2023-TIOL-1508-HC-MAD-MISC
All India Gaming Federation Vs State of Tamil Nadu
Whether State is competent to legislate to extent of prohibiting online gambling, and at same time has authority to regulate online games of skill - YES: HC
Whether Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 shall be read as restricted to games of chance and not games involving skill, viz., rummy and poker - YES: HC
Whether the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act, 2022 can be declared as ultra vires to Constitution in its entirety - NO: HC
- Assessee's petition partly allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1507-HC-AHM-GST
Bharatkumar Pravinkumar And Company Vs State of Gujarat
GST - Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not releasing the cash [ Rs.69,98,400/- ] seized.
Held: Reading the CGST Act and particularly the preamble thereto, would indicate that it is an Act to make a provision for levy and collection of tax on intra-State supply of goods or services or both by the Central Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto - When this is read in context of provisions of sub-section (2) of section 67, obviously, when the proper officer confiscates any goods, documents, books or things, he must have reason to believe that they shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act - Reading of affidavit primarily explains that even as per the case of respondent it was not the opinion of the proper officer that it was a seizure in relation to unexplained transaction under the Goods and Services Tax Act, but it was an amount of consideration received on sale proceeds of silver bars - As observed by the Kerala High Court [ - 2023-TIOL-382-HC-KERALA-GST ], it was not the case of seizing officer that it was an investigation, which concerned the Income Tax Department - On the facts of this case, what is evident is that the Seizure memo was dated 13.11.2020 and in accordance with sub-section (7) of section 67 thereof when no Notice in respect thereof is given within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession, they were seized - On this ground thereto, the petitioner is entitled to the prayer that the amount of cash seized i.e. Rs.69,98,400/- to be returned forthwith to the petitioner - Accordingly, the present petition is allowed - The respondents are directed to return an amount of Rs.69,98,400/- to the petitioner: High Court [para 11, 12, 13, 15]
- Petition allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1506-HC-AHM-GST
Daksh Enterprise Vs Commissioner of State Tax
GST - Issue involved is whether an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing an order in Form GST DRC-7.
Held: Evident it is from the show cause notice dated 05.02.2022 that a response was to be filed by the petitioner latest by 20.02.2022, which the petitioner, in fact, had filed a day prior thereto on 19.02.2022 - The impugned order does not reflect consideration of the reply so filed and only on this ground, as there is a violation of principles of natural justice and non-consideration of the reply so filed, the order dated 06.06.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside - Matter remanded - Petition partly allowed: High Court [para 5]
- Petition partly allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1505-HC-KERALA-GST
EVM Passenger Car India Pvt Ltd Vs State of Kerala
GST - Single Judge had observed that when the mandate of law is that the goods being transported must be accompanied with relevant statutory documents and if the goods are being transported without the relevant statutory documents, the consequences would follow; that the impugned order imposing the tax and penalty does not require any interference and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed - Aggrieved with this order of the Single Judge, the present appeal.
Held : Single Judge noted that a verification of the e-way bills revealed that the vehicle mentioned therein and the vehicle by which the goods were actually transported were different - It was on finding that there was no convincing explanation for the aforesaid discrepancy that the adjudicating authority imposed the penalty on the appellant - Petitioner submits that the details of the goods were shown in the parent e-way bills that were generated in respect of the entire consignment, a part of which alone was being transported at the time of interception - Bench is unable to accept the said explanation since the statutory requirement under the GST Act and Rules has necessarily to be complied with - It is trite that when the statute prescribes the manner in which a thing has to be done, then it can be done in that manner, and no other - This is more so in relation to taxing statutes where the procedures prescribed are designed to check evasion of tax - No reason to interfere with the order - Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 3]
- Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1504-HC-KERALA-GST
K Sreekumar Vs Chief Electrical Engineer
GST - Appellant has approached Court to give a direction to the respondents to reimburse him the tax paid @12%/18% on the work he executed - Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as per the impugned judgment holding that the appellant's remedy is to approach the civil court - Therefore, the present writ appeal.
Held: The question whether the appellant is entitled to be paid GST @12%/18% on the contract amount received or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The determination of the said question includes the interpretation of the terms of the contract entered into between the appellant and the respondents - Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by the writ court - The remedy open to the appellant is to approach the civil court as rightly held by the Single Judge - Writ appeal is dismissed: High Court [para 3]
- Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1503-HC-AHM-GST
Noor Mohammad Pathan Vs Office of Pr.Commissioner
GST - Petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent authorities for release and de-sealing of the premises and handing over the same to the petitioner.
Held : Averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent indicates that the premises have been de-sealed and the stock lying therein have been handed over for safe custody to the petitioner - In this view of the matter, the issue no longer survives - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]
- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-995-CESTAT-BANG
Xiaomi Technology India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - The Assessee-company is engaged in trading of electronic goods and eco-system products - In the relevant period, the Assessee filed Bill of Entry for import of Liquid Crystal Display panels, having classified the same under CTH 9013 8010 - On adjudication, this classification adopted by the Assessee was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and such findings were subsequently sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Held - This matter is no longer res integra as the issue has been already settled in Assessee's own case vide Final Order No.20666 to 20672/2023 dated 7.7.2023 - Further, the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd . on interpreting the General Rules of Interpretation and the Section Notes and Chapter Notes, observed that "... Note 2 of this Chapter Notes becomes important since LCDs are used in the electricity supply meters only as parts thereof. Note 2(a) stipulates that parts and accessories which are goods included in the heading of the said chapter i.e. Chapter 90, are to be classified in their respective headings. Going by the plain reading of Note 2(a) it is clear that LCDs, which are goods and are used as parts in the final product mentioned in Chapter 90, namely, electricity supply meters, are to be classified in its respective heading. Respective heading, which is specifically provided is 9013. .." - Following the judgment of the Supreme Court and the order of the CESTAT in the Assessee's own case, the LCD Panels are to be classified under Chapter Heading 9013 8010 - The orders in question stand quashed: CESTAT
- Appeals allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT
Vikas Raghunath Padekar
Whether custodial interrogation of accused/bail applicant is not necessary, if he has obeyed conditions imposed while he was on interim bail - YES: DC
- In favour of Applicant/ Bail granted |
