2023-TIOL-783-HC-MP-GST
Mohit Jain Vs UoI
GST - Fake firms - ITC - Fraudulent refunds - Applicant apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under 132, hence the bail application.
Held: Statement of Meharban Singh, Shubham Singhal, Chetan Narwani , Kapil Manglani , Akash Singh Kushwaha and Rakesh Prajapti , reveals that the applicant is the main accused in these GST refunds by forming fake firms - GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B sales and purchase of as many as 25 bogus firms are liable to be investigated, hence, looking to the gravity of the offence and huge amount of refund of GST through bogus firms, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail - Application dismissed: High Court [para 8]
- Application dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-782-HC-P&H-GST
Sodhi Cargo Movers Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana
GST - Petitioner seeks quashing of order in appeal dated 20.09.2022 and prays for release of goods along with conveyance - The driver did not produce E-way bills and, therefore, all the invoices he was carrying were not accepted to be complete and accurate - It was found that 17 items were without documents and Polyester Fabric was also found in excess by 11,300 meters.
Held: Tax and penalty were not imposed upon the goods which were accompanied with 11 invoices and GRS and tax and penalty were imposed only upon the goods which were not accompanied with any document i.e. GRs, Invoices and/or E-way bills - Tax and penalty had also been calculated upon Polyester Fabric which was also found in excess by 11,300 meters - Petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that invoices relating to 9 items were never produced before the Proper Officer and Polyester Fabric was also found in excess by 11,300 meters to that shown in the invoice No. 140/06.09.2021 - Hence, no case is made to quash order in appeal dated 20.09.2022 - Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit: High Court
- Petition dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-781-HC-P&H-ST
Dexterirty Projects Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
ST - In the present case, the petitioner was issued show cause notice on 17.08.2015 and thereafter, after a gap of 05 years, he was called for personal hearing, vide notices of personal hearing dated 21.08.2020 and 21.09.2020 and 08.12.2020 - The petitioner gave reply to the notice for personal hearing dated 21.09.2020, vide letter dated 05.10.2020 – Petitioner prays for quashing show cause notice dated 17.08.2015 with the consequential relief of refund of entire amount of tax so deposited during investigation of the case – Petitioner submits that adjudication proceeding has become time barred in view of the limitation period of one year for adjudication from the date of the show cause notice as provided under clause (b) of sub-section (4B) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994; that the inordinate delay of more than 5 years in adjudication proceeding has been barred by limitation.
Held: Annexure R-1 shows that since 31.08.2017, the notice issued to the petitioner has been received back with the remarks 'Undelivered' - Even if details of Annexure R-1 is to be taken into account, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not served after 31.08.2017 - So the respondents were required to finalise the show cause notice within a period of one year as per clause (b) of sub Section 4B of Section 73 of Act 1994 -Applying the ratio of the judgments [Bhatinda District Co-op Milk P. Union Ltd's case - 2007-TIOL-176-SC-CT , Sunder System Pvt. Ltd's case - 2020-TIOL-1787-HC-DEL-ST , Serve Pharmaceuticals - 2019 (366) E.L.T 49 (Guj) ] to the facts of the present case, the writ petition is allowed and show cause notice dated 17.08.2015 is quashed on the ground of limitation: High Court
- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-780-HC-P&H-CX
CCE Vs SPL Ltd
CX - Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by CESTAT - Case of the department is that the assessee was required to pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit taken on the inputs lying in stock or in process or inputs contained in the final products on 07.08.2003 before opting for payment of concessional rate of duty @8% ad valorem under notification 60/2003-CX dated 29.07.2003 and without paying the said amount, it was ineligible to pay 8% ad valorem.
Held: It is crystal clear that the CENVAT credit had been taken by the respondent-department when the final products were exigible to duty - It was availed on inputs till the date of exemption vested in assessee - The respondent could not be divested of that credit as there was no statutory provision to do so - The right to avail credit is indefeasible and there cannot be stated to be any co-relation between the raw material and the final product; that is say, it is not as if the credit could be taken only on final product that was manufactured due to the particular raw material to which the credit was related - It is nobody's case that credit of duty on inputs was taken by the respondent illegally or irregularly - As such, the subsequent exemption of final products manufactured by the respondent from excise duty did not make the respondent assessee liable to reverse the CENVAT credit availed as the same was given to it on the date when the final product was not exempted - Respondent was certainly entitled to benefit of CENVAT credit in the obtaining circumstances of the case and, therefore, the question of payment of any interest or penalty by the respondent or its officers did not arise - Revenue appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 9, 10]
- Appeal dismissed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |
