I-T - Date of Panchnama last drawn can be said to be relevant date and hence starting point of limitation of two years for completing block assessment proceedings: SC

I-T - Refund may be withheld u/s 241A, subject to reasons being recorded in writing on how grant of refund in opinion of FAC is 'likely to adversely affect revenue': HC

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Just because Petitioner has paid principal amount, it cannot be said that when SCN has been issued for interest on said amount, the Petitioner is not entitled to make a declaration: HC

CX - Refund mistakenly claimed u/r 5 of CCR - Appellate authority had failed to consider as to whether petitioner was entitled to rebate u/r 18 of CE Rules - Order set aside and matter remanded: HC

2023-TIOL-376-HC-MUM-ST

Deelight Fortune Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Application was rejected on the ground that since no duty payment was pending under any of the Indirect Tax Enactments, the case of Petitioner did not fall under the Arrears category of the SVLDR Scheme.

Held: Just because the Petitioner has paid the principal amount, it cannot be said that when a show cause notice has been issued for interest on the said amount, that the Petitioner is not entitled to make a declaration under SVLDRS - The interest relates to the service tax amount and the SVLDR Scheme covers not only tax but also interest, penalty - In fact, Section 129 of the SVLDR Scheme which provides for discharge certificate makes the certificate conclusive inter alia with respect to the liability to pay any further duty, interest or penalty with respect to the matter and time period covered in the declaration - The demand for interest under the show cause was clearly with respect to the duty amounts which admittedly have been received by the department - The Designated Authority ought to have considered the receipt of both these amounts while considering the application made by Petitioner - Bench agrees with the submission of the Petitioner that the SVLDR Scheme is a scheme to encourage the settlement and closure of legacy tax matters and needs to be interpreted liberally to forward the objective - Order of the Designated Authority dated 6 February 2020 under SVLDR Scheme rejecting Petitioner's SVLDRS-1 application dated 27 December 2019 is quashed and set aside - Respondent no.2 Designated Authority is directed to consider the Petitioner's SVLDRS-1 application dated 27 December 2019 afresh in the light of the above discussion within a period of four weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 35, 36, 38, 39]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-375-HC-DEL-CX

Bal Pharma Ltd Vs Pr.Commissioner & Addl. Secretary Govt. of India

CX - Petition filed impugning the order passed by the revisionary authority - The principal controversy involved is whether the petitioner can claim rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules - In the first batch of cases, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the petitioner's application for refund under Rule 5 of the CCR without considering the question whether the petitioner was entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules - The petitioner claims that it had, in its appeal, specifically urged that it was entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the CE Rules but the same was not considered by the Appellate Authority - Further, the Central Government had also not considered the same on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in matters of refund under Rule 5 of the CCR.

Held: Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed solely relying upon the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. without considering other aspects - Bench, therefore, considers it apposite to set aside the impugned orders dated 06.08.2018 as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider afresh in the light of the observations made in this order - Appellate Authority shall examine whether there is material on record to clearly establish the petitioner's claim for rebate of duty paid on excisable material used for manufacture and packing of goods exported by the petitioner - Petition is disposed of [para 24, 25]

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT