|
2023-TIOL-680-HC-P&H-CT
DLF Ltd Vs State of Haryana
Whether the Sales Tax Department in the garb of exercising power of granting sanction under Rule 36 of Haryana General Sales Tax Rules to the refund orders passed by the Assessing Officer, could set aside such order of assessment - NO: HC
- Appeal allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-673-HC-MUM-ST
Chandra Developers Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - Designated Authority issued form SVLDRS-3 to the Petitioner giving an estimate of the amount payable by the Petitioner - The Petitioner paid the amount of Rs.32,14,382/- on 30 January 2020 and consequently the Petitioner was issued a discharge certificate in form SVLDRS-4 on 3 February 2020 - Petitioner received a show cause notice cum demand notice dated 30 December 2020 issued by the Commissioner of Central GST, Mumbai wherein it was also informed that the Petitioner was not eligible to apply under the voluntary declaration scheme as the matter was under investigation by the Gurgaon Zonal Unit and the Petitioner's declaration was invalidated and, as a result, inquiry was initiated; that the amount of Rs.1,37,70,406/- should be paid by the Petitioners towards service tax liability along with applicable cesses - Aggrieved by this notice, the present petition is filed - Petitioner contends that as long as the discharge certificate is not recalled, the Respondents could not have issued the show cause notice; that the conclusion that material particulars furnished in the declaration are found to be false could only be arrived at by the Designated Committee and none other. Held: It is not necessary for the Bench to rule on the argument that only the Designated Committee will have jurisdiction, if at all, to recall the Discharge certificate - From the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents, it is clear that even the basic process of issuing notice had commenced after 30 June 2019 - Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the legal position laid down by this Court in New India Civil Erectors Private Limited and UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - 2021-TIOL-618-HC-MUM-ST since the date 30 June 2019 is relevant even for the voluntary disclosure category - On that date the Petitioner was not subjected to any inquiry/ investigation prior to 30 June 2019, thus, it cannot be held that the Petitioner was not eligible to apply under the Scheme - Writ petition is allowed: High Court [para 10, 13, 14]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-672-HC-MUM-ST
Arjun Amarjeet Rampal Vs UoI
ST - Petitioner filed SVLDRS-1 on 30 December 2019 for the period April 2016 to June 2017 declaring Rs. 9,16,203/- as tax dues - On 23 February 2020, Form SVLDRS-3 was issued to Petitioner directing payment of Rs. 2,74,860/- to avail the benefit under the scheme - Petitioner could not visit the bank to make the payment due to the nationwide lockdown in view of Covid-19 Pandemic - Superintendent, CGST, informed Petitioner that due date for payment of tax dues shown in SVLDRS-3 had been extended and Petitioner was required to pay the said amount by 30 June 2020 - Petitioner again tried to generate the challan from the CBIC portal to make the payment - However, payment vide Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) dated 22 June 2020 was initially accepted but the same was reversed and refunded to the Petitioner's account - Thereafter, Petitioner once again tried to generate new challan from the CBIC website, but was unsuccessful - Vide letter dated 7 July 2020, Petitioner communicated the same to the Respondents No. 4 and 5-Dy. Commissioner, CGST and Joint Commissioner, CGST and requested for regeneration of the challan - On 14 September 2020, Respondent No.7-Superintendent of Investigation team informed the Petitioner by email that date for payment was not extended by the Government - Petitioner submits that for no fault of the Petitioner the benefit of the scheme is being denied due to a technical error which occurred due to expiry of challan and despite efforts made by the Petitioner in this regard to make payment pursuant to SVLDRS-3. Held : Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme merely on the basis of a technical issue of reversal of the amount paid by Petitioner prior to 30 June 2020 on the ground of expiry of challan for which clearly the Petitioner was not at fault - Petition is allowed and Respondent-Authorities is directed to allow the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.2,74,860/- under the SVLDR Scheme pursuant to the subject SVLDRS-3 and thereafter, issue the necessary discharge certificate under the said scheme - Petition allowed: High Court [para 15, 16, 17]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-671-HC-MUM-GST
Palo Alto Networks India Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Commissioner Office of Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Appeals II
GST - In this group of matters on 1 December 2022 a detailed order was passed - An Affidavit is filed by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, wherein Board has replied to query raised by court in said order - Petitions will have to be heard individually and not as a group, as they were grouped together only on the regarding refund claim of petitioner which was highlighted in said order - As regards writ petition, which court is informed that pleadings are completed and submissions have been filed - Add the Petition on 27 February 2023 at the bottom of the admission board - Other petitions listed on 13 March 2023: HC
- Matter listed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-670-HC-KOL-GST
Gargo Traders Vs JCCT
GST - Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Jt. Commissioner, State Tax wherein the appeal filed by them has been rejected and order of Adjudicating authority is upheld - Case of the respondents is that, on inquiry, they came to know that the supplier from whom the petitioner claimed to have purchased the goods in question are all fake and non-existing and the bank accounts opened by the supplier is on the basis of fake document and the claim of the petitioner of Input Tax Credit is not supported by any relevant document - It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner has not verified the genuineness and identity of the supplier, whether is a registered taxable person (RTP) before entering into any transaction. Held : Respondent authorities have only taken into consideration the cancellation of registration of the supplier with retrospective effect and have rejected the ITC claim of the petitioner without considering the documents relied by the petitioner - It is not the case of the respondents that there is a collusion between the petitioner and supplier with regard to the transaction - Court finds that without proper verification, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of any obligation required under the statute before entering into the transactions in question - Impugned orders are set aside - The respondent no.1 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner afresh by taking into consideration of the documents which the petitioner intends to rely in support of his claim - Respondent to pass order within a period of eight weeks - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 14, 15, 16]
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-487-CESTAT-AHM
Huhtamaki India Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - Issue involved is that whether the appellant's refund of unutilized PLA balance is hit by limitation provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 when refund was claimed after one year from the date of deposit - Deposit in PLA is not a payment of duty whereas it is an advance deposit for future payment of duty - The PLA balance takes the color of duty only when duty payable is debited from PLA balance - Undisputedly the PLA balance for which refund is sought for is out of advance deposit made by appellant in PLA and out of that unutilized balance has been claimed as refund - Therefore, limitation of Section 11B is not applicable - This Tribunal considered the identical issue in case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 2022-TIOL-578-CESTAT-AHM - In view of said decision of Tribunal, which is on identical facts and issue, the issue is no more res-integra - Accordingly, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-486-CESTAT-DEL
Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt Ltd Vs CC
Cus - In the relevant period, SCN was issued to the exporter - M/s. AKS Apparels, New Delhi proposing to hold the goods liable to confiscation in respect of 321 shipping bills with further proposal to deny the benefit under 'Focus Market Scheme' to recover the amount already disbursed of Rs.4,13,99,583/- with further proposal to recover the amount of duty draw back of Rs.10,53,63,846/- with further proposal to impose penalty - Further, the present appellant – M/s. Evergreen Shipping Agency India Pvt. Ltd. was made a co-noticee along with three others viz. i) Shri Imran Mirza, ii) Shri Nitin Gupta and iii) M/s. APL India Pvt. Ltd - It is recorded in the O-i-O, the main noticee - M/s.AKS Apparels and Shri Nitin Gupta approached the Settlement Commission, New Delhi - The Settlement Commission settled the dispute finally giving immunity from prosecution - This fact has been taken notice by the Court in the impugned order - However, the Adjudicating Authority considered that the dispute is settled vide the order of the Settlement Commission only in respect of M/s AKS Apparels and Shri Nitin Gupta, and is not settled with respect to other co-noticees including this appellant in the SCN - Accordingly, vide the order-in-original, penalty was imposed on this appeal and two other co-noticees viz. Mr. Imran Mirza and M/s. APL India Pvt. Ltd.
Held - The dispute against the present appellant (co-noticee) stands settled in view of the aforementioned rulings of the High Court and the Supreme Court - I further find that in a recent decision, the Madras High Court in A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. Commissioner, under similar facts and circumstances, where SCN was issued to the importer and the CHA, the importer had settled the dispute before the Settlement Commission and paid the Additional Duty of Customs and was granted immunity from prosecution, fine and penalty - Hence the subject order is quashed: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT |
|
