More Judgements

1. Home
2. More Judgements

GST - Reversal of Excess Input Tax Credit - Validity of ITC reversal through Form GST DRC-03 - Applicability of Section 128A for waiver of interest and penalty – Respondent-assessee availed excess ITC during financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in comparison between GSTR-3B and auto-generated GSTR-2A - Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. First appellate authority reduced the demand by recognizing reversal of ITC made by Respondent through Form GST DRC-03 – Revenue challenge contending that taxpayer could not establish payment towards discharging ITC reversal liability - Whether reversal of excess ITC through de... [Read more]

GST - Reversal of Excess Input Tax Credit - Validity of ITC reversal through Form GST DRC-03 - Applicability of Section 128A for waiver of interest and penalty – Respondent-assessee availed excess ITC during financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in comparison between GSTR-3B and auto-generated GSTR-2A - Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. First appellate authority reduced the demand by recognizing reversal of ITC made by Respondent through Form GST DRC-03 – Revenue challenge contending that taxpayer could not establish payment towards discharging ITC reversal liability - Whether reversal of excess ITC through debiting from electronic cash ledger and credit ledger vide DRC-03 is valid - HELD - Reversal of excess ITC by Respondent through Form GST DRC-03 by debiting under CGST and SGST from Electronic Cash Ledger and from Credit ledger is valid and covered the entire disputed amount of excess ITC - The fact that Respondent did not record reasons in column 8 of DRC-03 does not invalidate the reversal as column 8 is not a mandatory field. The Department’s own issuance of DRC-04 acknowledging the receipt of amount debited validates the reversal. The contentions that there was no proof of payment towards discharge of ITC reversal liability and absence of ARN Number in DRC-03 do not gain ground – Further, the contention of the revenue with regard to the absence of ARN Number in DRC-03 is devoid of merit because the appellate authority scrutinized the reconciliation statement and found it correct - However, the First Appellate Authority failed to properly compute the liability of Respondent regarding payment of interest and penalty on the disputed amount – The matter is remanded to FAA to compute interest and penalty with reference to Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017 which provides for waiver of interest and penalty relating to demands under Section 73 for the period from 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2020 - The appeal is partly allowed and remanded for computation of interest and penalty – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Collection of excise duty as representing duty but not depositing differential amount - Applicability of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - During audit, it was found that the amount represented as excise duty in Appellant's invoices and accepted price list was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid by manufacturers on the goods. Appellant also furnished running bills with undertaking that all statutory taxes and duties have been deposited to the concerned authorities though the differential amount of excise duty was not deposited - Whether Appellant was liable to pay the dif... [Read more]

Central Excise - Collection of excise duty as representing duty but not depositing differential amount - Applicability of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - During audit, it was found that the amount represented as excise duty in Appellant's invoices and accepted price list was much higher than the actual amount of excise duty paid by manufacturers on the goods. Appellant also furnished running bills with undertaking that all statutory taxes and duties have been deposited to the concerned authorities though the differential amount of excise duty was not deposited - Whether Appellant was liable to pay the differential amount collected as representing excise duty to the Central Government under Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - Section 11D(1A) covers any person who has collected any amount as representing duty of excise on excisable goods and is not limited to manufacturers. The expression "any person" in Section 11D(1A) is inclusive and applies to the appellant. The appellant had explicitly represented in its running bills that excise duty was deposited to the concerned authorities, making it abundantly clear that the amount was collected as excise duty. Since the actual excise duty paid by manufacturers was less than the amount indicated in appellant's accepted price list and invoices, the Appellant was required to forthwith pay the differential amount to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11D(1A) - The decisions cited by appellant were on different facts and did not support the appellant's contention. The facts of the present case clearly triggered the application of Section 11D(1A) - The impugned order confirming the demand under Section 11D(2) along with interest under Section 11DD is upheld. The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Central Excise - Rule 3(5B) CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Written-off Vendor Dues versus Written-off Input Stocks - Appellant procured inputs from suppliers and availed CENVAT credit. Over a period of time, amounts payable to suppliers were written off in books of accounts due to quality issues and closure of supplier companies. Department raised demand for reversal of CENVAT credit contending that writing-off amounts indicated inputs were not used in manufacture - Whether CENVAT credit reversal is required when amounts due to vendors are written off in books of accounts if the input goods were actually used in manufacture of... [Read more]

Central Excise - Rule 3(5B) CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Written-off Vendor Dues versus Written-off Input Stocks - Appellant procured inputs from suppliers and availed CENVAT credit. Over a period of time, amounts payable to suppliers were written off in books of accounts due to quality issues and closure of supplier companies. Department raised demand for reversal of CENVAT credit contending that writing-off amounts indicated inputs were not used in manufacture - Whether CENVAT credit reversal is required when amounts due to vendors are written off in books of accounts if the input goods were actually used in manufacture of final products - HELD - The proper reading of Rule 3(5B) clarifies that CENVAT credit reversal is specified when the inputs or capital goods on which CENVAT credit is taken are written off as unusable stocks, not when dues to vendors are written off. The written off here means writing off of stocks as unusable, clarified by the Proviso which specifies that if initially goods are written off as unusable but subsequently found to be used, reversed credit can be taken back. Revenue has not adduced evidence showing that input stock registers reflect writing-off of actual input stocks. The entire premise of non-usage of inputs is based on written-off amount of total dues to vendors only - The Chartered Accountant Certificate produced by appellant clearly stated that goods in question were not written off from books of account and such certificate is required to be accepted unless rebutted by factual evidence by Revenue - The reduction of price payable by Appellant to suppliers due to quality difference is a commercial transaction between them and excise duty paid on transaction value was never disputed. Absence of any positive evidence that inputs on which credit has been taken are not used in manufacture of finished goods requires rejection of Revenue argument. Accordingly, demand for reversal of CENVAT credit is set aside – The appeal allowed is on merits - Extended Period - Suppression and Knowledge of Department - Appellant had written off amounts due to vendors which were recorded in books of account. Department during audit on 3.3.2015 came to know through Spot Memo that Appellant had written off amounts in respect of vendors but no Show Cause Notice was issued at that time. Show Cause Notice was issued in January 2018, almost three years later. Whether extended period of limitation can be invoked for demand when fact of write-off came to knowledge of Department in March 2015 - HELD - Appellant has written off dues to vendor and recorded same in books of account. This cannot be taken as any suppression on part of Appellant who in fact has declared these facts. Revenue on 3.3.2015 itself came to know that Appellant had written off amounts but no Show Cause Notice was issued. The issue is a matter of interpretation of Rule 3(5B) wherein Appellant's interpretation is backed by cited case laws. Absence of suppression, Department's knowledge from 3.3.2015, and the fact that the issue is a matter of interpretation where Appellant's view is supported by precedent, make it clear that no case of suppression has been made out - Confirmed demand for extended period is set aside on account of time-bar. [Read less]

Customs - Conversion of Shipping Bills - Limitation Period - Appellant requested conversion of shipping bills from Advance Authorization scheme to Duty Drawback scheme. Commissioner rejected the request primarily on ground that conversion request was made beyond three-month period prescribed under CBIC Circular 36/2010-Cus and on ground that Appellant had already availed the Advance Authorization benefit, thereby making conversion impermissible - Whether a time limit of three months for conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another scheme prescribed under Circular 36/2010-Cus is valid and enforce... [Read more]

Customs - Conversion of Shipping Bills - Limitation Period - Appellant requested conversion of shipping bills from Advance Authorization scheme to Duty Drawback scheme. Commissioner rejected the request primarily on ground that conversion request was made beyond three-month period prescribed under CBIC Circular 36/2010-Cus and on ground that Appellant had already availed the Advance Authorization benefit, thereby making conversion impermissible - Whether a time limit of three months for conversion of shipping bills from one export promotion scheme to another scheme prescribed under Circular 36/2010-Cus is valid and enforceable against the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962, and whether mere declaration of intent to claim Advance Authorization benefit constitutes actual availment of benefit - HELD – The authorities below have relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Suzlon Energy Limited, as well as in the case of Anil Sharma Vs. Union of India. The said legal position is no longer holds good as same having been overruled by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd.. While rejecting the Revenue's Special Leave Petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.09.2010, prescribing a time limit of three months from the date of “Let Export Order”, was itself ultra vires to Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Once the export has taken place, the consequential export benefit cannot be denied merely on the ground of limitation prescribed under the said Circular – The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Applicability of Notification No. 11/2022-Cus. (N.T.) dated 22.02.2022, whereby a time limit was prescribed for post-export conversion of shipping bills – HELD - The said notification cannot be applied retrospectively to the exports made by the appellant between October, 2019 and January, 2022. Accordingly, the notification has no application to the facts of the present case. [Read less]

Customs Duty - Fraudulent DFIA Licenses - Liability of Bona Fide Purchaser - Appellant purchased transferable DFIA licenses. DRI investigation revealed that the licenses had been obtained on basis of fabricated export documents filed through fake exporters and no actual exports had taken place - Appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and submitted that it had purchased the licenses through normal commercial channels for valuable consideration with payment made through banking channels - Whether an importer who purchases transferable DFIA licenses obtained on basis of fabricated exports is liable for customs duty and... [Read more]

Customs Duty - Fraudulent DFIA Licenses - Liability of Bona Fide Purchaser - Appellant purchased transferable DFIA licenses. DRI investigation revealed that the licenses had been obtained on basis of fabricated export documents filed through fake exporters and no actual exports had taken place - Appellant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and submitted that it had purchased the licenses through normal commercial channels for valuable consideration with payment made through banking channels - Whether an importer who purchases transferable DFIA licenses obtained on basis of fabricated exports is liable for customs duty and penalty for failure to exercise due diligence to verify authenticity and validity of licenses - HELD - In an earlier decision involving the same DRI investigation, the same fake export syndicate, the same fraudulent DFIA licenses and the same legal issue, this Tribunal held that though importers contended they were unaware that the licenses were manipulated or forged, such contention was not accepted. The Tribunal held that importers had not applied for issue of Telegraphic Release Advice from port of registration as required and had failed to ascertain veracity of such TRAs from port of registration and due diligence required was not exhibited or carried out - In present case, appellant made no verification from DGFT nor from Customs. It is obvious that no due diligence whatsoever was exercised by appellant while purchasing the DFIA licenses. Appellant merely relied upon transfer of licenses without verifying authenticity of exports or validity of underlying documents – The duty demand and penalty are both justified and sustainable. Impugned Order-in-Original is upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs – Post-export conversion of Free Shipping Bills - Amendment of documents - Appellant Merchant Exporter exported Iron Ore Fines under Free Shipping Bills although possessing valid EPCG Authorisations but inadvertently omitted to mention the EPCG License numbers in the Shipping Bills due to clerical oversight. The appellant filed an application for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into EPCG based Shipping Bills after more than eight years of export. The lower authorities rejected the conversion request solely on the ground that the request was made after the time period prescribed under the Board Circular dated 23... [Read more]

Customs – Post-export conversion of Free Shipping Bills - Amendment of documents - Appellant Merchant Exporter exported Iron Ore Fines under Free Shipping Bills although possessing valid EPCG Authorisations but inadvertently omitted to mention the EPCG License numbers in the Shipping Bills due to clerical oversight. The appellant filed an application for conversion of Free Shipping Bills into EPCG based Shipping Bills after more than eight years of export. The lower authorities rejected the conversion request solely on the ground that the request was made after the time period prescribed under the Board Circular dated 23.09.2010 and Notification No.11/2022-Cus.(NT) dated 22.02.2022, thereby treating the application as time-barred - Whether the request for conversion of Free Shipping Bills to EPCG Shipping Bills could be rejected solely on the ground of time-bar when documentary evidence of eligibility existed at the time of export and all substantive conditions for the export promotion scheme were satisfied - HELD - The rejection of the conversion request on the sole ground of time-bar is not sustainable in law. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 contains no limitation period for amendment of documents. The time limit of three months prescribed in Board Circular dated 23.09.2010 under Paragraph 3(a) has been held by various High Courts to be ultra vires Section 149. The Notification No.11/2022-Cus.(NT) dated 22.02.2022 prescribing one year limitation has no retrospective application to exports effected in 2007. The proviso to Section 149 requires existence of documentary evidence at the time of export and this condition was satisfied as all necessary export documents and evidence were available. Substantive export benefits cannot be withheld on account of procedural or clerical lapses when the exporter's eligibility is otherwise established - The rejection of the conversion request of the Shipping Bills, on the sole ground of time-bar is not legal, hence, the same stands set aside - The time limits specified under the Board Circular dated 23.09.2010 and Notification No.11/2022-Cus.(NT) dated 22.02.2022 have no application in respect of the Free Shipping Bills under consideration in the present appeal – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Taxability of annuity payments under concession agreement - Applicability of Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax Rate - Scope of Circular No. 150/6/2021 - Petitioner entered into concession agreement with NHAI for construction design maintenance and operation of roads with consideration paid partly upfront and partly through deferred annual payments described as annuities over a period of ten years - Whether annuity payments for construction services falling under Heading 9954 are exempt from GST as services by way of access to road or bridge on payment of annuity falling under Heading 9967 and whether ... [Read more]

GST - Taxability of annuity payments under concession agreement - Applicability of Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax Rate - Scope of Circular No. 150/6/2021 - Petitioner entered into concession agreement with NHAI for construction design maintenance and operation of roads with consideration paid partly upfront and partly through deferred annual payments described as annuities over a period of ten years - Whether annuity payments for construction services falling under Heading 9954 are exempt from GST as services by way of access to road or bridge on payment of annuity falling under Heading 9967 and whether Circular No. 150/6/2021 can clarify the applicability of Entry 23A - HELD - The nature of the concession agreement is a works contract services. The contract essentially includes construction design and maintenance of roads with payments at intervals. Services for construction of roads fall under Heading 9954 while Entry 23A specifically covers Heading 9967 i.e. services by way of access to a road or bridge on payment of annuity relating to transport services. The scope of works for construction services is distinct from that of transport contracts and Entry 23A of the Notification pertains exclusively to transport services - Where the underlying service is construction of a road falling under Heading 9954 and consideration is paid partly upfront and partly through deferred annual payments described as annuities Entry 23A would not be applicable and such annuity payments would not be exempt from GST - The Circular dated 17.06.2021 is a valid clarification issued by the Board in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 168 of the CGST Act to secure uniformity in implementation of the Act. An Advance Ruling remains binding only so long as the law facts or circumstances supporting the original Advance Ruling remain unchanged. Once there is a change in circumstances forming the foundation of the Advance Ruling the binding effect ceases to operate. If Revenue officers have misunderstood the existing law their interpretation does not bind the implementing authority once the Board issues clarification – There is no merit in the challenge laid by the petitioner to the impugned Circular or in the consequential challenge to the levy of GST on the annuity payments received under the concession agreement. The challenge based upon the earlier Advance Ruling also does not alter the position, since the taxability has to be determined with reference to the statutory exemption and the true nature of the services rendered under the contract - The writ petitions are dismissed - Differed with Telangana High Court decision in GMR Pochanpalli Expreessways Limited case – HELD - The Court in a matter of CG Tollway specifically held that the scope of works for construction services is distinct from that of transport contracts. The same principles and analogy applied by the Division Bench in the CG Tollway case are directly applicable here. There is no justified reason for this Bench to adopt a differing view - The Single Bench of the Telangana High Court in the matter of GMR Pochanpalli Expreessways Limited struck down the impugned Circular, but the Division Bench in the matter of CG Tollway distinguished this decision. In its judgment, the Division Bench provided a detailed interpretation of the issues at hand. It reached a different conclusion from the analogy adopted by the Telangana High Court and we see no convincing reasons to disagree with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench - Binding Nature of Advance Ruling – HELD - The submission of petitioner counsel that Revenue should not have acted against its own advance ruling is not tenable and suffices to say that the Notification itself is binding and if revenue officers have misunderstood the existing law, their interpretation does not bind the implementing authority once the Board issues clarification. Section 168 of the Act authorises the Board to issue such instructions, orders or circulars to ensure the proper implementation of the law, especially when the Advance Ruling authority has misread the legal provisions. If such a misinterpretation results in significant revenue loss for the state, the Board has every right to step in and set things straight, as allowing the error to go unchecked would be unacceptable. Moreover, the revenue's actions following the circular in question are justified, as Section 103 of the CGST Act clearly grants the authorities the power to take such measures when the law does not specifically prohibit them. [Read less]

GST – Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Procedure for detention and seizure of goods - Classification of proceedings – Detention of goods on the ground that e-way bill was not tendered, and on finding from assessing authority that appellant was unregistered dealer - The seizing authority initiated proceedings under Section 129(1)(b) instead of Section 129(1)(a), though registration of Appellant was suspended only at time of interception but was restored before adjudication - Whether when tax invoice is accompanied with goods in transit and registration is subsequently restored, proceedings ought t... [Read more]

GST – Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Procedure for detention and seizure of goods - Classification of proceedings – Detention of goods on the ground that e-way bill was not tendered, and on finding from assessing authority that appellant was unregistered dealer - The seizing authority initiated proceedings under Section 129(1)(b) instead of Section 129(1)(a), though registration of Appellant was suspended only at time of interception but was restored before adjudication - Whether when tax invoice is accompanied with goods in transit and registration is subsequently restored, proceedings ought to have been under Section 129(1)(a) or Section 129(1)(b) - HELD - Once registration has been restored, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that consignor or consignee was bogus. The principles laid in prior decisions establish that when tax invoice was accompanied with goods in transit and registration of purchasing dealer was suspended but later revoked and registration restored, no adverse effect can be drawn against petitioner - At the time of transaction in question the petitioner was a registered dealer, therefore, the order ought to have been passed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act - Impugned orders require modification to extent that penalty imposed ought to have been enforced under Section 129(1)(a) instead of Section 129(1)(b) - Writ petition partly allowed and impugned orders modified accordingly [Read less]

Service Tax - Supply of Tangible Goods - Aircraft Lease - Possession and Control - Appellant offers flight training and placed aircraft with its related concern under a dry-lease arrangement. The lease agreement provided for per-hour charges with a monthly minimum commitment, with the lessor retaining the right to use aircraft when idle and requiring the lessee to return the aircraft in the same condition after each trip - Whether the arrangement between the appellant and its related concern constitutes Supply of Tangible Goods service or involves transfer of possession and effective control of the aircraft – HELD - In t... [Read more]

Service Tax - Supply of Tangible Goods - Aircraft Lease - Possession and Control - Appellant offers flight training and placed aircraft with its related concern under a dry-lease arrangement. The lease agreement provided for per-hour charges with a monthly minimum commitment, with the lessor retaining the right to use aircraft when idle and requiring the lessee to return the aircraft in the same condition after each trip - Whether the arrangement between the appellant and its related concern constitutes Supply of Tangible Goods service or involves transfer of possession and effective control of the aircraft – HELD - In the instant case, the clause allowing the lessor to use the aircraft when not in use by the lessee means the lessee does not have exclusive custody. Legal possession cannot constantly shift based on hourly usage. The aircraft must be returned to the lessor's custody after each trip. The stipulation that the price includes running cost and all expenses are borne by the lessor indicates the lessor is paying for operational costs and maintenance, thus retaining proprietary control over the asset. The per-hour charges with a monthly minimum resemble a commercial hiring or service level agreement. The simple thirty-day termination clause unlike a typical asset lease with heavy penalties gives the agreement the character of an ongoing service agreement for supply of tangible goods. Though the agreement uses terms like lease and lessee, the actual operational clauses show the lessor retains effective control and legal possession. Therefore, the activity is rightly classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods service and not transfer of right to use with possession and control - Further, the other collections reflected in the balance sheet which were not subject of any allegation in the show cause notice and bore no nexus with the lease transaction are not includible in the taxable value as an adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond the show cause notice which constitutes the foundation of proceedings. Also, as the identical lease receipts had already formed part of the demand raised on the related concern under an earlier show cause notice, confirmation of tax on the same receipts in the hands of the appellant would result in double taxation. The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked where the facts constituting alleged suppression were already within the Department's knowledge at the time of an earlier notice issued on the same or similar facts. Penalties under Section 78 for fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax are not sustainable as these ingredients have not been established - Appeals partly allowed, demands confined to normal period upheld, all penalties set aside [Read less]

Customs - Export Valuation - Transaction Value - Iron Ore Fines - Appellant exported iron ore fines under a contract which provided for price adjustment based on quality parameters including Fe content, Alumina, and Silica, with final destination results to determine the contractual price. The appellant declared the export at the transaction value based on the final commercial invoice and Bank Realization Certificate reflecting the amount actually realized from the overseas buyer. However, the customs authority enhanced the assessable value based on their laboratory analysis showing different quality parameters than those ... [Read more]

Customs - Export Valuation - Transaction Value - Iron Ore Fines - Appellant exported iron ore fines under a contract which provided for price adjustment based on quality parameters including Fe content, Alumina, and Silica, with final destination results to determine the contractual price. The appellant declared the export at the transaction value based on the final commercial invoice and Bank Realization Certificate reflecting the amount actually realized from the overseas buyer. However, the customs authority enhanced the assessable value based on their laboratory analysis showing different quality parameters than those reflected in the final commercial invoice - Whether the customs authorities can enhance the assessable value of exported goods on the basis of laboratory analysis when the final transaction value has been settled with the foreign buyer and the amount actually realized is evidenced by the final commercial invoice and Bank Realization Certificate – HELD - Section 14 of the Customs Act recognizes transaction value namely the price actually paid or payable for goods when sold for export from India as the basis for valuation. The Customs Valuation Rules make transaction value the primary basis for valuation. A laboratory report may be relevant for establishing composition or quality of goods but cannot substitute transaction value with a hypothetical value unless the statutory requirements for rejection of transaction value are satisfied - The Department cannot presume that the exporter received higher consideration merely because the Fe content found in the Department laboratory is higher. The taxable event is export but valuation is governed by price actually paid or payable subject to statutory provisions. Final invoice and Bank Realization Certificate have material relevance to transaction value where unrelated parties are involved and no evidence of additional consideration is produced. A test report relied upon against an assessee cannot ordinarily be kept undisclosed. Selective adoption of different reports for different parameters lacks satisfactory justification. Enhancement of assessable value is not sustainable in absence of evidence of additional remittance or consideration – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – Majority Order - Revenue Deposit - Interest on Delayed Refund - Appellant officers conducted a search regarding fraudulent Cenvat Credit availment. Respondent deposited amounts during investigation as persuaded by the department. Later the enquiry was transferred to the central investigating agency which issued a demand cum show cause notice proposing recovery of Cenvat Credit. During pendency of the notice, respondent applied for refund of the deposited amount. The refund application was rejected by the adjudicating authority but the first appellate authority allowed the refund along with interest from ... [Read more]

Central Excise – Majority Order - Revenue Deposit - Interest on Delayed Refund - Appellant officers conducted a search regarding fraudulent Cenvat Credit availment. Respondent deposited amounts during investigation as persuaded by the department. Later the enquiry was transferred to the central investigating agency which issued a demand cum show cause notice proposing recovery of Cenvat Credit. During pendency of the notice, respondent applied for refund of the deposited amount. The refund application was rejected by the adjudicating authority but the first appellate authority allowed the refund along with interest from the date of deposit. Revenue preferred appeals contending that no statutory provision authorized payment of interest on such deposits and that provisions of Section 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were not applicable to deposits made during investigation - Whether interest is payable on refund of amounts deposited during investigation when provisions of Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act do not apply to such deposits – HELD - The amounts deposited during the pendency of investigation and proceedings, if not adjudged as duty, fine or penalty, are to be treated as revenue deposits and not as duty. Unspent balance lying in Personal Ledger Account is an advance towards duty and takes colour of duty only when utilized for payment of duty. Hence the limitation provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are not applicable for refund of such unspent amounts in Personal Ledger Account. Further, as Section 11BB itself provides that it applies only to refunds granted under Section 11B, the provisions of Section 11BB are not applicable when Section 11B does not apply. However, on general principles of equity and commercial law, assessee ought to be compensated, and on general commercial principles, interest on refund is automatic and has to be granted in absence of any statutory provision. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sandvik Asia Ltd. case that an assessee is entitled to compensation when Government wrongfully withholds the assessee's funds, interest on such revenue deposits is automatically payable from the date of deposit. The Tribunal in various decisions has held that interest on such deposits is payable at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual realization – The revenue appeals are dismissed by Majority Order [Read less]

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Contravention of Section 171 of CGST Act - Liability to pass on benefit of Input Tax Credit to homebuyers - After reinvestigation pursuant to remand, DGAP determined that Respondent had collected higher amounts from homebuyers without passing on the full benefit of additional ITC available under GST, thereby profiteering - Whether Respondent has passed on the benefit of additional ITC to homebuyers in accordance with statute - HELD - Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the extent that Respondent has not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit amount ... [Read more]

GST - Anti-Profiteering - Contravention of Section 171 of CGST Act - Liability to pass on benefit of Input Tax Credit to homebuyers - After reinvestigation pursuant to remand, DGAP determined that Respondent had collected higher amounts from homebuyers without passing on the full benefit of additional ITC available under GST, thereby profiteering - Whether Respondent has passed on the benefit of additional ITC to homebuyers in accordance with statute - HELD - Respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the extent that Respondent has not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit amount to 25 eligible recipients. While Respondent claimed to have passed on ITC benefit amounting to 459 homebuyers through discount at 7 percent, the amount passed on was less than the profiteering amount calculated for 25 buyers - Respondent is liable to pass on the said amount along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from 01.07.2017 (the date CGST Act came into force) to these eligible recipients - Respondent is also liable to pay penalty equivalent to 10 percent of the profiteered amount under Section 171(3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, provided such penalty shall not be leviable if the profiteered amount is deposited within 30 days of the date of this order - The methodology adopted by DGAP for computation of profiteering was consistent with Section 171 of the CGST Act and correctly applied. Submissions of Respondent regarding waiver of interest or computation from alternative dates are rejected - Respondent is directed to pay the determined profiteering amount along with interest and penalty as held and the matter is closed – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Customs - Duty demand on non-fulfilment of export obligation - EPCG Import - Force majeure circumstances - Appellants imported embroidery machinery under valid EPCG Licenses and saved customs duty upon furnishing required bonds and bank guarantees. Due to unprecedented floods in the jurisdiction, the imported machinery got submerged in water and damaged beyond repair notwithstanding which the appellants subsequently shifted the machinery to safe premises - The Customs authorities demanded recovery of the duty saved along with interest and also confiscated the imported machinery, imposed redemption fine and penalty. The app... [Read more]

Customs - Duty demand on non-fulfilment of export obligation - EPCG Import - Force majeure circumstances - Appellants imported embroidery machinery under valid EPCG Licenses and saved customs duty upon furnishing required bonds and bank guarantees. Due to unprecedented floods in the jurisdiction, the imported machinery got submerged in water and damaged beyond repair notwithstanding which the appellants subsequently shifted the machinery to safe premises - The Customs authorities demanded recovery of the duty saved along with interest and also confiscated the imported machinery, imposed redemption fine and penalty. The appellants contended that they could not fulfil the export obligations due to force majeure circumstances and that the machinery became incapable of production due to damage, relying on Notification No.97/2004-Cus. read with para 4 as amended vide Notification No.72/2007-Cus. - Whether the confiscation of imported machinery and imposition of penalty and redemption fine can be maintained where export obligation is not fulfilled due to force majeure circumstances beyond the control of the importer - HELD - As per Condition of the notification, if the importer fails to fulfil export obligation within the stipulated time, then he is required to pay the customs duty. However, as per condition 7 of para 2, the importer could request DGFT authorities for grating extension of time for completing the export obligation. The appellant could not produce any waiver of export obligation either from the committee or from DGFT authorities - The conditions of Notification No.97/2004-Cus. are explicit that duty concession was granted subject to fulfilment of export obligation and failure to fulfil specified obligation would require payment of duty saved along with interest - Exemption notifications require strict interpretation and the burden lies on the assessee to demonstrate that the case falls within the parameters of the exemption. However confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act cannot be justified when there are reasons beyond the control of the importer for non-fulfilment of obligation. Similarly penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be imposed without mens rea and where the importer had made sincere efforts but circumstances were beyond control, mens rea is absent - The duty demand and interest liability are upheld but the confiscation of imported machinery, redemption fine and penalty are set aside as unjustified - The impugned orders are modified and the appeals are partially allowed [Read less]

GST - Detention and seizure of goods in transit - Imposition of penalty - Mandatory compliance with statutory timelines under Section 129(3) of CGST Act 2017 - Appellant challenged contending that penalty order passed 47 days after Notice MOV-07, violating the mandatory 7-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) - Whether the 7-day period prescribed in Section 129(3) for passing penalty order is mandatory or merely directory - HELD - Section 129(3) of CGST Act 2017 prescribes that proper officer shall issue notice within seven days of detention or seizure and thereafter pass order within period of seven days from date of... [Read more]

GST - Detention and seizure of goods in transit - Imposition of penalty - Mandatory compliance with statutory timelines under Section 129(3) of CGST Act 2017 - Appellant challenged contending that penalty order passed 47 days after Notice MOV-07, violating the mandatory 7-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) - Whether the 7-day period prescribed in Section 129(3) for passing penalty order is mandatory or merely directory - HELD - Section 129(3) of CGST Act 2017 prescribes that proper officer shall issue notice within seven days of detention or seizure and thereafter pass order within period of seven days from date of service of such notice for payment of penalty. Use of word ‘shall’ indicates legislative intent that adherence to timeline is mandatory. Since GST Act is fiscal statute it must be construed strictly. Absence of express consequences of non-compliance does not render provision directory - Timeline has been introduced to prevent arbitrary detention, prolonged seizure and harassment to trader. Multiple High Courts have consistently held provisions of Section 129(3) to be mandatory and held that failure to adhere to timelines prescribed therein would vitiate order of detention – Further, the facts show appellant had generated tax invoices as e-invoices from portal, filed GST returns and paid appropriate GST, indicating no mens rea to evade tax only because e-way bill was not prepared. First Appellate Authority failed to examine basic fact of dates which was apparent on record - Order MOV-09 issued beyond mandatory time limit of 7 days is illegal and without jurisdiction. First Appellate Authority erred in failing to examine this issue. Order-in-appeal is set aside – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

GST - Cancellation of Registration - Validity of show-cause notice and cancellation order that does not indicate the details of fraud, kinds of willful misstatement and suppression of facts made by the noticee/petitioner - Whether show-cause notice lacking specific details of fraud willful misstatement and suppression of facts with response date same as notice date is valid and whether cancellation order lacking reasoning is valid - HELD - A show-cause notice is invalid when it does not indicate the details of fraud details of misstatement and details of suppression of facts. The response or explanation cannot be filed on ... [Read more]

GST - Cancellation of Registration - Validity of show-cause notice and cancellation order that does not indicate the details of fraud, kinds of willful misstatement and suppression of facts made by the noticee/petitioner - Whether show-cause notice lacking specific details of fraud willful misstatement and suppression of facts with response date same as notice date is valid and whether cancellation order lacking reasoning is valid - HELD - A show-cause notice is invalid when it does not indicate the details of fraud details of misstatement and details of suppression of facts. The response or explanation cannot be filed on the basis of facts which are not show-caused and the petitioner cannot be expected to respond to such an ambiguous notice – Further, sufficient time was not granted to the petitioner to respond when the appearance date was also 02.03.2023 at 11:30 a.m. the same date as the show-cause notice. The final order does not reflect the ground on which the cancellation of registration is made and is result of complete non-application of mind - The order is in complete disregard of the minimal requirement to pass an order impacting the rights of a trader registered under the GST Act - An alternative remedy is no bar to entertaining jurisdiction under Article 226 when facts disclose apparent or glaring illegality - The show-cause notice and cancellation order are quashed and set aside. Cost of Rs.20,000/- is awarded to the petitioner payable within one month. Respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of show-cause notice – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Challenge to Notification No. 22/2024 - Central Tax dated 8/10/2024 - Special Procedure under Notification 22/2024 - Scope of Government's power to prescribe procedures under Section 148 of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenged Notification No. 22/2024 dated 8/10/2024 issued to implement Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which permits registered persons to claim input tax credit in returns filed upto 30/11/2021 for invoices or debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 - Whether the Notification validly prescribes a special procedure and whether it provides for requisite safeguards includ... [Read more]

GST - Challenge to Notification No. 22/2024 - Central Tax dated 8/10/2024 - Special Procedure under Notification 22/2024 - Scope of Government's power to prescribe procedures under Section 148 of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner challenged Notification No. 22/2024 dated 8/10/2024 issued to implement Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which permits registered persons to claim input tax credit in returns filed upto 30/11/2021 for invoices or debit notes pertaining to FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 - Whether the Notification validly prescribes a special procedure and whether it provides for requisite safeguards including extension of time in extraordinary situations as mandated under Section 148 of the Act – HELD - The Government is empowered under Section 148 to prescribe special procedures for registered persons including with regard to registration, furnishing of return, payment of tax and administration, subject to conditions and safeguards as may be prescribed. Thus, prescribing a special procedure through a Notification is permissible in terms of what is provided under Section 148 of the CGST Act - The Court is required to consider whether the Notification provided adequate safeguards while prescribing the six-month time limit, particularly regarding extension in extraordinary situations. The matter was adjourned for further arguments and research by Counsel – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Eligibility to claim credit on structural materials used for manufacturing capital goods - Welding electrodes and oxygen used for repair and maintenance - Time-bar of demand - Appellant manufacturer of steel products claimed CENVAT Credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, Plates, welding electrodes and oxygen used during August 2008 to April 2009 for manufacturing capital goods used within factory premises - Appellant submitted Chartered Engineer's Certificate showing materials used in manufacturing capital goods within factory premises and cited case laws holding assessees eligible for credit - Whether structura... [Read more]

Central Excise - Eligibility to claim credit on structural materials used for manufacturing capital goods - Welding electrodes and oxygen used for repair and maintenance - Time-bar of demand - Appellant manufacturer of steel products claimed CENVAT Credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, Plates, welding electrodes and oxygen used during August 2008 to April 2009 for manufacturing capital goods used within factory premises - Appellant submitted Chartered Engineer's Certificate showing materials used in manufacturing capital goods within factory premises and cited case laws holding assessees eligible for credit - Whether structural materials like MS Channels and Angles used in fabrication of structures for capital goods fall within definition of inputs eligible for CENVAT credit despite being structures for support of capital goods - Whether welding electrodes and oxygen used for repair and maintenance of machinery constituting capital goods are eligible for credit - HELD - Vandana Global Ltd decision (Larger Bench) on which Department relied has been reversed by Chhattisgarh High Court. The High Court held that goods used in fabrication of structures embedded to earth should be treated as inputs for capital goods and CENVAT credit cannot be denied – The term ‘inputs’ under Rule 2(k) has wide coverage and includes all goods used in manufacture of final products including capital goods used in factory. Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) amended by Notification No.16/2009 specifically excludes only angles, channels, TMT bars used for construction of factory shed, laying foundation or making structures for support of capital goods - In present case, materials in question were not used for foundation, construction of factory or support structure but for manufacturing capital goods like machines used within factory premises. Following Chhattisgarh High Court decision, materials are inputs for capital goods and eligible for credit. Welding electrodes and oxygen used in manufacturing capital goods are also eligible for credit. On merits, demand is not sustainable. On time-bar aspect, Show Cause Notice issued on 14.08.2012 for credit taken during August 2008 to April 2009 is barred by limitation - During relevant period different interpretations existed on CENVAT credit eligibility. No suppression and no justification for invocation of extended period of limitation – The demand is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Central Excise – SVLDRS – Manual issue of Discharge Certificate – Appellant filed declaration under SVLDRS and remitted differential duty remitted on the basis of Form SVLDRS-3 with substantiation by Bank statement. Revenue did not issue Form SVLDRS-4 despite such remittance – Whether discharge certificate should be issued when differential duty has been remitted under SVLDRS and payment is substantiated by bank documents – HELD - The differential duty stands remitted as the same is not disputed by Revenue. Appellant has complied with the substantive requirements of SVLDRS Scheme by filing requisite declaration i... [Read more]

Central Excise – SVLDRS – Manual issue of Discharge Certificate – Appellant filed declaration under SVLDRS and remitted differential duty remitted on the basis of Form SVLDRS-3 with substantiation by Bank statement. Revenue did not issue Form SVLDRS-4 despite such remittance – Whether discharge certificate should be issued when differential duty has been remitted under SVLDRS and payment is substantiated by bank documents – HELD - The differential duty stands remitted as the same is not disputed by Revenue. Appellant has complied with the substantive requirements of SVLDRS Scheme by filing requisite declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 and Form SVLDRS-3 and making the payment through authorized bank channel. The matter is only procedural in nature. Following the direction issued by Chennai Tribunal in case of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. regarding manual processing of SVLDRS requests as per CBIC's Instruction on the subject, the Commissioner is directed to have the matter examined manually and process the request of appellant for issuing discharge certificate – The appeal is disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Revocation of Customs Broker license - Violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 - Unauthorized use of credentials of another Customs Broker - Whether conscious use of another Customs Broker's credentials by appellant despite holding its own license and undertaking all clearance activities constitutes violation of CBLR warranting revocation - HELD – The fact that appellant undertook clearance activities with knowledge and consent of another Customs Broker does not authorize appellant to undertake Customs Broker functions using license of another Customs Broker. Statutory scheme does not contemplat... [Read more]

Customs - Revocation of Customs Broker license - Violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 - Unauthorized use of credentials of another Customs Broker - Whether conscious use of another Customs Broker's credentials by appellant despite holding its own license and undertaking all clearance activities constitutes violation of CBLR warranting revocation - HELD – The fact that appellant undertook clearance activities with knowledge and consent of another Customs Broker does not authorize appellant to undertake Customs Broker functions using license of another Customs Broker. Statutory scheme does not contemplate one Customs Broker undertaking functions of another Customs Broker by using latter's credentials. Appellant despite holding its own license consciously chose to undertake transaction under license of another Customs Broker. This was not mere inadvertent or technical omission but conscious act - Violation of Regulation 10(a) follows from fact that appellant without authorization from importer in its own name undertook transaction and filed Bill using credentials of another broker. Violations of Regulations 10(d) and 10(e) sustained as appellant failed to discharge obligations to advise client regarding statutory requirements and bring matter to notice of authorities. Finding under Regulation 10(f) sustainable as record does not disclose that appellant had adequately informed importer of restrictions. Finding under Regulation 10(k) supported as original documents collected by appellant from importer were not produced to authorities - Absence of prior misconduct is mitigating circumstance but does not render present violations inconsequential. Use of another Customs Broker's credentials had effect of concealing identity of Customs Broker actually undertaking transaction and undermining regulatory framework. Proportionality principle cannot be applied where violations are substantive and relate to manner of undertaking Customs Broker activities and use was conscious not careless or inadvertent. Revocation of license not disproportionate to gravity of violations established. Forfeiture of security deposit and penalty of Rs.50,000/- also arise from established violations. Appellant failed to establish error of law warranting interference – The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Confiscation of smuggled gold and imposition of penalties - Reasonable belief and burden of proof under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - Admissibility of statements recorded during investigation - Appellant revenue seized gold bars and Indian currency from respondents during town interception at railway station alleging smuggled origin and proposed confiscation under Sections 111 and 113 of Customs Act, 1962, and penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA - Whether the evidence submitted by the Respondents regarding domestic purchase of the gold is sufficient to conclude that the gold in question are not smuggled i... [Read more]

Customs - Confiscation of smuggled gold and imposition of penalties - Reasonable belief and burden of proof under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - Admissibility of statements recorded during investigation - Appellant revenue seized gold bars and Indian currency from respondents during town interception at railway station alleging smuggled origin and proposed confiscation under Sections 111 and 113 of Customs Act, 1962, and penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA - Whether the evidence submitted by the Respondents regarding domestic purchase of the gold is sufficient to conclude that the gold in question are not smuggled in nature – HELD - Reasonable belief required to invoke Section 123 statutory presumption must be founded on objective circumstances existing at time of seizure, not conjectures or assumptions. Absence of foreign markings on seized gold, fact that seizure was effected in town area and not at notified customs zone or international border, and absence of scientific or technical material connecting seized gold with foreign source collectively create substantial doubt whether foundational requirement of reasonable belief was satisfied. Mere purity of gold without corroborative scientific evidence connecting it with foreign source cannot furnish reasonable belief contemplated under Section 123. Burden of proof does not shift to claimants where initial seizure was effected without reasonable belief. Once respondents produced contemporaneous commercial records showing GST-compliant purchases and complete accounting, burden necessarily shifted back to revenue to affirmatively establish documents were fabricated or forged through independent and legally admissible evidence - Revenue's case predominantly resting on untested statements not supported by independent documentary or scientific evidence cannot sustain allegations of smuggling. Regarding Indian currency seized, no cogent material establishing nexus between seized currency and alleged act of smuggling; department failed to place evidence of any investigation establishing source of currency – Further, the currency seized during investigation cannot be retained indefinitely in absence of legally admissible evidence establishing connection with alleged offence. Confiscation of gold under Sections 111 and 113 set aside; all penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA set aside as foundational basis for penalties ceases to exist once confiscation order fails; Indian currency to be released with applicable interest – The Revenue appeals are dismissed - Revenue’s reliance on the statements recorded during the course of investigation – HELD - Revenue relied only on uncorroborated statements instead of leading independent evidence and has not produced forensic examination or expert opinion questioning genuineness of documents. Statements recorded under Section 108 were not handwritten and admittedly typed by investigating officers with signatures appended thereafter; respondents who are illiterate persons contended they were unable to comprehend proceedings and were in state of fear and apprehension. Mandatory statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 138B of Customs Act, 1962 require adjudicating authority to examine maker of statement as witness, record satisfaction regarding admissibility, and afford affected noticee opportunity to test evidence through cross-examination. Statements relied upon without adherence to these mandatory safeguards cannot be admitted as substantive evidence against noticee. Once voluntariness of statements stood seriously disputed, prudence demanded Department substantiate same by leading independent corroborative evidence before placing exclusive reliance thereon. No such corroboration forthcoming. [Read less]

Service Tax - Exemption for manpower supply services provided to Governmental Authority - Definition of ‘Governmental Authority’ - Original authority confirmed demand on grounds that Noida Authority does not qualify as Government or local authority being constituted under UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976, and therefore exemption under Notification No.25/2012 was not available. Appellant claimed that services of providing sweepers for sanitation conservancy were covered under entry 25 of Notification No.25/2012 which grants exemption for services provided to Governmental Authority, and that Noida Authority qualif... [Read more]

Service Tax - Exemption for manpower supply services provided to Governmental Authority - Definition of ‘Governmental Authority’ - Original authority confirmed demand on grounds that Noida Authority does not qualify as Government or local authority being constituted under UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976, and therefore exemption under Notification No.25/2012 was not available. Appellant claimed that services of providing sweepers for sanitation conservancy were covered under entry 25 of Notification No.25/2012 which grants exemption for services provided to Governmental Authority, and that Noida Authority qualifies as Governmental Authority - Whether services provided by appellant constitute sanitation conservancy services eligible for exemption under entry 25 of Notification No.25/2012 - HELD - Work order issued by Noida Authority reveals appellant had been providing sweepers for cleaning purposes which unquestionably falls within term sanitation conservancy. Entry 25 of Notification No.25/2012 grants exemption for sanitation conservancy services provided to Government, local authority or Governmental Authority. Noida Authority though constituted under UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976 qualifies as Governmental Authority within definition in Notification which provides that Governmental Authority means an authority or board or any other body set up by Act of Parliament or State Legislature or established by Government with 90% or more participation by way of equity or control to carry out any function entrusted to a municipality under Article 273W of Constitution - Original authority failed to examine whether Noida Authority qualified as Governmental Authority. Appellant was eligible for exemption under entry 25 of Notification No.25/2012. On remaining amount the appellant was eligible for small service provider exemption under Notification No.33/2012 - Extended period of limitation is not validly invoked. Appellant bona fide believed it was eligible for exemption and had regularly been filing ST-3 returns – The entire demand barred by limitation. Penalties under Section 78 and Section 77(1)(d) also set aside consequentially – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Interest on refund of amount paid by mistake of fact - Rate of interest payable - Appellant paid Service Tax on GTA services and claimed refund on ground that exemption was available under Notification No.25/2012-ST for food stuff - Appellant appealed contending that since amount was paid by mistake of fact it constitutes a deposit and should be refunded with interest @ 12% - Whether amount paid by mistake of fact is refundable with interest @ 12% or without interest - HELD - When amount is paid by mistake of fact, it is not treated as tax but as a deposit and therefore should be refunded along with interest.... [Read more]

Service Tax - Interest on refund of amount paid by mistake of fact - Rate of interest payable - Appellant paid Service Tax on GTA services and claimed refund on ground that exemption was available under Notification No.25/2012-ST for food stuff - Appellant appealed contending that since amount was paid by mistake of fact it constitutes a deposit and should be refunded with interest @ 12% - Whether amount paid by mistake of fact is refundable with interest @ 12% or without interest - HELD - When amount is paid by mistake of fact, it is not treated as tax but as a deposit and therefore should be refunded along with interest. The CESTAT, Delhi Bench in cases of Gajendra Singh Sankhla, Meenu Builders and others held that interest @ 12% is payable on refund of amount paid by mistake of fact or mistake of law. Calcutta High Court in Rajendra Kumar Jain versus Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata held that there is no statutory provision fixing rate of interest for refund of amount deposited during investigation and therefore interest @ 12% is payable till such statutory provision is notified - Fact that refund was sanctioned and paid within three months from date of application is not relevant consideration when amount in question is paid by mistake of fact as it is treated as deposit requiring interest. Since Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that amount was paid by mistake of fact, appellant entitled to interest @ 12% from date of deposit till date of refund payment. The impugned order rejecting interest claim not sustainable and set aside – The appeal is allowed with interest @ 12% granted [Read less]

GST - Refund of Excess Input Tax Credit - Withholding of refund during pendency of appeal - Procedure prescribed under Section 54(11) of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner applied for refund of accumulated balance in Electronic Cash Ledger - Whether respondent authorities can withhold refund during pendency of appeal before Tribunal without passing a specific order under Section 54(11) of CGST Act - HELD – The Section 54(11) CGST Act mandates that the Commissioner can withhold refund during pendency of appeal only if he is of opinion that grant of refund is likely to adversely affect revenue. Such withholding must be done throu... [Read more]

GST - Refund of Excess Input Tax Credit - Withholding of refund during pendency of appeal - Procedure prescribed under Section 54(11) of CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner applied for refund of accumulated balance in Electronic Cash Ledger - Whether respondent authorities can withhold refund during pendency of appeal before Tribunal without passing a specific order under Section 54(11) of CGST Act - HELD – The Section 54(11) CGST Act mandates that the Commissioner can withhold refund during pendency of appeal only if he is of opinion that grant of refund is likely to adversely affect revenue. Such withholding must be done through a specific order passed after giving the taxable person proper opportunity of hearing. The Deficiency Memo issued under Rule 90(3) CGST Rules is merely a communication for rectification of deficiencies in application and cannot per se operate as withholding of refund without compliance with Section 54(11) - In the present case, no proceeding or exercise was taken by Commissioner under Section 54(11) warranting withholding of the refund amount. The respondent-authorities cannot withhold refund merely on the ground of filing revision application before Tribunal without following the procedure mandated under Section 54(11) - Writ application is disposed with direction to Commissioner to issue fresh Show Cause Notice within one week affording petitioner opportunity to file reply within one week thereafter and to pass reasoned order after hearing petitioner within one month from closure of hearing – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Central Excise - Extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Proviso to Section 11A - Invocation of extended period on ground of suppression when facts are known to both parties - Appellants engaged in body building of motor vehicles on job work basis, receiving chassis from manufacturers on which excise duty was paid at valuation of 110% of cost of manufacture. Appellant clearance of finished motor vehicle computed on sum total of cost of manufacture, directly received raw materials, job work charges and profit of appellant without including 10 percent profit of manufacturer incorpora... [Read more]

