|
2023-TIOL-572-HC-DEL-ST
Hans Uttam Finance Ltd Vs Pr.CCE & GST
ST - Petitioner impugns an order dated 02.03.2020 whereby its declaration dated 26.12.2019 under the SVLDRS, 2019 was rejected - Petitioner also impugns a demand-cum-show cause notice dated 30.12.2020 issued u/s 73(1) of the FA, 1994 - According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme as, at the material time, the investigation concerning the petitioner was pending and the amount of service tax was not 'quantified' within the meaning of Clause (r) of Section 121 of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019.
Held: It is not necessary that the tax dues be finally quantified by the Department - An admission of the liability in any written communication or in a statement recorded by the Department is required to be accepted as tax dues, for the purpose of Section 123(c) read with Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 - However, it is essential that the said dues are not disputed by the Department and that the Department is proceeding on the basis of such quantification - Clearly, in cases where the Department is not in agreement with the amount of tax as mentioned by the taxpayer in any communication, the dues as quantified in such communication(s) cannot be accepted as 'quantified' for the purpose of the Scheme - However, a written communication or a statement by the Department, determining the amount of duty, is not necessary for a taxpayer to be eligible to make a declaration under the Scheme - It is relevant to note that the respondents had never disputed or doubted the statements submitted by the petitioner - On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents had accepted the said statements -By the letter dated 03.06.2019, the petitioner was called upon to provide the calculation sheet of the interest liability and to deposit the same so that the investigation may be concluded - Respondent no.1 had not questioned the calculation of the service tax - The respondents have calculated the amount of tax payable on the basis of the balance sheets of the petitioner as Rs.41,46,688/-, which is materially similar to the computation as furnished by the petitioner (with the difference of Rs.11/- only) - It is clear that the tax dues had been quantified as required under Section 121(r) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019 -The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's declaration on the ground that "investigation has not been concluded and hence the demand has not been estimated or concluded on or before the stipulated date" is unsustainable - The Scheme does not exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigations have not been concluded; it expressly includes taxpayers in respect of whom investigation, enquiry or audit is pending - The respondents shall process the petitioner's declaration in accordance with the Scheme - Since the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner's dues have not been settled, the same also is set aside - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 45, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-571-HC-MAD-CUS
Big Bags International Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Second respondent, by impugned communication dated 03.05.2023, has called upon the petitioner to pay the penalty amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/-, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and informed that, in case of failure, action will be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 142(1)(c)(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Held: Despite interim orders already in force, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to issue the impugned letter dated 03.05.2023 - Therefore, this Court feels that the writ petition can be allowed by setting aside the impugned letter, which is clearly in violation of the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court - It is made clear that the interim orders dated 22.09.2020 [directing the respondent department not to take any coercive steps for recovery of demand raised on account of the issue which is pending before the Adjudicating authority in pursuance of remand order] and 21.04.2021 [observing that the action to attach the bank account was clearly in violation of the order of Division Bench], passed by the Division Bench of this Court shall be respected by the respondents: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-570-HC-DEL-GST
Sesame Workshop Initiatives India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - Refund of SGST for the amount of Rs.44,60,713/- was processed and disbursed on 09.03.2022 - However, the refund of CGST and IGST was not processed despite the refund order dated 04.10.2021, sanctioning the same - This led the petitioner to file the present petition, inter alia , claiming a refund of Rs.68,37,488/- - The advance copy of the present writ petition was served on the authorities on 21.04.2023 and this galvanised the authorities concerned to take steps and disburse the amount of refund that was sanctioned on 04.10.2021 - A letter informing the petitioner of disbursal of the said amount was issued on 23.04.2023 and the said amount was credited into the petitioner's bank account on 27.04.2023.
Held: Undisputedly, if a person is denied of the payment due to him, he is required to be compensated - Supreme Court has in Sandvik Asia Limited - 2006-TIOL-07-SC-IT endorsed the principle that interest would be payable even in cases where there was no statutory provision for payment of interest - Bench is, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the sum of Rs.68,37,488/- from 01.11.2021 (considering an allowance of twenty-six days for the respondents to comply with the refund sanction order dated 04.10.2021) till the date of payment, that is, 27.04.2023 - Since the stipulated rate of interest in the statute is @6%, petition is disposed of by directing respondents to pay interest @6% on the amount of Rs.68,37,488/- from 01.11.2021 to 27.04.2023 as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 31.05.2023 - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 11, 12, 14]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-569-HC-RAJ-GST
Malik Khan Vs Chief CGST & CE
GST - Petitioner challenges the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the Asstt. Commr. whereby a demand of Rs.15,10,570/- was assessed.
Held: The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the impugned order was passed on 16.2.2022 and per Section 107 of the Act of 2017, limitation provided for challenging the impugned order by way of appeal is 30 days and that limitation period could be extended by the appellate authority for a further period of one month - In the present case, the petitioner has not filed appeal before the appellate authority within the prescribed limitation and has directly filed this writ petition before this Court on 14.2.2023 i.e. almost after eight months of expiry of limitation period - Bench is of the view that after expiry of the limitation period of filing appeal, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order is not maintainable - Petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained since not maintainable - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 14, 15, 17]
- Petition dismissed: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-568-HC-MAD-GST
Thiruchy Royal Steels Vs Deputy State Tax Officer
GST - Petition has been filed challenging inter alia the form GST MOV-09 order of demand of tax and penalty as being illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio .
Held: Second respondent has adverted to all the objections raised by the writ petitioner and answered the same - Moreover, these are disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the alternate remedy is available under Section 107 of the GST Act - Petition is disposed of with directions - Petitioner given liberty to file appeal within a period of ten days and the appellate authority to decide the same without raising the issue of limitation - Petitioner is given liberty to move application u/s 129(1) for seeking provisional release of the goods and vehicle which have been detained: High Court [para 7, 8]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
|
|
