2023-TIOL-1279-HC-DEL-CUS
Fresh Fruit Flowers And Vegetables Traders Association Vs DGFT
Cus - Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 9 th July 2020 issued by DGFT which imposes a prohibition on importation of a variety of cut flowers into India through all airports, save for the Chennai Airport - Petitioner contends that this regulatory measure discriminates against Delhi's flower traders by putting them in an unfavourable position relative to their Chennai-based counterparts - Moreover, they argue that the impugned notification infringes upon the Petitioner's rights under the Constitution of India, as it imposes an unreasonable constraint on the commercial activities undertaken by the members of the Petitioner-association - DGFT had in its affidavit submitted that channelling imports through Chennai Airport meets two objectives: rapid clearance of consignments and strict adherence to phytosanitary requirements; that this was possible due to the technically efficient manpower available at Chennai Airport.
Held: While the Respondents agree upon the highly perishable nature of cut flowers and the necessity for time-sensitive clearance procedures, they assert that designating a singular port of entry would maximize operational efficiency - Specifically, this approach aims to expedite clearance processes and ensure rigorous adherence to phytosanitary inspection protocols, thereby alleviating pressure on other entry points, including but not limited to Delhi Airport -Courts cannot assume the role of the executive to dictate policy on matters such as import regulations, the safeguarding of domestic agriculture, or the allocation of state resources - Rather, these are specialized determinations best left to the discretion of experts in the relevant fields - In light of these submissions, Bench is of the view that the impugned notification and order do not arbitrarily discriminate against flower traders in the Delhi-NCR region but rather aim to fortify the bio-security of the nation - While the focus of the Respondents has largely been on centralizing resources at a single port, Respondents have indicated an intent to scale up technical and laboratory capabilities at multiple ports across the country - In its affidavit dated 17 April 2023 submitted by submitted by the Joint Director of Plant Quarantine at DPPQ&S, it is explicitly stated that improvements to the Plant Pathology and Entomology laboratory facilities are underway at several major Regional Plant Quarantine Stations (RPQSs) and airports, including those in Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, and Delhi - Considering the Respondents' ongoing initiatives for phased enhancements to laboratory facilities and equipment across several ports, including Delhi, it is clear that the core concern of the Petitioner-the challenges faced in importing cut flowers via Delhi-has not only been recognized but is also presently being addressed by the appropriate authorities - Therefore, judicial intervention at this stage is not warranted -Petition disposed of: High Court [para 24, 30, 31, 32, 35]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1278-HC-KOL-GST
Susovan Roy Barman Vs State Of West Bengal
GST - Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents of cancelling the registration for non-filing of return in time - Petitioner submits that they have already paid late fee and nothing is due.
Held: Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authority concerned to restore the registration of the petitioner and open the portal within three days: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1277-HC-KOL-GST
Prodyut Kumar Roy Vs State Of West Bengal
GST - Writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking directions upon the respondents authority to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids.
Held: Writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation in the aforesaid regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks and who shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned - Till the final decision is taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner - Petition disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1276-HC-KOL-GST
Hriday Kumar Das Vs State Of West Bengal
GST - Writ petition has been inter alia filed for the relief by way of direction upon the respondents authority concerned to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contracts either awarded in the pre-GST regime or in the post GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for inviting the bids - Petitioner has also challenged the impugned order dated 31st May, 2023 passed by the appellate authority.
Held: Writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation in the aforesaid regard before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks and who shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representation after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned - Till the final decision is taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner - Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, the same is an appealable order under the statute before the Tribunal but since the said forum is not available at present this writ petition is being entertained - Bench is of the view that the issues involved in this writ petition cannot be adjudicated without calling for affidavits from the respondents, therefore, respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks - There shall be no coercive steps for recovery of the demand in question arising out of the impugned order of the appellate authority concerned if petitioner deposits further 20% of the disputed amount of tax within a period of ten days - Matter to be listed in December 2023: High Court
- Interim order passed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1275-HC-KOL-GST
DRB Infratstructure Pvt Ltd Vs State Of West Bengal
GST - Principal grievance is against an order passed u/s 129(3) of the Act, 2017 raising a demand for Rs.8,13,600/- - By an interim order dated 16th June, 2023, the petitioner was directed to furnish a bank guarantee and permitted to release the trailers loaded with machines.
Held: The impugned order does not deal with the objections raised by the petitioner - The justification and reasonableness of a conclusion can only depend on the reasons provided in support thereof which the impugned order fails to provide - In particular, the petitioner had raised an issue as to whether any penalty could have been charged in the facts and circumstances of the case since no tax was due and payable and the petitioner had not made any supply - Such objection raised by the petitioner ought to have been dealt with in the impugned order - The conclusion reached at by the respondent no.3 is bereft of any reasons whatsoever - There has been no adjudication on the merits of the case - Accordingly, the impugned order is unsustainable and set aside and the matter is remanded to the proper officer to adjudicate and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks - Petitioner is directed to keep the bank guarantee alive until final disposal of the representation - Petition disposed of: High Court
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT |
