|
2023-TIOL-1295-HC-DEL-GST Tool Tech Enterprises Vs Asstt. Commissioner
GST - Petitioner prays that that directions be issued to the respondent to restore its GST registration - It is the petitioner's case that the impugned SCN was sent to an incorrect address; that the impugned SCN was defective as it did not specify any reason proposing to cancel the petitioner's GST registration - By an order dated 06.06.2022, the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled.
Held: The said order does not indicate any reason for cancelling the petitioner's GST registration except for recording that the petitioner had not responded to the impugned SCN and had not appeared before the proper officer - The tabular statement as set out in the said order dated 06.06.2022 discloses that there were no ascertained tax dues payable by the petitioner - The impugned order was also addressed at the incorrect address - Since the impugned SCN did not disclose the reason why the petitioner's GST registration was proposed to be cancelled, the order dated 06.06.2022 passed pursuant to the same is void as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice - The said order is also not informed by reason - In view of the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow present petition - Respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's GST registration from the date as initially granted - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10, 25, 26]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1294-HC-DEL-GST
Aarav Plastics Vs CCGST Delhi North
GST - Petitioner has filed the petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondents to refund an amount of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with applicable interest - The petitioner's appeal was rejected on the ground that they had not submitted the copies of statutory records (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A) for relevant period and therefore, petitioner's claim could not be co-related - Petitioner was not asked to furnish said documents - It is also the petitioner's case that statutory records were available on its portal with concerned authorities - Tribunal consider it apposite to remand the matter to appellate authority for consideration afresh - The appellate authority shall issue an appropriate notice calling upon petitioner to produce all such documents as the appellate authority considers necessary for processing said claims - The petitioner shall also file such documents as are necessary, including the copies of its statutory returns, which - according to the appellate authority - are necessary to co -relate the petitioner's claim for refund, within a period of two weeks: HC
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1293-HC-MUM-CX
CCGST & CE Vs Technocraft Industries India Ltd
CX - Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CESTAT holding that the Respondent-assessee fulfilled the conditions of Exemption Notification No. 23/03-CE dated 31.03.2003 and thus, entitled for exemption ; that the assessee rightly availed exemption under Notification No. 53/97 dated 03.06.1997 & Notification No. 52/03-Cus dated 31.03.2003 on the portion of imported Cotton contained in Cotton Waste which is subsequently cleared at NIL rate of duty, under Notification No. 6/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 & Notification No. 23/03-CE dated 31.03.2003 - Revenue is of the opinion that if the article or waste or reject is removed to any place in India outside the 100% EOU it has to be done on payment of duty of excise leviable thereon under section 3 of CEA, 1944; that when no duty was paid on such resultant article (including rejects, wastes and scrap material arising in the course of manufacture of such articles) owing to the reason that such resultant articles were exempted or were chargeable to duty at NIL rate, the condition "on payment of duty of excise leviable thereon" under Section 3 of CEA, 1944 was not satisfied; that, therefore, the show cause notice dated 11 September, 2007 came to be issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the exemption availed by the assessee under the said notification on the portion of imported Cotton contained in Cotton waste ought not to be denied and appropriate central excise/customs duty should not be demanded and recovered from the assessee.
Held : Cotton waste being excisable was classified under Heading no. 52.02 under Chapter 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act at Nil rate of duty - It thus appears that on clear application of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31 March, 2003 as also Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31 March, 2003, the cotton waste as generated in the assessee's unit and as cleared in the domestic tariff area, although excisable, fell under the category of Nil duty - CESTAT, in the opinion of the Bench, was correct in observing that when a manufacturer sets out to produce waste which is only incidentally generated in the process of manufacture of finished goods, the law would regard such waste as excisable goods, however, being exempted by application of notifications, which permitted clearance into the domestic tariff area by adhering to the prescribed procedure - Once the notification(s) provided Nil rate of duty in respect of such goods incidentally produced or manufactured by 100% export oriented unit and allowed it to be sold in the domestic tariff area, no duty could be leviable thereon - Even otherwise, not only the notification provided for exemptions but also the provisions of the Customs Tariffs Act provided for Nil duty - There is no reason to offset the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal rejected: High Court [para 14, 15, 18, 21]
- Appeal rejected: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1292-HC-DEL-ST
B L Goel And Company Vs Addl. DG of GST Intelligence
ST - SVLDRS, 2019 - Petitioner impugns the SCN dated 10.07.2020 demanding service tax of Rs.2,67,26,113/- by invoking extended period of limitation - Controversy in the present petition relates to the petitioner's liability for payment of the service tax on works contracts executed during the period of 2014-15 to 2017-18 - The impugned show cause notice indicates that it is premised on the basis that the petitioner had issued certain invoices for free of cost (FOC) material to one of its employers; According to the Revenue, the value of FOC material provided by M/s Charms India Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioner was chargeable to service tax to the extent of 50% - In addition, the impugned show cause notice is also premised on the basis that the petitioner had provided works contract services to NOIDA and the petitioner's liability was determined on an erroneous assumption that the NOIDA was a body corporate; that according to the Revenue, NOIDA is not a body corporate and, therefore, the petitioner would have to bear the full liability for the works contract services and not just 50% of the said liability - It is the petitioner's case that in terms of Section 129 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, no proceedings can be initiated in respect of service tax for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 and no further demands can be raised - The petitioner claims that the impugned show cause notice is, thus, liable to be set aside - It is the Revenue's case that the Discharge Certificate issued u/s 129(2)(c) of the Finance Act, 2019 would not absolve the petitioner from the liability as proposed under the impugned show cause notice as the petitioner had voluntarily made an incorrect statement.
Held: The assumption that Section 129(2)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 is applicable, is ex facie erroneous - The petitioner had not made a declaration under the category of 'Voluntary Disclosure' - The petitioner's declaration was under the category of 'Litigation' - This was because the concerned authority had issued a show cause notice dated 23.04.2019, which was pending adjudication - Scheme has a wide sweep - It not only covered cases where a dispute was pending but it also offered immunity to assessees who voluntarily came forward to make a true disclosure of their tax liability - A plain reading of Clause (c) of Section 129(2) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 indicates that the voluntary disclosure pertains to material particulars furnished in the declaration and not a statement recorded during the course of the investigation - The impugned show cause notice is premised on the basis that the statement of the authorised representative of the petitioner, which was recorded during the course of investigation, was misleading - The contention that the subject matter of the impugned show cause notice and the show cause notice dated 23.04.2019 is different, is also unpersuasive - There is no dispute that the subject matter of both the show cause notices is the petitioner's service tax liability during the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 - Bench finds merit in the petitioner's contention that the impugned show cause notice is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - The Discharge Certificate issued to the petitioner is conclusive of the subject matter of the impugned show cause notice - Impugned show cause notice is, accordingly, liable to be set aside - Assumption that the petitioner is liable to pay tax on FOC material supplied by M/s Charms India Pvt Ltd. is ex facie erroneous - The said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhayana Builders Private Limited & Ors = 2018-TIOL-66-SC-ST - Interestingly, the show cause notice dated 23.04.2019 expressly sought to impute liability on the petitioner on the ground that NOIDA did not qualify as a government authority but was a body corporate - Impugned show cause notice seeks to espouse a view contrary to that as stated in the show cause notice dated 24.03.2019 - Section 3(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 referring to 'NOIDA' expressly states that "The Authority shall be a body corporate" - In view of the express provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, the premise that NOIDA is not a body corporate is fundamentally flawed - petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice is set aside: High Court [para 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30]
- Petition allowed: DELHI HIGH COURT |
|
