2023-TIOL-915-HC-MAD-GST
Jaipur Textiles Vs Appellate Authority/Joint Commissioner of GST
GST - GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled on 02.01.2023 - Since the appeal was filed only on 11.05.2023, beyond the condonable period of 30 days under the aforesaid provisions, the Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal - Hence, the present petition.
Held: In the case of Suguna Cut piece Centre - 2022-TIOL-261-HC-MAD-GST , it was concluded that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the assessee outside the purview of the GST regime without reviving their GST registration, as the assessee will continue to carry on business - By not revoking the cancellation of the GST registration, the Government will lose the revenue - It is informed that this order has not been appealed and has been accepted by the State Government - Court is inclined to allow this writ petition at the stage of admission - Consequently, the delay in filing appeal stands condoned - The Appellate Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of 30 days - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-914-HC-MAD-GST
Chaizup Beverages LLP Vs Directorate General Of System And Data Management
GST - On the exports made by the petitioner, the petitioner had claimed refund under Section 54 of the Act, 2017 read with Rule 96 of the Rules, 2017 - At the time when the petitioner had filed the relevant shipping bills, the petitioner had maintained the accounts with Federal Bank, which was the designated Bank for the purpose of refund - However, by the time, the refund claim was scrutinized and sanctioned, the petitioner had closed the aforesaid account and had opened a fresh account with IDBI Bank - By a communication dated 20.12.2022, it has been informed [by the Central Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS)] to the petitioner that the third respondent has been addressed to redress the matter and transfer the IGST refund to the new account and the issue may be followed up with the third respondent - As the amount has not been refunded to the petitioner, the present petition.
Held: There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled for refund on the exports made by the petitioner - Considering the fact that the exports have made as early as 05.08.2021, the third respondent is directed to credit the sanctioned IGST refund to the petitioner's new account in IDBI Account - This exercise shall be carried out by the third respondent within a period of fifteen days - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-913-HC-MAD-GST
Rahmaan Textiles Readymades Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner filed an appeal belatedly on 03.07.2023 on the portal - When the petitioner wanted to file the manual copy of the appeal, the Office of the Appellate Commissioner has declined to accept the same stating that the petitioner has filed the appeal beyond the condonable period prescribed under Section 107 - Hence, the present petition.
Held: Petitioner appears to be a small-time trader, who has committed defaults in filing the returns and thereafter, has suffered the Assessment Order on 27.02.2023 - Considering the fact that the petitioner is a small-time trader, who wishes to challenge the order passed on 27.02.2023 by the respondent, the Court is inclined to allow this writ petition by directing the respondent to number the appeal subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- over and above the amount already deposited by the petitioner towards pre-deposit - On such payment of the aforesaid amount, the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal shall stand condoned - The Appellate Commissioner shall dispose the appeal on merits - Petition allowed with above observations: High Court [para 10, 12, 13]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-912-HC-MAD-CUS
Eburamusa Sherif Vs Pr.CC
Cus - Alleged smuggling of gold, car used therefor - It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been served with Mahazar although the car and cash were seized; that their request for returning the car and cash has been rejected, hence the petition.
Held: Court is inclined to give partial relief to the petitioner by ordering release of the petitioner's car subject to the condition(s) viz. furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as security; a further security in the form of bond undertaking to pay fine and penalty that may be imposed upon adjudication; undertake to not to sell the car or encumber it without knowledge or intimation to the respondents; to maintain the car in good condition and renew the Insurance - On compliance of the above conditions, the said car shall be provisionally released by the second respondent within three days - The cash seized shall be released/or confiscated and /or appropriated towards penalty if only any after adjudication of the proposed proceedings - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-911-HC-MAD-ST
Rajesh Vs Asstt. CCGST & CE
ST - Petitioner challenges order-in-original on the ground that the SCN was issued beyond the period of limitation u/s 73.
Held: The question of limitation is not just a question of law but a mixed question of fact and law - Petitioner has not filed returns as is contemplated under Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to allege that the Department is not entitled to invoke proviso to Section 73 of the FA, 1994, as there is a suppression of facts - There is no case made out for interfering with the impugned Order-in-Original - Liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority together with mandatory pre-deposit of tax within a period of thirty days - Appellate Authority shall dispose the appeal on merits - Writ Petition stands dismissed: High Court [para 6, 7, 9]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
