2023-TIOL-1162-HC-DEL-GST
Shiv Ganga Udyog Vs CCGST
GST - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by an order dated 22.07.2022, pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 13.06.2022 - Petitioner impugns this order as well as the order dated 28.03.2023 rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of his GST registration as well as the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the appellate authority - The only reason provided in the said Show Cause Notice reads - Discrepancies noticed while conduct of Physical Verification.
Held: Show Cause Notice is cryptic and is incapable to eliciting any meaningful response - Thus, the petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice was equally vague - He responded by stating - "the dealer is ready to provide information and full co-operation” - Proper Officer gave full consideration to the said response and cancelled the petitioner's GST registration for the reasons - THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE TAXPAYER IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order dated 22.07.2022, cancelling the petitioner's registration with retrospective effect from 02.07.2017, can be sustained - The Show Cause Notice did not specify any specific reasons for cancelling petitioner's registration - The order dated 22.07.2022 is not informed by reason - Since the initial order of cancellation of petitioner's GST registration cannot be maintained, as not informed by reason, it is not necessary to examine the orders dated 28.03.2023 and 06.07.2023 - If the petitioner is disabled from filing the requisite form to record the change of place of business, the same cannot be considered as a ground for not restoring its GST registration - Petitioner's GST registration is directed to be restored forthwith - Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders: High Court [para 4, 6, 7, 8, 18, 22, 26, 27]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1161-HC-MAD-GST
Saifee Enterprises Vs Pr.CCGST & CE
GST - It is the case of the respondent that there was certain information indicating evasion of GST and hence the third respondent had visited the business premises of the petitioner at old No.241, New No.160, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai - 600 101 intending to search the same - When contacted, the petitioner informed the Assessing Officer that the concerned persons were travelling, hence the respondents sealed the premises in question - The petitioner, thereafter, appears to have appeared before the respondent on 31.05.2023 promising to provide certain information called for by the respondents - Preliminary statements were recorded but there has been no further appearance by petitioner before the respondents and hence the premises in question continues to be sealed - Petitioner seeks quashing of the summons and de-sealing of the premises in question to enable them to run the business.
Held: Petitioner is duty bound to cooperate in the proceedings for investigation - Seeing as the petitioner has not appeared pursuant to summons dated 31.05.2023 to either tender information or to cooperate in the continuing investigation, this Court is unable to quash the summons, which has been issued directing appearance of the petitioner - In order to facilitate both the process of desealing of the premises as well as continuance of the investigation, let the petitioner appear before R3 on 28.06.2023 at 10.30 a.m. without expecting any further notice in this regard along with a written request for desealing of the premises - It is the specific case of the petitioner that the documents sought for by the respondents are inside the sealed premises and it is for this reason that the same could not be furnished to the respondent - In such an event, upon a written request by the petitioner, the premises be desealed and necessay documents procured in the presence of R3 followed by re-sealing of the premises, in order that the interests of both parties are protected - Petition dismissed: High Court [para 7 to 10]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1160-HC-DEL-GST
KS Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner Division
GST - Refund of ITC - Commissioner has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the petitioner was unable to satisfy that the inputs in respect of which the credit was claimed, was directly co-related to the export of the commodity in question (sugar); that the petitioner had also exported rice during the relevant tax period and the Appellate Authority was of the view that the petitioner had not distinguished the inputs in respect of export of rice and export of sugar; that since the petitioner was granted refund in respect of the inputs for the export of rice, the petitioner's claim for refund in respect of sugar was required to be rejected.
Held: Although the petitioner has a statutory right of appeal in respect of the impugned order, the petitioner is unable to avail of the same as the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted - Petitioner has produced sample invoices which do, prima facie , indicate that the petitioner had produced the relevant material to establish that input supplies in respect of which ITC was claimed were in respect of export of sugar - Neither the Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority nor the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority discusses the aforesaid invoices and the material produced by the petitioner - None of the said orders indicate any reason as to why the authorities have not considered the said material to be relevant for establishing that the input supplies in respect of which refund was claimed, were directly corelated to export of sugar - Impugned order is set aside - Petitioner's appeal is restored before the Appellate Authority for reconsideration on merits - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 8, 11, 12]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1159-HC-MAD-CX
Him Industrial Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs Designated Committee
CX - SVLDRS, 2019 - Section 124 of FA, 2019 - Designated Authority under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 issued SVLDRS- 2 on 20.2.2020 and estimated an amount Rs. 2,90,314/- as due and payable by the petitioner under the aforesaid Scheme - Specific case of the petitioner is that while arriving at the aforesaid amount, the Designated Authority, the respondent herein has not factored the amount paid by the petitioner towards interest prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice.
Held: There is no merit in the stand of the Department that the amount was not been paid under protest and was not a pre-deposit - The amount paid towards duty and interest that was proposed to be adjusted in the Show Cause Notice No.93/2019 dated 02.12.2019 has to treated as amount pre-deposited - Therefore, it has to be allowed to adjusted - Petitioner is entitled to succeed - Respondents are directed to adjust the amount pre-deposited and issue form SVLDR-4 within a period of 45 days - Petition is allowed: High Court [para 12, 14]
- Petition allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-851-CESTAT-KOL
CCE, C & ST Vs Infosys Technologies Ltd
ST - Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) - Respondents, a 100% EOU, are engaged in the activity of providing maintenance of software services - They used various input services viz. commercial or industrial construction, erection, commissioning or installation, security service, air travel agent, chartered accountant, cleaning activity, commercial training or coaching, courier, manpower recruitment or supply, rent-a-cab operator, scientific or technical consultancy, management, maintenance or repair and telecommunication, which were used for rendering the said output service - The output services were exported without payment of tax - Refund claim filed under rule 5 of CCR, 2004 was denied by lower authorities but allowed by Commissioner(A), which order the Revenue is aggrieved with on the ground that the said services did not have any link/correlation with the development of software etc. - Respondent assessee submitted that the department could not have raked up the eligibility of CENVAT credit while deciding the refund claim.
Held: Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the definition of 'input services' and given a very categorical finding regarding admissibility of the credit of 'input services' used in providing the output services by the Respondent - Department has not raised any objection at the time of availing and utilizing the credit - The decisions relied upon by the Respondent supports their contention that the eligibility of CENVAT credit cannot be questioned at the time of filing of the refund when it was not questioned when the same was availed and utilised by them - Held that when no objection was raised at the time of availing and utilising the credit, the objection regarding the eligibility of credit cannot be raised at the time of filing of the refund claim, to deny the refund claim - Board Circular No. 120/01/2010 - ST dated 19.01.2010, supports this view - Revenue appeal is rejected: CESTAT [para 15, 17]
- Appeal rejected: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-850-CESTAT-BANG
Oberon Edifices And Estates Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, C & ST
ST - Appellants are providing Renting of Immovable property services - CENVAT credit availed by them on various input services has been denied - Service tax is also demanded in respect of sale of space or time for advertisement which the appellant failed to discharge - Demands have been confirmed by the Commissioner, hence the present appeals.
Held: Issue relating to admissibility of CENVAT credit on various input services used in providing 'Renting of Immovable property service' is decided by CESTAT Bangalore in the case of Golflinks Software Park Pvt Ltd - 2018-TIOL-2877-CESTAT-BANG and which judgment has been approved by the Karnataka High Court - 2022-TIOL-1515-HC-KAR-ST - On the second issue of demand against 'sale of space or time for advertisement' the Commissioner has not recorded any findings even though the appellant pleaded that the levy of service tax on the said alleged service is unsustainable - It is, therefore, prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for examination - Appeals are disposed of: CESTAT [para 7, 8]
- Appeals disposed of: BANGALORE CESTAT |
