SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

GST - Payment of pre-deposit through Form GST DRC-03 instead of the prescribed Form APL-01 - Petitioner attributes it to technical glitches - Respondent is the proper authority to decide the question of fact: HC2nd Session of India-Nigeria Joint Trade Committee held in AbujaGST - Since SCN is bereft of any details and suffers from infirmities that go to the root of the cause, SCN is quashed and set aside: HC1717 candidates to contest elections in phase 4 of Lok Sabha ElectionsGST - Once Appellate Authority comes to the conclusion that SCN was issued by an officer who was not competent; reply was also considered by an incompetent authority and the Competent Authority had not applied its independent mind, Appellate Authority could not have assumed original jurisdiction and proceeded further with the matter: HC7th India-Indonesia Joint Defence Cooperation Committee meeting held in New DelhiGST - Neither the Show Cause Notice nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, the same cannot be sustained: HCMining sector registers record production in FY 2023-24GST - If the proper officer was of the view that the reply is unclear and unsatisfactory, he could have sought further details by providing such opportunity - Having failed to do so, order cannot be sustained - Matter remanded: HCAnother quake of 6.0 magnitude rocks Philippines; No damage reported so farI-T - Initial burden of proof rested on assessee to substantiate his claim of having incurred expenditure on improvement of property: ITATTrade ban: Israel hits back against Turkey with counter-measuresI-T - Agricultural income can be treated by ITO as undisclosed income in absence of any substantial / corroborative material to prove same: ITATCanada arrests three persons in alleged killing of Sikh separatistI-T - Income from sale of property has to be classified & characterised only in manner of computation as per section 45(2): ITATCus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
Cus - Once appeal is filed against original order, it is mandatory to pay amount ordered, as condition precedent for taking up appeal - CESTAT was lenient in ordering only Rs 20 lakhs as pre-deposit - attitude of petitioner cannot be appreciated: HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 28, 2013: THE petitioner is in the business of providing logistic support like arranging the transport for movement of export and import cargo from in and out of the Custom House, Tuticorin, including all the container freight stations attached to it and providing transport, men and materials for loading and unloading of cargo in and out of Tuticorin Port and its attached CFSs.

The DRI Officers of the Tuticorin Unit intercepted a container pertaining to 10 shipping bills and booked a case. The main allegation against the exporters in respect of the said said shipping bills was that the goods did not possess the basic shape of the shoe upper and more than 50% of the consignment was unusable/used waste and the actual value in respect of the said 10 shipping bills was only Rs.1 lakh as against the declared FOB value of Rs.97,63,256/- with a drawback involvement of Rs.9,27,511/-. Since the petitioner had provided logistic support for the above consignments, SCN was issued for imposition of penalty under the Customs Act in respect of 154 shipping bills. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 29.6.2012 imposed a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as penalty in addition to the recovery of Rs.1.37 crores, jointly and severally from the petitioner.

The petitioner had moved the CESTAT along with stay application and the Bench had passed an order dated 11.12.2012 holding as follows:

"8. ..... The penalty imposed on him is to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs. The learned Consultant has submitted inter alia that his client received an amount of Rs.3,000/- per transaction totalling to Rs.6 lakhs. This itself would prima facie indicate a deliberate involvement of Shri Vijay Anand in the fraudulent transactions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to direct Shri Vijay Anand to predeposit an amount of Rs.20 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on him. In respect of the "joint and several liability" fastened on him, there shall be waiver and stay. In the result, Shri Vijay Anand shall deposit Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within four weeks and report compliance to DR/AR on 16.1.2013. DR/AR to report to the Bench on 30.1.2013. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the balance amount of penalty as well as the balance amount of the drawback amount."

Challenging the said order of the CESTAT, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the same and for consequential direction to the first respondent-CESTAT to hear the main appeal of the petitioner without insistence of pre-deposit as ordered.

The Revenue submitted that the order of the CESTAT is required to be upheld on account of the following -

+ To keep a check on fraudulent operations which resulted in the Government exchequer getting drained of Crores of Rupees, severe and deterrent penal action is warranted. If left unchecked, more persons may follow the same kind of modus-operandi to defraud the Government. Hence, imposition of penalty is just and legal in respect of persons involved in such kind of nefarious activities. The position that the Government Treasury getting filled by genuine tax payers on the one hand and getting drained by way of such fraudulent activities on the other hand does not augur well with the system.

+ There is no finding by the CESTAT on the financial position of the petitioner, because he has not pleaded any such hardship before the CESTAT and he stated so only in the Writ Petition, which is an after-thought, in order to seek the waiver of pre-deposit.

+ Since the petitioner failed to pay the penalty imposed on him as per the order of the CESTAT, dated 11.12.2012, a detention notice, dated 24.1.2013 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs u/s 142 of the Customs Act and the said detention notice is issued as per the CBEC's Circular No.967/01/2013-CX, dated 1.1.2013.

The High Court inter alia observed -

“10. It is to be noted that when once an appeal is filed by an aggrieved person against the original order, it is mandatory requirement under the provisions of the Customs Act to pay the amount ordered by the original authority, as a condition precedent for taking up the appeal.

11. Law is well settled that the capacity of a party to pay the pre-deposit amount had to be noticed and the financial burden and undue hardship for the party to resort to claim waiver of the pre-deposit, have also to be considered. In this regard, it is worthwhile to notice a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (235) ELT 231 (Trendy Moods Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) = (2009-TIOL-22-HC-MAD-CUS) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai), wherein, the Division Bench, after taking into account the various decisions of the Supreme Court, for and against, ultimately came to the conclusion that the capacity of the appellant therein to pay the amount having been noticed and in the absence of any financial burden, it cannot be construed that there is an undue hardship for the appellant therein to resort to claim waiver of pre-deposit.

12. The cardinal principle of consideration of the waiver of pre-deposit is based on undue hardship, prima-facie case, balance of convenience, financial burden and other difficulties expressed by the party before taking the matter on appeal and these factors have to be weighed in relevant circumstances, taking into account all the material factors, which alone can come to the wisdom of the authority to give certain waiver of pre-deposit to the party who is on appeal.

13. In this case, the CESTAT took into account all the above legal principles and was lenient in ordering only Rs.20 lakhs as pre-deposit as against Rs.50 lakhs, by waiving the balance penalty and the drawback amount. Hence, it is not proper for the petitioner to approach this Court and challenge the impugned order of the CESTAT and the attitude of the petitioner in filing this Writ Petition cannot be appreciated and the same is not sustainable.”

Holding that the order of the CESTAT cannot be interfered with, the same was confirmed and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

(See 2013-TIOL-442-HC-MAD-CUS)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST