2023-TIOL-1569-HC-MAD-VAT
Shewil Trading Company Vs CCT
Whether where status of assessee's FIR regarding alleged misuse of login ID for passing huge ITC is yet to be investigated, Tax Department shall co-ordinate and investigate into said complaint - YES: HC
- Case disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1568-HC-AHM-GST
Umiya Industries Vs Supdt. of GST
GST - The present petition was filed to challenge a Show Cause Notice and subsequent order, in which the registration held by the Petitioner had been cancelled - The Petitioner claimed that the notice was cryptic in as much as though the Show Cause Notice mentions that the registration has been obtained by means of fraud, willful mis-statement and suppression of facts, no details were furnished to the petitioner - Consequently, the order of cancellation also was bad - Hence, the Show Cause Notice as well as the impugned order were vague, inasmuch as, no reasons have been assigned for cancellation of registration.
Held - The High Court in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat held that by issuing a cryptic show cause notice, the authorities had violated the principles of natural justice - In the present case, it is seen from the Show Cause Notice and the order, that the reasons for cancelling registration are not decipherable - On these grounds, the notice and consequent order are quashed and the petition is allowed solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice - The Show Cause Notice as well as the order cancelling the registration are quashed and set aside with a liberty reserved to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice with particulars of reasons incorporated with details, and thereafter, to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and to pass appropriate speaking order on merits - It shall be open for the petitioner to respond to such notice by filing objections / reply with necessary documents, if relied upon. We clarify that we have not gone into merits of the case: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1567-HC-DEL-GST
Association of Diplomate of National Board Doctors Vs National Medical Commission
GST - 18% GST collected along with course fee, by National Board of Examinations from candidates - Since no GST is payable on course fee, the same was wrongfully collected - GST Department to expeditiously dispose off applications for refund of GST component: HC
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1566-HC-KERALA-GST
Golden Timber Industries Vs Addl. Director
GST - The Appellants had approached the writ court through the writ petition impugning the action of the Revenue in cancelling the registration certificates issued to them under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act /State Goods and Services Tax Act, and also seeking a direction to the Revenue to complete the adjudication proceedings of a show cause notice that had been issued to them, and in response to which, they had already submitted detailed replies before the Revenue.
Held - The cancellation of the registration certificates issued to the Appellants was as early as in February, 2023 - It was almost two months later that Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 20.4.2023 - It is not in dispute that the Appellants have furnished a reply to the show cause notice and have waited for more than four months before pursuing the matter before the 2nd Revenue and before this Court - While disposing the writ petition, the Single Judge rightly directed the Deputy Commissioner to complete the adjudication process in respect of the Show Cause Notice taking note of the fact that the replies to the Show Cause Notice had already been submitted by the Appellants - It was perhaps considering the nature of the allegations in the Show Cause Notice that the Single Judge did not deem it necessary to restore the registration certificates to the appellants pending an adjudication of the show cause notice by the Deputy Commissioner - There is no reason to disturb the directions of the Single Judge and take a different view in the matter of restoring the registration certificates to the Appellants: HC
- Writ Appeal dismissed: KERALA HIGH COURT
2023-TIOL-1021-CESTAT-MUM
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CE
CX - The issue involved is, whether authorities below are justified in although granting refund claim but crediting the same to Consumer Welfare fund on the ground of unjust enrichment - For the period prior to December, 2001, which also includes the period involved herein, appellant was clearing the waste and scarp under commercial invoice without mentioning duty amount therein as admittedly they were not paying any duty - When they started paying duty 'under protest', on insistence of department, after December, 2001 they started issuing excise invoices at the time of clearance of waste and scrap - It is settled through decisions that when duty had been paid during investigation at the insistence of department post clearance of goods, the provisions of unjust enrichment will not apply - The Commissioner had only to see whether Chartered Accountant's certificate endorses the claim of appellant that they have not charged duty from their customers to whom they have already issued commercial invoices - Since the Chartered Accountant's certificate has certified that appellant has not recovered the duty amount of Rs.6,02,000/- from their customers, same is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment - Appellant is therefore entitled for refund claimed - Impugned order is accordingly set aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1020-CESTAT-AHM
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CST
ST - Appeal filed by appellant against demand of service tax for technical knowhow transferred by them to a recipient in Singapore wherein consideration was received in US Dollar - During audit of appellant premises in month of September 2012, an objection was raised that the service provided by appellant to M/s Scigen, Singapore was not "Export of Service" - The audit team was of the view that said service is chargeable to service tax under head of "Intellectual Property Service? w.e.f. 10.09.2004 - Identical issue has been decided by Tribunal in case of Munjal Showa Ltd. 2017-TIOL-3119-CESTAT-CHD - Said decision has been upheld by Apex Court - It can be seen from said decision that to qualify as Intellectual Property Right, the said right should be protected by some law for time being in force within India - It is seen that Revenue has not pointed out any law under which the said technical knowhow being transferred to Sicgen Singapore is protected - In absence of any clear evidence of said knowhow being protected by any law, the same cannot qualify as "Intellectual Property Right? and therefore, no tax can be levied on such transfer of technical knowhow under head of "Intellectual Property Service? - No tax was leviable on said transaction under head of IPR and therefore, appellants are entitled to relief as per law: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2023-TIOL-1019-CESTAT-AHM
CC Vs Reliance Industries Ltd
Cus - The assessee having Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Jamnagar was receiving iron and steel materials/ products from DTA unit - The Government of India vide Notfn 66/2008 has imposed export duty on iron and steel products when exported out of India - It is worth mentioning that Section 2(m) of SEZ Act, 2005 clearly stipulates that supply of goods from DTA unit to SEZ unit will amount to export - Thus, assessee SEZ paid export duty on all supplies of iron and steel products as per rates prescribed in Notfn 66/2008 "under protest" - Dy. Commissioner Customs rejected the refund claim of assessee saying that claimant was neither the party in case of proceedings before Supreme Court nor the assessment order of concerned bills of export was challenged - In the proceedings a SCN came to be issued asking the assessee as to why refund claim should not be rejected as they were not party before Supreme Court or Gujarat High Court nor they have challenged assessment of bill of export - Accordingly, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide its order rejected the refund claims of assessee - Commissioner (A) has already considered all submissions which have been made by department in their appeals here - Only review petition being pending before Apex Court cannot be the reason to set-aside the impugned O-I-A - In view of the fact that jurisdictional High Court's order has neither been set-aside nor stayed by Apex Court and since the Gujarat High Court's order as of today holds good - There is no illegality in impugned order passed by Commissioner (A) and therefore, appeals are without any merit: CESTAT
- Appeals dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT |
