|
2023-TIOL-1066-HC-DEL-GST
Virendra Wires Vs Delhi GST Officer
GST - It is the petitioner's case that it had stopped business on account of ill-health and had sought cancellation of his GST Registration with effect from 20.11.2020 - Thus, there is no question of the petitioner being available at the principal place of business after he had ceased to carry on any business - Petitioner is not aggrieved by cancellation of his GST Registration but he is aggrieved because the registration has been cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.
Held: Order dated 02.11.2021 cancelling the petitioner's registration also contains no reason whatsoever - It merely records that no reply was submitted to the show cause notice - It is an unreasoned order and completely disregards that the petitioner had filed an application dated 20.11.2020 for cancellation of his GST Registration and disclosed that he had stopped carrying on business - Thus, as stated above, the question of the petitioner being available at the principal place of business did not arise - It follows that this could not have been the ground for cancellation of the petitioner's GST Registration with retrospective effect - Petition is allowed and respondents are directed that the cancellation of the petitioner's GST Registration shall be effective from 20.11.2020 - However, this would not preclude the GST Authorities from initiating any proceedings for recovery of any dues, if it is found that the petitioner has failed to comply with any provisions of the Act: High Court [para 16, 17]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1065-HC-MAD-GST
Tvl Raja Stores Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Petitioner intended to close his business and submitted a petition before the authorities - The authorities, after considering the same, vide order dated 03.03.2023 allowed the petitioner to close his business with effect from 31.03.2023 - The petitioner, however, failed to pay the collected tax - Subsequently, the respondent has issued impugned show cause notice dated 19.05.2023 - Writ petition filed challenging the SCN - Respondent Revenue submits that the petitioner is bound to submit a reply; that the petition cannot be maintained since filed at the stage of SCN itself; that the grounds raised in WP cannot be accepted since it is a recently closed unit and respondent has every right to conduct audit; that the petition should be dismissed.
Held: Section 65 states that the Commissioner or any other officer authorized through a general or specific order to conduct audit for any registered person - When the section specifically states ' any registered person ', then it ought to be construed as existence concern and the unregistered person is exempted from the purview of the said section 65 - Respondent claims that for the said period 2017-2018, 2021-2022, the petitioner was a registered firm and for the said period, the respondent is empowered to conduct audit - Section 65 states that the audit can be conducted of the said registered persons " for such period ", " for such frequency " and " in such manner " - When a Section provides for periodical audit, the respondent having failed to conduct audit for all these years, suddenly cannot wake up and conduct an audit - However, this will not preclude the respondent from initiating assessment proceedings for the said concern under Sections 73 and 74 - Hence, the impugned order is quashed with liberty to the respondent to initiate assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1064-HC-MAD-GST
Tvl P G Textiles Vs Asstt. Commissioner (ST)
GST - Case of the petitioner is that they purchased a motor vehicle but had not taken/availed Input Tax Credit on the tax paid thereon on the motor vehicle - However, the respondent had issued a notice in GST DRC-01 on 21.04.2023 - Petitioner has filed a reply on 23.06.2023, which has culminated in the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 - Petitioner had uploaded the reply on the same date i.e., on 23.06.2023, which is acknowledged by the portal in Form GST DRC-06 - Impugned order states that the petitioner's reply was verified with the datas available in the portal and it was found that the petitioner had availed and utilized the Input Tax Credit accrued on the purchase of motor vehicle during the subsequent period.
Held: Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing although the petitioner filed reply within the stipulated time, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent - However, the petitioner shall debit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as a security (to be treated as deposit) within a period of 15 days - Subject to such compliance, the respondent shall issue a fresh notice of hearing and dispose the case afresh within a period of 30 days thereafter - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8, 9]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1063-HC-P&H-CX
IL And FS Engineering And Construction Company Ltd Vs CCGST
CX - Petitioner is engaged in the production of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) - Acting on the information that the petitioner has not paid the Central Excise duty on the manufacture and sale of RMC from their various plants located in Gurgaon, a search was conducted and during this exercise, the petitioner, under protest, deposited an amount of Rs.51,15,484/- from PLA account i.e. cash and Rs.4,20,69,303/- from CENVAT Credit Account towards payment of CE duty vide letter dated 03.05.2016 - Later a SCN came to be issued on 09.03.2017 collectively demanding CE duty of Rs.12,03,92,389/- and seeking appropriation of the amount of Rs.4,71,84,787/- voluntarily paid by petitioner - The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 23.06.2017 allowed CENVAT credit of Rs.2,72,01,675/- out of Rs.3,13,09,798/- and disallowed the remaining credit of Rs.41,08,123/- on technical ground that the same was taken beyond one year from the registration - Pursuant to the launch of the SVLDRS, 2019 the petitioner made an application in order to get complete immunity from penalty - The Designated Committee observed that the petitioner cannot deduct the duty paid through CENVAT credit as the said benefit was not available to the petitioner - Hence the present petition and in which the short prayer of the petitioner is that the benefit of CENVAT credit should be extended - Petitioner has referred to the judgments passed in M/s Hilton Management Services P Ltd. and Schlumberger Solutions P Ltd. [ 2021-TIOL-2238-HC-P&H-ST ] by P&H HC as well as decision in Quant Broking P Ltd. [ 2022-TIOL-853-HC-MUM-ST ] whereby a consistent view has been taken that as per s.124(2) of the FA, 2019, any amount paid by the assessee during enquiry/investigation or Audit has to be deducted while issuing the statement indicating the amount payable by the declarant; that this amount cannot be restricted to pre-deposit made at any stage of the appellate proceedings but also includes any deposit made during enquiry/investigation or audit.
Held: Counsel for the respondent Revenue has not been able to cite any judgment contrary to the aforesaid judgments - The only ground taken by the respondents in the written statment that the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be given for adjustment as per Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the ground that this issue has to be decided by the adjudicating authority, is not correct and the same is rejected - Benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the period of limitation of one year has gone by, as under the benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, any amount deposited during enquiry has to be adjusted - Hence, the petition filed by the present petitioners deserves to be allowed - Impugned SVLDRS-2, SVLDRS-3 issued by respondent No.2 and letter dated 23.06.2017 are set aside - Respondent No.2 is directed to consider all the documents/records submitted by the petitioners, including the proof of payment of CENVAT Credit and, thereafter, pass a fresh order in accordance with law - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 14, 15]
- Petition disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |
|
