices or payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging burden of proof cast u/s 70 of KVAT Act, 2003: SC

2023-TIOL-18-SC-VAT

State of Karnataka Vs Ecom Gil Coffee Trading Pvt Ltd

Whether burden of proving that ITC claim is correct lies upon the purchasing dealer claiming such ITC - YES: SC

Whether mere production of invoices or payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast u/s 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - YES: SC

Whether genuineness of transaction and actual physical movement of goods, are sine qua non for claiming ITC - YES: SC

- Revenue's appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-327-HC-ORISSA-GST

Shiva Jyoti Construction Vs Chairperson CBIC

GST - The Petitioner sought a permission to rectify GST Return filed in Form-B2B instead of B2C as was wrongly filed under GSTR-1 in order to get Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit by principal contractor - The stand taken by Opposite Parties is that once the deadline for rectification of Forms was crossed, then no further indulgence could be granted to petitioner - Fact remains that by permitting petitioner to rectify said error, there will be no loss whatsoever caused to Opposite Parties - It is not as if that there will be any escapement of tax - This is only about ITC benefit which in any event has to be given to petitioner - Madras High Court in M/s. SUN DYE CHEM 2020-TIOL-1858-HC-MAD-GST directed that petitioner in that case should be permitted to file corrected form - Court permits the petitioner to resubmit corrected Form-B2B under GSTR-1 and to enable the petitioner to do so a direction is issued to Opposite Parties to receive it manually: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: ORISSA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-326-HC-MP-CUS

Rainbow Agri Industries Ltd Vs Joint Director Director General of Central Excise

Cus - Personal hearing was not granted to petitioner before passing impugned order, even the authority without invoking Section 113 of Customs Act, 1962 went-on to pass order under Section 114 of the Act - Value of goods was not assessed or determined before passing impugned order - On the other hand, respondent submitted that personal hearing was granted to petitioner before passing of order on various occasions - In case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited, it is held that when statute provides for statutory appeal, said remedy is to be availed by litigating parties - Looking to the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, it is not proper to entertain these petitions - Petitioner would be at liberty to avail alternative remedy in accordance with law: HC

- Petitions dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-325-HC-MP-ST

KEC International Ltd Vs Designated Committee

ST - Petition has been filed assailing impugned order by which form SVLDRS-1 submitted by petitioner under "Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDR)" has been declined to be accepted on the ground that same pertains to deposit of only interest and not tax dues as per Section 123 of Finance Act (No. 2), 2019 and since no relief can be granted purely for amount of interest u/s 124 of said Act, the declaration was rejected - Initially, the respondent on being noticed took the stand that interest part is not covered under expression "Tax Dues" for seeking benefit under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 but, in all fairness Revenue has brought on record Instructions dated 06.10.2022 which clarified that expression "Tax Dues" would include cases where interest has been demanded by a SCN or O-I-O - Revenue needs to revisit the claim of petitioner - Impugned order passed by Designated Committee (SVLDRS) stands quashed - The Designated Committee is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner and pass appropriate orders within 60 days in accordance with law: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT