News Update

Cus - Export of non-basmati rice - Notification 20/2023 insofar as it denies the benefit of the transitional arrangement as contained in para-1.05 of the FTP 2023, is bad in law: HCCus - Refund of SAD - 102/2007-Cus - Areca Nut and Supari are one and the same - Objections with regard to name, nature and status of importer or buyers or the end use of goods purchased by them etc. are extraneous: HCCX - Interest on Refund - Since wrong order annexed by petitioner in paper book, Bench is unable to proceed further - Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one: HCGST - No E-way bill - When petitioner imports machinery and after Customs clearance, transports same to his own factory, it cannot be said that such a transportation would fall within the definition of term 'supply' - Penalty imposable under second limb of s.129(1)(a): HCGST - Fix responsibility on officers who allowed BG to lapse - Petitioner not justified in not renewing BG - Cost of Rs.15 lacs imposed, to be paid to PM Cares Fund: HCGST - Since the parties agree that petition can be disposed of on the basis of records available before Appellate Authority, petitioner is directed to enclose all documents filed before Appellate Authority in a compilation, in form of a paper book: HCWrong RoadST - Whether any service is used for personal consumption or not is certainly question of fact and being question of fact, no substantial question of law arises: HCGovt proposes to amend Geographical Indication of Goods Rules; Draft issued for feedbackST - If what has been paid as tax is without authority of law, Revenue should refund the same - Denial of credit would result in the whole exercise being tax neutral: HCWarehousing Authority notifies several agri goods to be stored in only registered warehousesST - Even if the petitioner may have a case on merits, it is best left to be decided by the Appellate Authority under the hierarchy prescribed under the FA, 1994: HCUS FDA okays Eli Lilly Alzheimer’s drugGST - Petitioner challenges jurisdiction of assessing officer - Petitioner is entitled to file an appeal u/s 107 by availing an alternate efficacious remedy: HCFive from Telangana killed in car accident on Pune-Solapur HighwayGST - Existence of an alternative remedy is a material consideration but not a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction: HCHush money case against Donald Trump - Sentencing deferred to Sept 18GST - It is open to a trader to take goods by whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact: HCDeadly hurricane Beryl smashes properties in JamaicaGST - Conclusion that taxable person is providing a service to supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law: HCIsrael claims 900 militants killed in Rafah since May monthGST - Order expressly records that personal hearing notice was returned with endorsement 'no such person at address' - Since petitioner has shifted to a new premises, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to contest demand: HC116 die in stampede at UP ’Satsang’I-T- Application for revision of order dismissed in limine on grounds of delay; case remanded for re-consideration: HCWe are deepening economic ties with India, says US officialI-T- As per Section 119(2)(b), power to condone applications relate to claims for amount exceeding Rs 50 lakhs are to be considered by CBDT; however it is impermissible for CBDT to pass order on merits: HC8 Dutch engineers build world’s longest bicycle - 180 feet, 11 inchesI-T- Additions framed u/s 68 for unexplained income & u/s 69 for unexplained expenditure not tenable where complete transactional details are furnished & not doubted: HCRailways earns Rs 14798 Crore from Freight loading in June monthI-T- Delay in filing ITR is per se insufficient reason to estimate assessee's profit @15% on turnover, more so where audited financial report is filed in timely manner: ITATMoD inks MoU to set up testing facilities in Unmanned Aerial System in TN Defence Industrial CorridorI-T- For invoking section 69A, assessee should be found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article & which is not recorded in the books of account: ITATGovt proposes Guidelines for ethical approach to Coal MiningI-T- TDS credit can be allowed based on AIS, where details pertaining to TDS, advance tax & other payments are reflected in Form 26AS: ITATVaishnaw to inaugurate Global IndiaAI Summit 2024I-T- Lending money with the primary intention of earning interest can be considered a business activity, but nature and manner of lending, as well as the frequency, should be taken into account: ITAT
 
Rescinding a dead notification

OCTOBER 05, 2022

By Vijay Kumar

CAN a rescinded notification be again rescinded?

On 28.09.2022, the CBIC issued a notification No. 20/2022-Central Tax, which reads as

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, on the recommendations on the Council, hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.20/2018-Central Tax, dated the 28th March, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (i), vide number G.S.R. 309 (E), dated the 28th March, 2018, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.

By this notification, Notification No.20/2018-Central Tax, dated the 28th March, 2018, was rescinded. This should be effective from 28.09.2022, the date of the notification.

What is the effective date of a notification?

As per Section 2(81) of the CGST Act,

(81) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the expressions "notify" and "notified" shall be construed accordingly.

In Union of India Versus M/s Ganesh Das Bhojraj - 2002-TIOL-233-SC-CUS-LB, the Supreme Court has held that the effective date of a notification is the date of the publication in the official gazette.

However, it should be noted that the provisions and the judgement of the Apex Court is with respect to a Notification, in which the effective date has not been specifically mentioned. Where the date on which notification is to take effect is mentioned in the body of the notification itself, the effective date shall be such date.

The issue has a long history:

The Supreme Court in Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 noted,

"The principle underlying this question has been judicially considered in England. For example, on a somewhat lower plane, it was held in Johnson v. Sargant that an Order of the Food Controller under the Beans, Peas and Pulse (Requisition) Order, 1917 does not become operative until it is made known to the public, and the difference between an Order of that kind and an Act of the British Parliament is stressed. The difference is obvious. Acts of the British Parliament are publicly enacted. The debates are open to the public and the Acts are passed by the accredited representatives of the people who in theory can be trusted to see that their constituents know what has been done. They also receive wide publicity in papers and, now, over the wireless. Not so Royal Proclamations and Orders of a Food Controller and so forth. There must therefore be promulgation and publication in their cases. The mode of publication can vary; what is a good method in our country may not necessarily be the best in another. But reasonable publication of some sort there must be."

And the above decision was approvingly cited in Union of India Vs Param Industries Ltd - 2015-TIOL-140-SC-CUS.

In Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India - 2002-TIOL-419-SC-CUS it was held that mere publication in the gazette was enough and no further making available the notification to the public was required.

In Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Tobacco Company [1998 (97) E.L.T. 388 (SC)] the Supreme Court held that if the publication of notification was through a gazette, the mere printing of it in the gazette would not be enough. Unless the gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published.

In Garware Nylons Ltd Vs. Collector [1998 (100) E.L.T. 321 (SC)], the Supreme Court relied on the New Tobacco case and held that notification can be said to have been duly published when it is made known to the public.

As there were conflicting judgements of the Supreme Court, the issue was referred to a larger Bench. The Larger Bench in Union of India Vs. Ganesh Das Bhojraj - 2002-TIOL-233-SC-CUS held that a notification would come into operation as soon as it is published in the official gazette and no further publication is required. So the decision in Pankaj Jain Agencies was held to be the correct law while the New Tobacco Company case was held to be not the correct law.

Back to the beginning :

So, the Notification No. 20/2022-Central Tax should be taken to have come into existence on 28.09.2022 as it is dated 28.09.2022 and published on 28.09.2022. Thus, on 28.09.2022, the government rescinded the Notification No.20/2018-Central Tax, dated the 28th March, 2018. So far so good. If you look at Notification No. 20/2022-Central Tax, dated 28.09.2022, it does not mention from which date the Notification No.20/2018-Central Tax, dated the 28th March, 2018, is rescinded. Therefore, it has to be taken as rescinded from the date of the notification that is 28.09.2022.

But on 29.09.2022, the Government came out with a corrigendum, which reads as:

So, what they want us to do is "at page 5, in line 33, for the figure "2018", read "2018, with effect from the 1st day of October, 2022".

Now, how will anyone know where this page 5 line 33 is? For that you have to read the notification in the gazette and that is not as easy as GST.

You want to know how I did it?

I went to the website of our national gazette - https://egazette.nic.in/ and searched for notifications issued by the Finance Ministry and CBIC. There I searched for Notification No. 20/2022, dated 28.09.2022 and could not find it. This is included in Notification No. 19/2022, which is a five page notification, at the end of which on page 5, you find Notification No. 20/2022!. Now how to get to 'page 5, line 33'. I downloaded the notification No. 19/2022, which also contains the Notification No. 20/2022. The download is in pdf. I copy page 5 of this pdf and paste it to a blank 'word' document. Then I select the whole document and add line numbers to the left. Lo and behold!, I get line Number 33 and the figure 2018 is there in that line!. So, after '2018', I add the words, "with effect from the 1 st day of October, 2022" and understand that the Notification No. 20/2018 was rescinded with effect from 1st October 2022.

But then by Notification No. 20/2022, dated 28.09.2022, this was already rescinded with effect from 28.09.2022. Can you rescind again with effect from 1 st October 2022 what was already rescinded on 28.09.2022?

Somebody in the notification manufacturing unit forgot to include 'with effect from 1st October 2022' in the notification 20/2022 and so had to issue a corrigendum after the death of the original notification. This is because in the notifications manufactory, there is no quality control check.

There is another QC problem. See the notification:

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, on the recommendations on the Council,…….

Now, what is recommendations on the Council ? Of course, you know what they meant was recommendations of the Council and as they say, it is a simple typo error. But should you be so careless when drafting the law? Can't we try to introduce some old fashioned system called proof reading?

You know how difficult it is to run a tax administration and you can't expect them to be worried about spellings and language.

After all, it is a simple tax!

Until Next week


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Just an amendment of rescinding notification

I think, construing the corrigendum as second rescindment would be an error. It is just an amendment to the rescinding notification. The life of the rescinded notification was extended by three (or is it four?) days.

Posted by Gururaj B N
 

TIOL Tube Latest

India's Path to Becoming a Superpower: An Interview with Pratap Singh



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