2023-TIOL-703-HC-KOL-GST
Prabhu Dayal Jajoo Vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax
Whether where show cause notice was bereft of reasons and very initiation of proceedings itself is not in accordance with law, then liberty can be granted to assessee to file statutory appeal - YES: HC
- Case disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-702-HC-MP-ST
Dinesh Kalway Vs UoI
ST - Short question is whether the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS, 2019, after issuing statement declaring the reduced amount of tax payable of Rs.8,97,037.20 and the petitioner having paid this amount on 15.02.2020, can exercise power u/s 128 of the FA, 2019 after expiry of 30 days and modify the same suo moto on discovering arithmetical/clerical mistake.
Held: It is settled principle of law in jurisprudence that in cases pertaining to provisions concerning concession/relaxation/discount/rebate, doubt, if any, has to be resolved in favour of the Revenue - The principal object of a Taxing Statute is to collect revenue for the State - If the said Statute extends a benefit/ relaxation/ concession/ discount/rebate then to ensure that such concessional provisions do not offend the said principal object, the Courts have laid down that such concessional provisions under Taxing Statute are to be read in favour of Revenue in case of doubt - It is further settled in law that whenever a statutory provision prescribes a thing to be done within a certain period of time without further stipulating the consequence of failure to do so, then the provision relating to the time period prescribed cannot be treated as mandatory - When the aforesaid two principles of law i.e. the concessional provision in taxing statute to be read in favour of Revenue in case of doubt and in absence of any consequence given for failure to follow the time schedule provided to perform a particular duty, are read in conjunction, then what comes out loud and clear is that the provision of Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 is a part of SVLDRS Scheme, 2019 which was promulgated as a one-time measure for resolving tax disputes and reducing litigation - Factual matrix reveals that the power of review u/s 128 of the Scheme was exercised in public interest of avoiding loss to the public exchequer - Due to oversight, CENVAT CREDIT of Rs.23,52,892/- was not included while computing “tax dues” which led to the ultimate relief of Rs.8,97,037.20 under the Scheme, instead of the due amount of Rs.26,71,509/- - If this oversight was not detected and remedied, the Revenue would have been put to loss of Rs.17,74,472.20 - Reason assigned for delayed review cannot be termed as arbitrary and thus is saved from being sacrificed at the altar of Article 14 of the Constitution - Action of Revenue which is impugned herein cannot be found fault with - Petition is dismissed: High Court [para 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8]
- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-701-HC-ALL-GST
Pankaj Khare Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Dy. Commissioner thereby assessing the petitioner with regard to service tax and levying tax and interest to the tune of Rs.3,32,651/- Petitioner submits that as per notification dated 20.06.2012 the petitioner, a practicing advocate, is exempted from service tax - During hearing, a number of members of the Bar have informed the Court that similar notices have been issued to various members - Counsel for Respondent has produced an order dated 06.06.2023 whereby proceedings against the petitioner have been dropped.
Held: Court expresses its concern that practising advocates should not have to face harassment on account of the department issuing notices and calling upon them to pay service tax/GST when they are exempted from doing so and in the process also calling them to prove that they are practising advocates - Commissioner, GST is directed to issue clear direction to the GST Commissionerate in Lucknow that no notices regarding payment of service tax /GST is issued to the lawyers rendering legal service falling in the negative list so far as service tax is concerned - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-700-HC-MUM-CX
Ceat Ltd Vs UoI
CX - By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has impugned ex-parte Assessment Order passed by revenue - Revenue ought to have given reasonable time to petitioner to remain present at the time of assessment - The notices issued by revenue further indicate that first notice was issued after a long gap but a short notice, whereas the second notice was issued to remain present within 48 hours or less - Action on the part of revenue in not issuing notice granting reasonable time to petitioner to remain present and passing ex-parte order is passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice - Petitioner is directed to remain present before Assessment Authority on 3rd March 2022 without fail and to co-operate with revenue in passing a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment: HC
- Writ petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-17-AAAR-GST
Chep India Pvt Ltd
GST - Movement of equipment from CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL Maharashtra cannot be said to be mere movement of goods not amounting to a supply in terms of Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 as the said transaction would fall under the ambit of supply of services in terms of section 7 of the CGST Act. 2017 - The said supply of services involved in the transaction under question is being provided by CIPL Karnataka to CLPL Maharashtra in the capacity of bailee of CIPL Maharashtra for which CIPL Karnataka is charging facilitation fee along with applicable GST from the Appellant, i.e., CIPL Maharashtra as per the Inter-unit Memorandum of Understanding entered between the Appellant and other state units - It is further clarified that the said movement of goods from CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu as per the instruction received from CIPL Maharashtra, the owner of goods, will again be treated as supply of lease rental services by CIPL Maharashtra to CIPL Tamil Nadu as ruled by the MAAR: AAAR
GST - Question as to what are the documents that should accompany the movement of the goods from from CIPL Maharashtra to CIPL Karnataka, CIPL Karnataka to CIPL Tamil Nadu cannot be answered as the same is not covered within the ambit of advance ruling in terms of Section 97 of the CGST Act 2017: AAAR
- Appeal disposed of: AAAR
|
