2023-TIOL-130-SC-GST
Directorate General Of GST Intelligence Vs Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd
GST - Issue is whether offline/online games such as Rummy, which are based substantially on skill & not chance & whether played with or without stakes, is tantamount to gambling or betting as contemplated in Entry 6 of Schedule III of CGST Act - Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court while allowing the Writ petition [ 2023-TIOL-531-HC-KAR-GST ] and quashing the show cause notice 23.09.2022 inter alia observed that the terms BETTING and GAMBLING in Entry 6 of Schedule III of CGST Act does not and cannot include games of skill within its ambit; that the terms BETTING and GAMBLING must be given the same meaning in Entry 34 of List II of Schedule VII to CGST Act & the Public Gaming Act, 1947; that when words acquire a technical meaning due to authoritative construction by superior courts, they must be understood in that sense when used in similar context in subsequent legislations - Aggrieved, appeal filed by DGSTI - Counsel for Revenue submits that the manner in which the judgment [in Skill Lotto Solutions Private Limited - 2020-TIOL-176-SC-GST-LB ] has been distinguished in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment at page 320 is seriously in question.
Held: Pending further orders, there shall be an ad interim stay of the impugned judgment and order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka - Matter listed on 10 October 2023: Supreme Court [para 7, 8]
- Ad interim stay granted: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023-TIOL-1132-HC-DEL-SERVICE
Vikash Kumar Vs UoI
Service - Petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner - Fraudulent duty drawback - Involvement of departmental officers - An amount of Rs.4.25 crores is alleged to have been delivered in cash to the petitioner by the exporters - Petitioner was placed under suspension pending departmental proceedings and such suspension was extended by disciplinary authority - Petitioner was also arrested and on completion of investigation, CBI proposed RDA Major only against the petitioner - Penalties were also imposed u/s of Customs Act, 1962 - Prolonged disciplinary proceedings - Challenge in this petition is to an order dated May 20, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the O.A. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
Held: Petitioner faces serious and grave charge for aiding in smuggling and committing drawback frauds and other anti-departmental activities, for which sanction also stands granted for prosecution in respect of four out of five cases - Penalty also stands imposed in the proceedings under Section 112(a) & 112(b) and under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Further, proceedings also stand initiated against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, apart from departmental proceedings - The continuation of investigation by various agencies after the earlier round of litigation, appears to be the sole reason for non-issuing of charge-sheet to the petitioner and also resulted in continued suspension -Considering the serious nature of charges, which have remained under investigation by various agencies against the petitioner and public interest, Bench is unable to accept the contention that since the petitioner has not been responsible for delay in conduct of investigation or other proceedings, he deserves to be reinstated - Bench is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out for interference in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - The revocation of suspension and reinstatement of the petitioner, in the peculiar circumstances cannot be directed merely because the charge-sheet could not be issued to the petitioner - Suffice to state that sufficient reasons have been pointed out by the respondents for delay in issuing of charge-sheet -Writ petition is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 13, 14]
- Petition dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1131-HC-MAD-GST
M Sathess Kumar Vs Deputy State Tax Officer-2
GST - Petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.07.2023 as being illegal and passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Held: Even though the petitioner has not appeared for the three personal hearings, subsequently, he has filed a reply on 24.07.2023, before passing the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 and the respondents are bound to consider the reply - Therefore, the assessment order is passed violating the principles of natural justice - Even though the petitioner is liable to pay GST, but ultimately it is the Government and the Local Bodies that have to pay the GST and the petitioner is entitled to pay and recover from the government - Hence, the ultimate sufferer is the Government - Impugned order is quashed - The respondents are directed to grant one more personal hearing and thereafter pass a speaking order - Exercise to be completed within eight weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 3 to 5]
- Petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1130-HC-AHM-CX
Pr.CCGST & CE Vs Reliance Industries Ltd
CX - Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 196 of 2023 vide order dated 31.03.2013 had dismissed the Tax Appeal - Therein, the Court did not rule out the applicability of Rules 6(1) and 6(2) of the CCR on the ground that the exempt product was a by-product, but has done so by observing that the assessee could not have used a lesser quantity of inputs and inputs for manufacture of its dutiable final product - If the dutiable final product could not have been manufactured using a lesser quantity of inputs, then the entire input must be attributed to having been used in the manufacture of the said dutiable final product, even if some other exempt final product emerges, inevitably - Tax Appeal stands dismissed : High Court [para 3]
- Appeal dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
