I-T- No addition of foreign currency can be made in hands of assessee as someone else is claiming ownership of foreign currency and signed inventory of seized material : ITAT

I-T- Order passed by CIT(A) is upheld where provisions of Rule 46A of I-T Rules are not violated, since Assessee produced only those documents before CIT(A), which had also been submitted before AO : ITAT

I-T-Loss of books of account as claim cannot relieve assessee from the burden of explaining the nature and source of deposits in bank accounts: ITAT

I-T- Even if investment in shares is violation of sec 10(23C)/11(5), such violation cannot be basis for addition u/s 68 in hands of assessee : ITAT

GST - Goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to petitioner - Circular 76/2018 would apply and petitioner would be deemed to be owner - goods to be released in terms of s.129(1)(a): HC

GST - Right of second appeal cannot be denied on account of failure of government: HC

Cus - Request for provisional release for re-export was disallowed on the ground that same can be considered only at the time of adjudication - Court directs Commissioner to pass appropriate orders by laying down reasonable conditions: HC

Cus - SCN adjudicated after 14 years - Order was set aside - Department's submission that SCN was never kept in call book and, therefore, Court's observation is factually incorrect is not backed by any material on record - Application dismissed: HC

Cus - Single Judge rejected writ petition on ground of existence of alternate remedy - Division Bench, in appeal, would normally be loathe in interfering with exercise of such discretion: HC

2023-TIOL-1723-HC-ALL-GST

Halder Enterprises Vs State of UP

GST - Petitioner  assails the actions of the respondents authorities with regard to detention of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner as well as subsequent orders passed under Section 129 - Main issue in this writ petition is whether the goods may be released by the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act - Petitioner contends that he is the owner of the goods and, therefore, goods are to be released as per Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act while the authorities have made the calculation under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act by an order dated October 19, 2023.

Held: It appears that goods have been detained on October 11, 2023 on the ground that both the consignor and consignee were declared as non-existent - It is to be noted that on the date of interception that is October 3, 2023, the petitioner was having a registration under the CGST Act and the said registration was subsequently suspended on October 06, 2023 by the authorities at West Bengal with effect from September 18, 2023 - I t is patently clear that in the present case, goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to the petitioner - Hence, clause 6 of Circular  76/50/2018-GST  dated December 31, 2018 would apply and the petitioner would be deemed to be the owner of the goods - Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act - In light of above, the order passed by the authorities dated October 19, 2023 is quashed and set aside - The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks - Petition allowed: High Court [para 5, 11, 12]

- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-1722-HC-ALL-GST

Shree Agrawal Enterprises Vs State of UP

GST - Maintainability - Appellate Tribunal has not been made functional till date - Right of second appeal is being denied on account of failure of Government - The executive inertia cannot become the cause of denial of a statutory right: High Court

GST - Short controversy which arises is the inconsistency of some interim orders passed by this Court as regards the amount of pre-deposit - One line of interim orders contemplates deposit of 30% of the amount out of which 10% which is deposited before the first appellate authority is liable to be adjusted - However, there seems to be another view wherein 50% of the disputed tax amount was directed to be deposited before granting interim protection.

Held: In congruent facts, identical interim orders are liable to be granted, otherwise an anomalous situation will be created where similarly situated persons will be accorded differential treatment leading to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - The second aspect which requires to be given weight is that the assessee cannot be faulted for what is essentially a failure of the Government - The statute contemplates deposit of 10% plus 20% of the disputed tax liability before the first and second appellate authorities respectively - By imposing a demand of 50% in these matters, the assessees will be penalized for no fault of theirs - Applications for interim relief are finally disposed of with the following directions - The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax liability in addition to the earlier deposit before the assessing authority (which is 10% of the disputed tax amount) - Subject to the aforesaid deposit, the recovery proceedings of the balance amount shall remain stayed till the decision of this writ petition - Matter to be listed on 15.01.2024: High Court

- Interim order passed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-1721-HC-MAD-CUS

CC Vs Shiva Trading Company

Cus - On examination of the consignment by the officials of the Revenue Intelligence, it was found that the goods were mis-declared in respect of quantity and description - During the course of investigation, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and consequently the DRI informed the appellant Commissionerate to consider the request of the respondent for provisional release, subject to securing the interest of the revenue in terms of Circular No.35/2017-Cus dated 16.08.2017 - The respondent has made a representation on 10.12.2022 seeking provisional release of goods imported under both the Bills of Entry for the purpose of re-export and the same was rejected by way of adjudication dated 09.01.2023 stating that any request for re-export can be considered only at the time of adjudication and after the investigation is completed by DRI - Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal - CESTAT passed the impugned order, setting aside the order dated 09.01.2023 impugned therein with a request to the appellant to reconsider the request for provisional release for re-export - Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Customs has filed the present appeal.

Held : Court directs the appellant to pass appropriate orders, with respect to the claim of the respondent for release of the goods only for re-export, subject to any other reasonable conditions, which are required to be fulfilled by the respondent, for the same - Substantial questions of law raised herein are left open to be adjudicated in the appropriate proceedings - Appeal disposed of: High Court [para 7]

- Appeal disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-1720-HC-AHM-CUS

Pr.CC Vs Suraj Karan Baradia

Cus - By this application, the applicant original respondent no.2 [Principal Commissioner of Customs] has prayed for recalling the order dated 21.01.2019 whereby it was held that the action on the part of the authorities to keep the show-cause notice in call book for 14 years and thereafter resurrecting it to confirm the demand order dated 10.04.2018, as has been held in various decisions, resulted in infraction of the principle of natural justice rendering the show-cause notice as well as the consequent order vitiated - It is submitted by the counsel for Revenue that the observation made by the Court that the authorities have kept the show-cause notice in call book for 14 years is factually incorrect; that in the present case, show-cause notice was never transferred to the call book by the Customs Commissioner, Ahmedabad when the case was transferred for adjudication by notification dated 25.10.2016 and the delay could be due to any reason.

Held: Bench is of the opinion that no mistake, much less any mistake apparent on record was pointed out by the advocate for the applicant inasmuch as this Court has given cogent reasons while allowing the Special Civil Application and at that point of time it was not pointed out by the applicant [Principal Commissioner] that the show-cause notice was never transferred to the call book - Therefore, in absence of any material on record to justify the submissions made, the application is not entertained and is accordingly dismissed: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Application dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-1719-HC-MAD-CUS

Vikas Sharma Vs Addl. CC

Cus - Writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the Judge passed in the writ petition, insofar as rejecting the appellant's contention that the impugned order-in-original dated 12.07.2022 suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.

Held : While Bench agrees with the submission that cross-examination is also a part of/ facet of natural justice, however, there is no absolute right for cross-examination, for it would depend on the facts of each case - Whether the appellant was granted personal hearing or not, turns out to be a disputed question of fact - The examination of such disputed question of fact is normally an exercise, which is beyond the realm of writ jurisdiction - When there is an alternate remedy that is available, Courts would exercise restraint in entertaining the writ petitions - Further, entertaining the writ petitions is a matter of discretion and such discretion having been exercised by the Single Judge by rejecting the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternate remedy, this Court in appeal would normally be loathe in interfering with exercise of such discretion - Therefore, Bench is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Single Judge - Court permits the appellant to file appeal before the Appellate Authority, within a period of 30 days - Writ appeal disposed of: High Court [para 9, 11]

- Appeal disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT