GST - Revenue is directed to release goods and conveyance of petitioner subject to conditions that petitioner shall deposit an amount of interest and penalty, and also furnishes a bond: HC

GST - When statutory alternative remedy is available, High Court would be slow to entertain petition directly to exercise writ jurisdiction, petitioner is required to exhaust statutory alternative remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Court: HC

GST - There is no patent lack of jurisdiction or complete absence of jurisdictional facts in impugned order that would allow to declare that there is no liability upon petitioner to pay service tax, issue requires adjudication:HC

CX - From the disclosures made in correspondence and documents on record, no motive could be attributed to assessee in any manner acting fraudulently or by making wilful statement or suppressing any facts: HC

Cus - Since directions of this Court do not provide for any condition for taking permission of this Court to dispose of machines, Court does not deem it proper to go into the issue, petitioner will be at liberty to approach Tribunal: HC

VAT - Continuation of Anticipatory bail is allowed to applicant where other co-accused were also granted bail: HC

Cus - As per settled law, SCN cannot be issued beyond period of three years of payment of duty drawback: HC

2023-TIOL-359-HC-AHM-GST

Gaikwad Enterprises Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - The petitioner pursuant to purchase order raised by it, transported the goods in nature of metal scrap from Pune, Maharashtra to Vijapur, Gujarat through conveyance truck - When goods were in transit, truck was intercepted by mobile squad of respondent seeking to seize goods and conveyance - While goods were seized, authorities proceeded to pass another order under section 130 of the Act confiscating goods - It is directed that respondents shall release goods and conveyance of petitioner, confiscated and detained pursuant to impugned order subject to conditions that petitioner shall deposit an amount of interest if so far not paid by them, also pay the penalty of Rs. 5,46,730/- and they furnishes a bond to the tune of Rs. 35,84,117/- - As far as notice under section 130 of the Act (MOV 10) is concerned, same would culminate into appropriate orders after adjudication - Therefore, going into the merits of notice would be premature at this stage - Petitioner has to face adjudicatory proceedings under section 130 of the Act - It is directed that competent authority shall proceed in accordance with law pursuant to notice (MOV 10) issued to petitioner - Reasonable opportunity to petitioner to defend its case, including to file reply shall be granted and thereafter appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits shall be passed by competent authority: HC

- Petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-358-HC-AHM-GST

Gail India Ltd Vs UoI

2023-TIOL-356-HC-AHM-VAT

Badal Bhupatrai Shah Vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for an order in the nature of anticipatory bail in connection with an offence registered as C.R. No. I-11200011210293 of 2021 with Valsad Rural Police Station, Valsad, for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 85(1)(d), 85(1)(g), 86(1) and 86(2) of the Act. Held - Upon going through the FIR as also the papers of investigation and the documents annexed with the application, without entering into the discussion in detail about invoking provisions of "the Act, 2003" or the Penal Code, suffice it to say that its invocation in such set of facts, as stated hereinabove, that too, against the Directors in absence of any specific provisions under "the Act, 2003" and there is no provisions under the IPC, when co-accused is already considered by this Court and while admitting the present application detail reasons are assigned, on those reasons also, I deem it fit to grant an order in the nature of anticipatory bail, which was continued since 17.02.2022 - The present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R. No. I-11200011210293 of 2021 with Valsad Rural Police Station, Valsad, on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount: HC

- Bail Application allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-355-HC-AHM-CUS

Raghav International Vs UoI

Cus - The petitioners are engaged in business of export of ready-made garments falling under the Headings 61 and 62 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioners are mainly exporting the goods to UAE and Africa - The petitioners had exported various goods through various shipping bills during the period of 2011-2015 - Such shipping bills were assessed finally by the proper officer and the said assessment had attained finality - Accordingly, the benefit of duty drawback pursuant to such assessment was given to the petitioners - The Revenue sought recovery of excess of the duty drawback so paid, during the year 2014-2015 under the provisions of Rule 16 of Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 - The petitioners challenged such notice on various grounds, including the ground that the Show Cause Notice under Rule 16 cannot be issued beyond a period of 3 years being reasonable period of limitation, since no limitation is provided for under the Act or the Rules - During the pendency of this petition, the Revenue issued SCNs dated 01.04.2021, 06.04.2021 and 20.05.2021, for the same assessment period from 2011 to 2015 and for the same shipping bills - These notices are also under challenge by the petitioners on the same grounds by appropriate draft amendment. Held - This Court need to travel beyond the main issue as to whether the Revenue Authority can issue SCN after a period of six/ten years for assessment/export - When the issue is covered as per the decision of this Court as noted above in the case of M/s. S J S International , wherein it was held that as the show cause notice essentially cannot be issued beyond the period of three years of payment of the duty drawback, and that being a settled legal position, if not regarded, this Court needs to interfere - Again, the proper officer who assesses the shipping bills will be in a position to reopen the same provided that there is such a stage of reopening the shipping bill filed once are self assessed, that would attain finality upon the proper officer clearing the same - Had there been any discrepancy, the proper officer would not consider the self assessment final and would obviously assess the shipping bill before finalizing - Following such judgment, all the petitions are allowed & the SCNs in question are set aside which are admittedly beyond the period of three years - Since the SCNs are quashed by this Court, the consequent action of the Revenue authorities qua those SCNs are also quashed: HC

- Writ petitions allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-354-HC-MUM-CX

Pr.CCGST & CE Vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India

CX - The impugned order of Tribunal allowed the appeal of assessee and set aside the O-I-O which has made a demand of service tax for period 1st July, 2012 to 31st March, 2015 under Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994, with a further demand of interest under Section 75 ibid on the amount of service tax demanded, in addition to which penalty has also been imposed in terms of Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - SCN refers to all correspondence between assessee and Commissioner - However, it does not refer to any specific instances of fraud, collusion, misstatement or suppression of facts indulged in by them - On the other hand, Tribunal has considered in detailed the material before Commissioner and has arrived at a specific finding that from the disclosures made in correspondence and documents on record, no motive could be attributed to assessee in any manner acting fraudulently or by making wilful statement or suppressing any facts - The finding of fact arrived at by Tribunal to the effect that there was no suppression, misrepresentation or fraud committed by assessee to enable the revenue to invoke extended limitation clause in Section 73 ibid is proper and based upon the correct appreciation of record - Accordingly, substantial questions raised by assessee in its appeal on question of holding that extended period of limitation was not applicable, do not arise - The other substantial questions of law sought to be raised, as to whether Tribunal was right in holding that assessee was discharging sovereign function does not arise as Tribunal has clearly refrained from giving its finding on that question - No substantial question of law arises for determination: HC

- Appeal dismissed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-352-HC-AHM-CUS

Neelam Exports Vs UoI

Cus - Petitioner prayed for relaxation in one of the conditions imposed by revenue for provisional release of 43 imported machines seized by said authorities under seizure memo - Division Bench of this Court partially allowed the petition providing that condition of petitioner for furnishing bank guarantee of 50% of customs duty shall stand deleted - Subsequent to aforesaid order, petitioner had filed Miscellaneous Application for seeking to shift the machinery to new address - Petitioner was served with SCN by DRI which was adjudicated and said order is produced on record of present proceedings - Against said order, petitioner has preferred appeal before Tribunal which is pending - The Court does not deem it proper to go into the issue - It is proper to relegate the petitioner to Tribunal where the subject matter is pending - Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, it is provided that petitioner will be at liberty to approach Tribunal where proceedings in relation to subject matter are pending, to make before Tribunal appropriate prayer to be considered by Tribunal strictly in accordance with law: HC

- Application disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT