|
2023-TIOL-787-HC-AHM-GST
Shree Proteins Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - The petitioner is primarily engaged in manufacturing and trading activity of products covered under HSN codes of Chapter 15 of CGST Act, 2017 - It is submitted that applicable rate of GST for products of company is 5%, whereas, petitioner company procures various inputs/input services for purpose of manufacturing and trading of various products at applicable rate of GST ranging from 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% - It is the specific case of petitioner that they are eligible for refund of excess credit that has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies as per provisions of Section 54 of the Act - Now, grievance of petitioner is that the concerned respondent authority issued Circular 181/13/2022 GST , copy of which is placed on record, whereby, it has been now clarified that restriction imposed by Notfn would be applicable in respect of all refund application filed on or after 18.07.2022 and would not be applied to refund application filed before 18.07.2022 - Thus, it is submitted that said Circular is against the provisions of law contained in Section 54 of the Act, whereby, the period of two years to file an application for refund is given - Petitioner thereafter submitted that no retrospective effect can be given by way of said Circular to the Notification which is issued by concerned respondent authority - It is submitted with regard to doctrine of legitimate expectation and placed reliance upon various decisions rendered by this Court as well as Supreme Court - A separate compilation of said decision is also placed on record for consideration of this Court - Issue involved requires consideration - Hence, notice for final disposal returnable: HC
- Notice returnable: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-786-HC-AHM-GST
K P Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner sought a direction to revenue to release the seized goods along with truck under Section 129(1) of CGST Act, 2017 on such terms and conditions which may be deemed fit and proper to this Court and in interest of petitioner - By way of interim relief, it is directed that goods of petitioner as well as vehicle shall be released subject to petitioner complying with conditions that petitioner shall deposit with competent authority total amount of penalty, the tax is not assessed by authorities; towards the fine, in lieu of confiscation of goods, i.e. Rs. 37,49,700/-, the petitioner shall give bond to Respondent-authorities - Petitioner shall further deposit the amount of Rs.1,87,484/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance - The authorities have not assessed the tax, therefore, the condition about payment of tax is not reflected in aforesaid conditions - Upon compliance of said conditions, the goods and vehicle both shall be released by authorities, forthwith - Non-compliance of any of aforesaid conditions shall render the interim relief granted, liable to be vacated: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-785-HC-AHM-GST
R K Industries Vs UoI
GST - Petition is filed mainly on the ground that on the same subject matter, State Authority has initiated inquiry in prior point of time and therefore, it is not open for respondents to initiate the proceedings under provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act - When the matter was called out, respondent has pointed out from documents annexed with Affidavit-in-reply that the Office of Assistant Commissioner of Tax has addressed the communication to concerned respondent, wherein it has been stated that all necessary information and documents are sent to concerned respondent and therefore, no inquiry is pending with State Authority - In view of aforesaid communication and submissions canvassed by respondents, petitioner does not press the present petition - Hence, the petition stands disposed of as not pressed - Court has not examined the merits of case of petitioner - However, it is open for petitioner to take all available contentions before respondent authorities: HC
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-592-CESTAT-HYD
Regency Ceramics Ltd Vs CCT
CX - Ongoing strike of workers at factory - A mob raided the factory premises and caused damages to machinery, vehicles, raw materials, finished goods and set fire to the building - Department sent a letter dated 06.02.2012 asking the Appellant to estimate the extent of damage that has occurred to the finished excisable goods and inputs/ raw materials in stock during the said violence - Appellant sent their reply on 16.02.2012 that the situation was very tense and no one was in a position to enter the premises to carry out any work to determine the extent of loss - Inventory of raw materials finished good and capital goods was arrived at on 08.09.2012 and these details were furnished to Central Excise Department - Superintendent of Central Excise visited the unit on 18.09.2012 and recorded details of physical stock of finished goods and other raw materials - Thereafter, Show Cause Notice was issued, for the goods lost in fire and arson during the violence that occurred on 27.01.2012, demanding Rs.52,17,180/-, based on the fact that the value of the finished/semi-finished goods lost was to the extent of Rs.8,05,65,491/- and Rs.1,11,42,795/- respectively - Appellants claimed that for the finished goods and semi-finished goods lost by them, they are entitled for Remission of Duty - Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and also confiscated the finished goods of worth Rs.8,05,65,491/- and semifinished goods of worth Rs.1,11,42,795/- and gave the option to redeem the same on payment of Rs.30 Lakhs and Rs.4 Lakhs respectively - Penalty of Rs.52,17,180/- and Rs.3 Lakhs was also imposed - Being aggrieved by the impugned OIO, the Appellant is before the Tribunal.
Held: When the loss is caused by natural causes or unavoidable accident, the Assessee should be granted remission of duty - Coming to the factual matrix of this case, it is very clear that the arson indulged in by the mob of the workers was absolutely not an act which could have been avoided or controlled by the Management of the Appellant - The very fact that Appellant has lost assets worth about Rs.300 Crores (as per their estimate) [Rs.157 Crores as estimated by the Arbitral Tribunal] shows that damage has been caused only on account of the situation which was completely unavoidable and was nowhere within the control of the Appellant - Further, the very fact that the Insurance Company was made to pay the compensation of Rs.157 Crores by the Arbitral Tribunal shows that the damage was really serious - If the Insurance Company was of the opinion that this fire/arson could have been avoided and no attempt was made by the Appellant to stop the same, they would not have entertained the claim at all - Bench has to also consider the fact that while the Department has valued the goods lost at Rs.9,17,08,286/-, the final figure towards the stock arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal is only for Rs.4.78 Crores - Even on this count itself, it is observed that the amount demanded is higher by nearly 50%, and is based on arbitrary figures - The Appellant has filed Affidavit to the effect that they have not claimed the Excise Duty component in their claim with the Insurance Company - Even the Insurance Surveyor's Report does not contain any remark to the contrary - Bench is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the Appellant should have been granted the benefit of remission under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and no Duty demand should have been confirmed - Impugned OIO is set aside and Appeal is allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT [para 11, 12]
- Appeal allowed: HYDERABAD CESTAT |
|
