2023-TIOL-1475-HC-DEL-GST
Kunal Autotech Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - ITC Refund - Petitioner prays that directions be issued to respondents no.2 and 3 to disburse the amount of refund granted to the petitioner in terms of the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023 - Counsel for respondents submits that the respondents, as on today, have not taken the decision whether to review the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023 or to file an appeal against the said order, therefore, the refund of Rs.1,13,09,772/- due to the petitioner has not been processed.
Held: Concededly, there is no order staying the operation of the order-in-appeal dated 19.06.2023 - Bench is unable to accept that the respondents can withhold the refund due to the petitioner on the ground as stated - Respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner's claim for refund in compliance with the order-in-appeal along with applicable interest, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks: High Court [para 10, 11]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1474-HC-DEL-GST
Sahil Jain Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence
GST - Petitioner seeks issuance of inter alia a direction quashing the summons dated 18 October 2023 issued by respondent no.1; restrain respondent no.1 from adopting any coercive measures such as arrest/detention without issuing any SCN.
Held: Bench is of the view that the petitioner's apprehension that he would be coerced to deposit the further amount can be addressed by directing the respondents not to accept any amount of tax from the petitioner since the petitioner has unequivocally made clear that he does not wish to voluntarily deposit any tax with the concerned authority and there is no dispute that the petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit the tax without following the procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79 of the CGST Act - In the event, the petitioner wants to deposit the tax, he shall do so after seeking permission of this Court - Petition disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1473-HC-KERALA-CX
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs CCE
CX - Demand of Rs. 1,31,46,254/- was confirmed by the CCE - The CESTAT by order dated 14.11.2006, dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant by refusing to condone the delay that was occasioned in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition in the year 2010 - Writ petition was admitted and an interim order of stay of recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by the Commissioner was also granted by an order dated 12.7.2010 - Writ petition itself was disposed of by the judgment dated 14.12.2021 who relegated the appellant to its alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal against the order of Tribunal that was impugned in the writ petition - Accordingly, the present appeal.
Held: Bench is of the view that the Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy, especially when the writ petition had been pending before this Court since 2010, and the time limit for availing the alternate remedy had expired - Bench also is of the view that prudence dictates that, at this distance of time and on account of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the appellant should be permitted to get its appeal decided on merits before the CESTAT, more so because it has been pursuing the matter before this Court all these years - Bench, therefore, disposes of this writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge and relegating the appellant to its remedy before the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore for an adjudication of its appeal on merits within a period of six months - Till such time as the CESTAT considers the appeal preferred by the appellant before it, and passes orders on the same as directed in this judgment, recovery proceedings for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, shall be kept in abeyance: High Court [para 3]
- Appeal disposed of: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1472-HC-MP-CUS
Rama Phosphates Ltd Vs Joint Director General of Central Excise Intelligence
Cus - Writ petition was filed challenging the adjudication order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,72,02,660/- under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petition was dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy - Present review petition has been filed assailing the judgment/ order dated 09.01.2023 - Petitioners contend that the question as to whether the impugned order passed after an unreasonable delay of 11 years is barred by limitation prescribed by Section 28(9)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a pure question of law which could be decided on admitted facts.
Held: Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie the petitioners have been able to carve out an exception with regard to violation of principles of natural justice based on Parle International [ 2020-TIOL-2032-HC-MUM-CX ] and Godrej Sara Lee [ 2023-TIOL-11-SC-VAT ] inasmuch as the adjudication of the show cause notice took more than 11 long years for which there appears to be no explanation - In fact, the writ petitions were dismissed in limine only on the ground of alternative remedy without examining the issue of violation of principles of natural justice - In these circumstances, the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in W.P. No. 25420/2022 and in all the connected review petitions are hereby set aside - Registry is directed to list all the petitions for hearing on admission -Review petition stands allowed: High Court [para 16, 17]
- Petition allowed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1471-HC-AHM-MISC
Mukesh Jhammanlal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat
Lump-sum tax - LMV car - It is the case of the petitioner that he had paid the lump-sum tax of Rs.5,92,638/- penalty of Rs.1,48,160/- and interest of Rs.17,779/- with R.F. and Da of Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- totalling Rs.7,59,277/- at the time of registration of the vehicle - It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 seized and detained the car on 01.08.2022 - The car was seized and detained on the ground that in the year 2011-12, there was audit objection from the office of the Accountant General that the lump-sum tax was calculated without including Central Sales Tax and, therefore, there was short recovery of Rs.1,48,160/- - The respondent no.2 therefore demanded difference of tax of Rs.1,48,160/-, penalty of Rs.35,559/- and interest of Rs.26,669/- totalling Rs.2,10,388/- by notice dated 07.03.2012 - Petitioner would rely on a decision of this Court dated 18.08.2022 in case of Pritiben Kiranbhai Arvindbhai Modi v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.4449 of 2022 and submit that the respondents are not entitled to levy tax and the demand, therefore, must be set aside.
Held: Court on 15.09.2022 issued notice on a condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.5 lakhs in the registry of this Court - Subsequently an application was moved for modification of the order - It was the case of the petitioner that since the vehicle was in a breakdown condition for more than two years, the condition of deposit of amount was very harsh - In light of this, the order of direction to deposit the amount was modified by directing the petitioner to furnish bond of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- before the competent authority - It is not in dispute that in compliance of the order, the petitioner has produced before the competent authority a bank guarantee in the form of bond of Rs.5 lakhs - Having gone through the oral judgement dated 18.08.2022 in case of Pritiben Kiranbhai Arvindbhai Modi (supra), as there was an error in the software of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the penalty for less payment of tax - Liability that is worked out by the State is Rs.7,40,797/- - Petitioner is, therefore, directed to deposit Rs.7,40,797/- towards tax with interest at the rate of 9% to be calculated from the due date of payment till the date of realization - Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent: High Court [para 5, 9, 10]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
