I-T- Market value of the power supplied by the State Electricity Board to the industrial consumers should be construed to be the market value of electricity & the Board's rate when it supplies power to the consumers, has to be taken as the market value for computing the deduction under Section 80IA: SC

GST - SCN issued asking petitioner as to why GST cannot be imposed and recovered - In view of the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, petition cannot be entertained: HC

CX - Tribunal over-stepped its jurisdiction by allowing application filed by Director for condonation of delay and restoration of appeals although pre-deposit amounts were never deposited by company: HC

CX - Directors wrongly granted indulgence by Tribunal - No comments - For reasons best known to it, Tribunal passed orders although there was non-compliance of s.35F: HC

2023-TIOL-1658-HC-MP-GST

Mount Everest Breweries Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner challenges the alleged arbitrary and unreasonable action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 30.06.2022, wherein the petitioner's activities of manufacturing and selling beer under United Breweries Ltd. (UBL) brand names are alleged to be job work services, chargeable to 18% GST under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) ; that the show cause notice has been issued with a premeditated mind.

Held : Various grounds have been raised while challenging the show cause notice, however, the fact remains that the Respondent No. 2 has only issued a show cause notice and the petitioner has been asked to explain within 30 days as to why GST cannot be imposed and recovered from the petitioner - Looking to the fact of availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, Bench does not find it proper to entertain this petition - Petition is dismissed on the ground of efficacious alternative statutory remedy: High Court [para 8, 11, 13]

- Petition dismissed: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-1657-HC-P&H-CX

CCE & ST Vs Pelican Tobacco Company Ltd

CX - Appeals have been filed by department against the orders dated 27.08.2018 passed by CESTAT wherein, vide common order, the appeals of the Director of the Company, M/s Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. were restored without payment of necessary pre-deposit which was waived off vide order dated 24.10.2018 and thereafter allowed on merits on 01.04.2019.

Held : Applicants-Directors themselves were filing the applications for restoration of the appeals which had already been dismissed by the Tribunal after noticing the non-compliance of the order not only of the Tribunal but also the order of this Court dated 10.10.2013 whereby Rs.6 crores was to be deposited (later reduced by the Supreme Court to Rs.4 crores) - Said amounts were never deposited - Directors could not hide behind the legal shield that the company had been directed to pay the amount and they were the persons who were agitating before the Courts - The Tribunal in such circumstances has over-stepped its jurisdiction by allowing the application for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeals and thereafter proceeded ahead with the matter for the reasons best known to it - Bench does not wish to comment on the orders passed by the Tribunal in the present facts and circumstances - Bench is of the considered opinion that the question of law must be answered in favour of the Revenue that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and would have become functus-officio once the amounts had never been deposited inspite of the directions in the SLPs dated 21.08.2015 - Stay applications were misconceived as apparently the respondents-Directors had been playing the game of hide and seek with the Department and by misusing the process of the Court has wrongly been granted indulgence by the Tribunal - Appeals filed by Department are allowed - Bench does not impose any cost upon the respondents: High Court [para 9, 10, 11]

- Appeals allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT