|
2023-TIOL-1207-HC-DEL-GST
Rahul Kumar Jain And Co Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner impugns an order dated 29.05.2023 whereby the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled pursuant to a show cause notice dated 16.05.2023.
Held: Show cause notice dated 16.05.2023 merely alleged that the petitioner's GST registration was proposed to be cancelled on account of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; however, it did not provide any specific reason as to the alleged fraud, wilful misstatement and it did not provide any clue as to the facts which were allegedly suppressed - The petitioner's request for providing further specific grounds was not acceded to and no further information was provided to the petitioner - Impugned order does not mention any reason whatsoever for the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration - It merely states that it is an order for cancellation of registration and is in reference to the show cause notice dated 16.05.2023 - It further states that the effective date of the cancellation of the GST registration is 04.05.2018 - Court has, in a number of decisions, held that such show cause notices and orders which are not informed by any reasons cannot be sustained, however, taxpayers continue to be vexed by such show cause notices and orders that provide no reason, whatsoever - Petition is allowed albeit with the cost of Rs.5,000/- and which is to be paid to the petitioner within two weeks: High Court [para 3, 5, 6, 7, 8]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1206-HC-KERALA-GST
T H Fazil Vs State Tax Officer
GST - Petition has been filed questioning the seizure of cash of Rs. 31,50,000/- and Rs. 3,40,000/- was seized from the premises of petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 respectively - Petitioners submit that the GST authorities have no power under the Act and the Rules thereto to seize the cash of a dealer, in as much as the cash seized is not ‘stock in trade' - Petitioner places reliance on the decision in Shabu George [ 2023-TIOL-382-HC-KERALA-GST ] - Counsel for Revenue does not dispute the legal position as contended by the petitioners; that the cash was seized from the petitioners' premises on 22.12.2020; that the cash seized from the petitioners' premises includes the currency of denomination of Rs. 2000/- and the same would cease circulation by the end of September, 2023.
Held: State had preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed [ 2023-TIOL-118-SC-GST ] - Considering the aforesaid facts and the law, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the cash seized from the petitioners and credit the same to the account of the petitioners within a period of five days: High Court [para 4]
- Petition allowed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-872-CESTAT-MUM
Asha International Vs CC
Cus - Appellant had imported goods and declared the same as mixed items of Hair Accessories and Imitation Jewellery accessories - On examination of goods, Department found that there was excess weight in imported consignment as against declared weight in Bills of Entry and also declaration made about composition of imported goods as MS (Mild Steel) is also found incorrect, inasmuch as goods were actually made of Brass as per PMI test report - Thus, Department initiated proceedings against appellant and rejected declared value and redetermined the same under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; confiscated the goods under Sections 111(d), (m) and (i) of Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine - The overseas supplier M/s Landmark EXIM (HK) Co., Hong Kong has confirmed that due to oversight they had shipped more quantity of subject goods to appellant - Appellant had no intention in wrong filing of Bills of Entry and based on available records, they had complied with requirement of filing Bills of Entry for imported consignment - However, since the provisions regarding particulars required for assessment has not been declared correctly as found out in examination conducted by Department, they have not complied with Customs law in proper perspective and thus, Section 111 ibid is attracted for confiscation of goods and for imposition of redemption fine - Therefore, appellant is exposed to penal consequences provided in statute - On the basis of wrong documents submitted by overseas entity, appellant had filed Bills of Entry, lenient approach can be adopted in reducing quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on appellant - Therefore, impugned order is modified to, the extent of reducing redemption fine to Rs. 04 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 01 lakh respectively: CESTAT
- Appeal partly allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-871-CESTAT-KOL
Dharampal Premchand Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The appellants manufactured two products-one, compound and the other, chewing tobacco in same factory and compound was used entirely captively - According to Department while chewing tobacco is exempt under notfn 8/2004-CE, compound is not, even though both are products specified under notfn 8/2004-CE - Once the condition of deposit of an amount equal to duty payable, but for exemption under notfn 8/2004-CE stands satisfied for chewing tobacco, same condition gets automatically satisfied for compound captively consumed as well - This is for the reason that amount of duty payable on compound, but for the exemption contained in notfn 8/2004-CE, is nothing but ZERO - When we calculate the amount to be deposited/invested for compound, amount comes to be ZERO because in a tax regime in which notfn 8/2004-CE is nonexistent, the intermediate compound having been used captively in dutiable chewing tobacco gets the benefit of duty exemption under notfn 52/2002-CE and thus no amount of duty is payable on compound - Thus, exemption to chewing tobacco under notfn 8/2004-CE automatically accompanies with it the exemption to captively used compound under same very notification - Exemption to compound travels along with exemption on chewing tobacco - The Appellants drew an anology with 'exempted goods' condition mentioned in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - They cited the decision of Tribunal in Appellant's own case which has been affirmed by Tripura High Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. 2021-TIOL-712-HC-TRIPURA-CX wherein the word 'exempted goods' has been interpreted to mean a situation where all duties are exempted - If some duties are still payable, then, it cannot be considered as 'wholly exempted' - In present case also, appellants were liable to pay Additional Duty as per Finance Act, 2005 - The word "exempted" used in proviso to notfn 52/2002-CE has to be interpreted keeping in view the context and purpose of exemption to chewing tobacco under notfn 8/2004-CE, otherwise it would defeat the very purpose of exemption and cause anomaly - Hence, relying on said decision in Appellant's own case, it is held that the finished goods Chewing Tobacco were not wholly exempted - Consequently, the benefit of Notfn 52/2002-CE also cannot be denied to demand duty on intermediate product 'Compound' manufactured and captively consumed in manufacture of Chewing Tobacco - Appellants contended that the demands confirmed in impugned order are barred by limitation - Process of manufacture was declared to department - When the facts were in knowledge of Department, suppression cannot be alleged - Accordingly, extended period cannot be invoked to demand duty - Entire exercise would be revenue neutral and Appellants would not have achieved any benefit by not paying duty on intermediate product namely, 'Compound' - Demand of duty is not sustainable on the ground of limitation also - Since, demand of duty is not sustainable, demand of interest and penalty also not sustainable - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: KOLKATA CESTAT
2023-TIOL-870-CESTAT-BANG
Gautham Khona Vs CCE
ST - The appellants rendered services to M/s. Bharat Mines and Minerals in transporting mined ore from top to bottom i.e. mine head to pit head and to Railway siding situated within the mines area - SCNs were issued for recovery of service tax alleging that services rendered by appellants fall under category of 'Mining of Minerals, Oil or Gas Services' brought into service tax net w.e.f. 01.06.2007 - On adjudication, demands were confirmed with interest and penalties - The issue of levy of service tax on providing services for transportation of ore within mining area for period post 01/06/2007, after introduction of levy viz. "Mining of Minerals, Oil or Gas" services, has been settled by Supreme Court in case of S ingh Transporters 2017-TIOL-249-SC-ST - Also, the said judgment has been followed by Principal Bench of Tribunal recently in case of NP Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. 2022-TIOL-346-CESTAT-DEL - The principle laid down by Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of present case - Consequently, impugned orders are set aside: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT |
|
