|
2023-TIOL-1305-HC-DEL-GST
Amit Gupta Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by multiple investigations being conducted by the different authorities in respect of the supply of goods received and made by the petitioner during the period of July, 2017 to March, 2022 - Petitioner states that the investigations for the relevant periods were commenced by respondent no.3, CGST Commissionerate, Delhi North (the Jurisdictional Commissionerate) and summons dated 03.03.2022 was issued to the petitioner - The petitioner states that his statement was recorded on 16.03.2022 -Petitioner claims that thereafter on 18.04.2022, the officers of respondents no.4 and 5 conducted a search in the petitioner's principal places of business, his residence, and the godown - Petitioner claims that he made representations informing the officers of the DGGI regarding the proceedings commenced by respondent no.3 and calling upon them to de-seal the premises and refrain from any further proceedings, as parallel proceedings were impermissible - It is the petitioner's grievance that despite the same, respondents no.5 has repeatedly issued summons and has not refrained from continuing with the investigation. Held : Investigation conducted by the officers of the DGGI, essentially, related to diversion of agricultural grade urea and its sale as technical grade urea and reflecting the purchases by way of fake invoices- Respondent no.3 (the Jurisdictional Commissionerate) had commenced investigation regarding the availment of ineligible Input Tax Credit - It is apparent that the focus of the DGGI's investigation is somewhat different from the focus of the investigation being commenced by the Jurisdictional Commissionerate - The Jurisdictional Commissionerate is not investigating the diversion of agricultural grade urea - However, it cannot be disputed that the investigation regarding the availment of the ITC is common to the investigations conducted by both the authorities - Counsel for respondent DGGI handed over a communication dated 23.08.2023, which indicates that the DGGI is willing for consolidation of the investigation being conducted in respect of M/s Shyam Trading Co. (the sole proprietorship concern of the petitioner) - Thus, insofar as the respondents are concerned, there is now no dispute that the investigations would be conducted by a singular agency - It is also relevant to note that there is no dispute that both the officers of the DGGI as well as the Jurisdictional Commissionerate possess the necessary jurisdiction to conduct the investigations - It is clear that the object of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act is to ensure that cross empowerment of officers of central tax and state tax do not result in the taxpayers being subjected to parallel proceedings - In the present case, the focus of investigation by the DGGI was in respect of the diversion of agriculture urea for sale as technical grade urea - The issue regarding wrongful availment of the ITC is also inextricably linked with the subject matter of investigation by respondent no.3 - Sensustricto, the subject matter of the two investigations conducted by the DGGI and respondent no.3 may be slightly different and the intelligence developed by them may be sourced on varying facts - Bench is unable to accept that the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act can be interpreted to proscribe consolidation of investigation or proceedings in a single authority where warranted - Petitioner's insistence on the authority which should conduct the investigation is unjustified - As noted, at the outset, the petitioner's grievance was in respect of conduct of parallel proceedings - The said grievance perished with respondent no.3 agreeing to the DGGI continuing the investigation from the stage, as obtaining before it - Petition is, accordingly, disposed of: High Court [para 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 35, 36, 39, 40]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-931-CESTAT-MUM
IL And FS Transportation Networks Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appellant provides various services to their clients and is registered with Service Tax - They had also taken centralized registration in respect of their head office and 16 branches and service tax for all branches and head office is paid from their Mumbai office covered by centralized registration - Assessee paid service tax of Rs. 60,17,195/- in excess of service tax that should have been paid by them for the month of September 2012 - The said excess paid service tax was adjusted by appellant in month of December 2012 - It appeared to Revenue that as provided under Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, appellant should have utilized excess paid service tax for adjustment during immediate next succeeding month - Sub-rule (4A) provides for adjustment of excess paid service tax during succeeding month or quarter - Said subrule does not require said adjustment to be made during immediately succeeding month and therefore, Tribunal do not find any violation of said sub-rule by appellant in adjusting the amount excess paid for the month of September 2012 during month of December 2012 - The conditions stipulated in sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 though invoked by Revenue, same are unsubstantiated in said SCN - Therefore, Revenue has failed to establish that appellant has violated any conditions specified in said sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Therefore, appellant was eligible for utilization of excess paid service tax during the month of December 2012 - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal alllowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-930-CESTAT-MAD
K Natarajan Vs CC
Cus - The penalty under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act 1962 has been imposed on appellant for violation of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 2004 - It is alleged that appellant did not verify antecedents of importer - There is nothing brought out from records that appellant had in any manner abetted the importer or import of impugned goods - It is clearly stated that appellant has only assisted to file the documents on behalf of importer as required of a CHA Firm - It is not done in his individual capacity - There is no allegation that appellant committed any act helping the import of illegal goods - Department has not been able to establish sufficient grounds for imposing penalty under section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 - The penalty imposed is not warranted and not justified - Impugned order is modified to the extend of setting aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on appellant: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-929-CESTAT-AHM
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue involved in is that whether the refund claim filed by appellant is barred by limitation, when excise duty for which refund sought for was paid under protest - Appellant had paid duty on behest of audit objection which itself is a payment of duty under protest - Moreover, appellant have also clearly mentioned in their TR-6 challan that payment of duty is under protest - They have also submitted a letter declaring that such payment of duty is under protest - In this position limitation provided under section 11B is not applicable for refunding Excise Duty - It is also the contention in orders of lower authorities that department has filed appeal before Supreme Court against Tribunal order, whereby Tribunal held that the duty paid on other charges, which is related to local Sales Tax is not payable - Merely by filing appeal, appellant's refund cannot be withheld which has been clarified by Central Board of Excise Customs in various circulars from time to time, that unless until stay is obtained from Higher Court the refund cannot be kept pending - Therefore, on both the counts, appellant is entitled for refund: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
|
