|
2023-TIOL-773-HC-MUM-GST
Sunlight Cable Industries Vs CC
GST - Petitioner primarily prays for a relief that the Petitioner be granted a refund of IGST paid in relation to the exports undertaken - Whether the Respondents are correct in their assertion that in making the refund as claimed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had claimed duty drawback at the higher rate of the IGST refund as seen from the reply received by the Petitioner from the CPRAMS.
Held: It appears that there is no factual foundation for the Respondents to come to such conclusion and, in fact, such a conclusion is contrary to the record, subject matter of consideration by the authorities - Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the IGST paid on the exports in question, as it is certain that this is not a case where the Petitioner is availing any double benefit that is of the IGST refund and a higher duty drawback - Respondents are directed to refund to the Petitioner the IGST paid by the Petitioner in respect of the goods exported, i.e. zero rated supply, under shipping bills in question being an amount of Rs. 21,41,451/- with simple interest at 7% per annum with effect from 22nd February 2018 - Amount to be released within two weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 10, 14, 15]
- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-772-HC-P&H-GST
Silverline Chemicals Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction refund of the IGST paid with regard to the goods exported i.e. 'zero rated supplies' - The refund of IGST paid was rejected due to drawback in Part 'A' taken by the petitioner - Claiming drawback is no ground for withholding the refund of IGST amount paid in respect of goods exported, the present petition is filed.
Held : Keeping in view the judgment passed in G.NXT Power Corp.'s case (= 2019-TIOL-2217-HC-KERALA-GST ), the present petition is disposed of by giving direction to the respondents to adjust the amount already availed by the petitioner on account of higher rate of duty drawback and pay the balance of IGST payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents will pay interest @ 7% together with the balance amount payable from the date on which, a request for refund was made by the petitioner till the date of payment: High Court
- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-771-HC-MAD-GST
Karmaxx Infotech Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner has challenged an order of cancellation of registration - Main ground of challenge is that the order is non-speaking, merely referring to s.29(2)(e) of the Act, 2017 - Petitioner further submits that there is a reference in the order to the instructions of the Joint Commissioner and thus, the cancellation has been done only based on his instructions.
Held: Petitioner was subject to a visit / inspection by the authorities, even prior to the issuance of impugned notice and thus the petitioner is well aware of the sequence of events leading upto the issuance of notice itself - Quite apart from the fact that the basis of show-cause notice is well known to the petitioner as may be seen from reply dated 29.05.2023, the petitioner has admittedly not appeared before officer on 22.05.2023 despite receipt of the notice well in time - Thus, the petitioner has not cooperated in the proceedings leading to suspension of registration - This is a critical aspect of the matter which militates against the petitioner's prayer for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioner is not seen to have cooperated in the assessment proceedings, which, in the considered view of the Bench, is a critical pre-requisite to entitle itself to writ remedy - The mere fact that the reply has been filed at the will and pleasure of the petitioner, beyond the period granted by this officer would not entitle the petitioner to the relief sought - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 8, 10, 11]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-770-HC-AHM-CUS
SRF Ltd Vs UoI
Cus - It is the case of the petitioner that due to oversight of the petitioner's custom agent, while processing shipping bills, he processed shipping bills with default option 'No' instead of selecting 'Yes' for making exports under the MEIS scheme - Resultantly, the exports were not considered for export incentives benefits - On realizing such technical error, the petitioner first approached the Deputy Commissioner (Exports), Customs House, Mundra - respondent No.5, herein by writing a letter dated 8.8.2017 inter alia requesting to amend the shipping bills filed in November, 2016 by rectifying the reward column from 'No' to 'Yes' - Respondent No.5 informed the petitioner that out of 8 shipping bills filed in 2016, amendment has been carried out in respect of 7 shipping bills - However, vide letter dated 15.11.2018, the petitioners were informed by the respondent No.5 that the said amendment dated 18.9.2018 has been withdrawn in light of various notices issued by respondent No.3 i.e. Director General of Foreign Trade -Counsel for respondent revenue submitted that non-marking of 'yes' in the shipping bills was violation of mandatory requirement to be fulfilled, as per the Handbook of Procedure of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 - It is further submitted by the respondents that once the petitioner has chosen the default option 'No' without selecting 'Yes' for making exports under the MEIS scheme, the manual amendment is not permissible.
Held : Provisions of Handbook of Procedure 2015-2020 is a procedure which enables the claimant to avail the benefits of the scheme - Procedures are handmaid of law and it is not a direction under the law - In the present case, the petitioner has already mentioned in the invoice that he has opted for the benefit under the MEIS scheme and has clearly mentioned in the invoice that "I/WE hereby declare that we intend to claim benefit of merchandise exports from India scheme MEIS" - Thus, merely a technical lapse would not debar the petitioner from availing the benefits under the scheme which has been floated by the respondent authorities - The rejection of the benefits is merely a technical rejection based on non-compliance of clauses of the procedure which respondent authorities could have avoided and could have granted the benefit under the scheme and could have amended the shipping bills - Merely an error of clicking 'No' instead of 'Yes' does not debar the petitioner from availing the benefits under MEIS scheme - Decision of the respondents is erroneous and requires an interference by this Court - The petitioner-company is entitled to claim the benefit under MEIS scheme - Notice dated 11.2.2020 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 12.8 to 12.11, 13, 14]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-769-HC-DEL-CUS
Rajeev Khatri Vs CC
Cus - Appellant is a G-Card holder of M/s GND Cargo Movers - Appellant had filed Bill of Entry for import of certain goods that were found to be liable for confiscation - Adjudicating Authority had found that the goods imported were prohibited goods and were illegally imported - Adjudicating Authority also found that the appellant was "aware of the things which led to irregular filing of the Bill of Entry for the illegal imports made" and by the order-in-original imposed a penalty equivalent to 25% of the maximum penalty leviable under Section 112 of the Customs Act - Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under the order-in-original was high and disproportionate and, accordingly, reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs. 34,14,020/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- - Appeal is filed against this order of Tribunal [= 2020-TIOL-1033-CESTAT-DEL ].
Held: Revenue does not contest the finding of the Tribunal that no case of connivance has been made out against the appellant and that he had no knowledge that the goods sought to be imported were prohibited and their import was illegal - Therefore, the principal question to be addressed is whether a person, who has no knowledge that the goods imported are liable for confiscation, can be mulcted with penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for abetting such an offence - In the present case, penalty has been imposed on the appellant on the allegation that he had abetted the acts of misdeclaration, importation of prohibited goods and not of committing those acts - There is no cavil that the appellant's role in the offending import was confined to the ministerial act of filing the Bill of Entry - Indisputably, the said ministerial act is not the reason why the goods have been held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act - The Adjudicating Authority has directed confiscation of the goods, inter alia , on the ground that the goods were prohibited goods; the goods were not disclosed and described; and that their correct value was not declared - The penalty imposed for failure to perform a civil obligation is required to be distinguished from a penalty imposed as a punishment for committing a crime - The use of the expression 'abet' in Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, makes it implicit that the person charged, who is alleged to have abetted the acts of omission or commission, has knowledge and is aware of the said acts - Thus, in the context of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, by definition, the expression 'abet' means instigating, conspiring, intentionally aiding the acts of commission or omission that render the goods liable for confiscation - It is apparent from the above that the knowledge of a wrongful act of omission or commission, which rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, is a necessary element for the offence of abetting the doing of such an act - Question framed is answered in the negative - Penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is set aside - Appeal allowed: High Court [para 21, 24, 26, 27, 31, 36, 37, 43]
- Appeal allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT |
|