Central Excise - Extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Proviso to Section 11A - Invocation of extended period on ground of suppression when facts are known to both parties - Appellants engaged in body building of motor vehicles on job work basis, receiving chassis from manufacturers on which excise duty was paid at valuation of 110% of cost of manufacture. Appellant clearance of finished motor vehicle computed on sum total of cost of manufacture, directly received raw materials, job work charges and profit of appellant without including 10 percent profit of manufacturer incorporated in chassis valuation under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - SCN issued invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A alleging wilful misrepresentation and wilful suppression of valuation - Whether extended period of limitation available when facts regarding 110 percent valuation of chassis were known to both Department and assessee - HELD - Extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A cannot be invoked on allegation of suppression or misrepresentation merely. The words suppression and misrepresentation are qualified by wilful, which means with intent to evade duty. When facts are known to both parties, omission by one party to do what it might have done would not render it suppression - The Department was fully aware that manufacturers cleared chassis at 110 percent of cost of manufacture and if Department found non-inclusion of 10 percent in duty computation by job worker, it ought to have taken immediate action under Section 11A(1). The proviso cannot be invoked to extend period of limitation when Department failed to act promptly – The SCN dated 30.04.2008 for period 01.11.2004 to 31.03.2007 was beyond one-year period provided under Section 11A(1) and hence demand is barred by limitation – The appeal is allowed [Read less]

Customs - Limitation in appeals under Section 128 - Application of Section 14 of Limitation Act 1963 - Effect of ITC Limited decision changing legal position regarding necessity of modification before refund - Appellant imported pressure relief valves and filed refund applications under Section 27 of Customs Act within one-year period relying on binding jurisdictional law under Aman Medical and Micromax cases that treated refund claim as independent remedy not requiring prior modification of assessment. Supreme Court judgment in ITC Limited dated 18.09.2019 altered legal position by holding that refund claim could not be e... [Read more]

Customs - Limitation in appeals under Section 128 - Application of Section 14 of Limitation Act 1963 - Effect of ITC Limited decision changing legal position regarding necessity of modification before refund - Appellant imported pressure relief valves and filed refund applications under Section 27 of Customs Act within one-year period relying on binding jurisdictional law under Aman Medical and Micromax cases that treated refund claim as independent remedy not requiring prior modification of assessment. Supreme Court judgment in ITC Limited dated 18.09.2019 altered legal position by holding that refund claim could not be entertained unless assessment was first modified in appeal - Appellant within six days of ITC decision filed application under Section 149 seeking amendment of bills and requested abeyance of refund proceedings pending modification - Refund Authority rejected refund claims on ground that modification of assessments was prerequisite. Appellant thereafter filed appeals under Section 128. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected appeals as barred by limitation - Whether period spent in pursuing refund remedy which became abortive due to ITC Limited decision can be excluded under principles of Section 14 of Limitation Act - HELD - Section 14 of Limitation Act does not apply proprio vigore to appeals before Commissioner but principles underlying Section 14 apply to appeals under Section 128 of Customs Act. Where abortive proceeding undertaken in good faith and with due diligence proves abortive due to defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, period spent in pursuing it may be excluded - Where refund proceeding was original proceeding instituted on 26.08.2019, period preceding that date cannot be excluded. However, distinct ground exists that binding jurisdictional law prevailing at time treated refund claim under Section 27 as independent sufficient remedy and necessity of modification was authoritatively declared only subsequently in ITC Limited - Period spent in pursuing abortive refund remedy and subsequent application under Section 149 liable to be excluded under principles of Section 14 up to 02.06.2020 when legal impediment crystallized. After exclusion, Appeals filed on 31.08.2020 fell within extended period under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 – Since the Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine appeals on merits, those Appeals are restored to the file of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide them on merits, without reopening the question of limitation - The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

Service Tax - Pre-Deposit Condition - Appellate Jurisdiction - Principles of Natural Justice - Appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit condition and instead submitted representation requesting Commissioner to consider legal submissions. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without adjudicating merits solely on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition - Whether dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit condition, without adjudicating merits and considering legal submissions, violates principles of natural justice – HELD - The right of appeal is a statutory right and is subject to the ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Pre-Deposit Condition - Appellate Jurisdiction - Principles of Natural Justice - Appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit condition and instead submitted representation requesting Commissioner to consider legal submissions. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without adjudicating merits solely on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition - Whether dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit condition, without adjudicating merits and considering legal submissions, violates principles of natural justice – HELD - The right of appeal is a statutory right and is subject to the conditions prescribed by the statute. Under the then applicable unamended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) possessed jurisdiction to insist upon a suitable pre-deposit while considering waiver applications. Once such a condition was imposed, it was incumbent upon the appellant either to comply with the condition or to seek appropriate relief before the competent forum. Failure to comply with the condition entitled the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal. The law is well settled that where the statute makes pre-deposit a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal, non-compliance with such condition empowers the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - The appellant sought adjournment which was considered and reasons for declining were recorded having regard to the statutory requirement of expeditious disposal. The stay order was a reasoned order and not passed mechanically. Merely because the appellant requested adjournment, no indefeasible right accrued in its favour to obtain the adjournment sought. The authority exercised its discretion judicially by recording reasons. In the absence of any procedural illegality or perversity, violation of principles of natural justice cannot be established. The impugned order upheld and the appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs – Warehousing of imported goods - Appellant imported Manganese Ore and obtained permission to warehouse goods in designated Public Bonded Warehouse but goods were diverted to private yard instead - Whether diversion from specified warehouse to unauthorized premises violates warehousing provisions and attracts confiscation and whether acts of warehouse operator engaged by appellant are attributable to importer - HELD - Diversion of imported goods from notified warehouse to unauthorized private yard amounts to violation of Section 59 and 60 of Customs Act read with Warehouse Goods (Removal) Regulations 2016. Wareho... [Read more]

Customs – Warehousing of imported goods - Appellant imported Manganese Ore and obtained permission to warehouse goods in designated Public Bonded Warehouse but goods were diverted to private yard instead - Whether diversion from specified warehouse to unauthorized premises violates warehousing provisions and attracts confiscation and whether acts of warehouse operator engaged by appellant are attributable to importer - HELD - Diversion of imported goods from notified warehouse to unauthorized private yard amounts to violation of Section 59 and 60 of Customs Act read with Warehouse Goods (Removal) Regulations 2016. Warehousing is statutory concession subject to strict compliance with statutory conditions and importer cannot unilaterally alter place of storage on grounds of commercial convenience. The acts of agent or contractor engaged for handling warehousing and transportation operations are deemed to have been done with knowledge and consent of importer under Section 147 unless importer establishes contrary with cogent evidence. Contemporaneous communications and statements of persons connected with appellant establish diversion was known to appellant - Liability to confiscation under Section 111(j) does not depend on proof of actual duty evasion or clandestine clearance but on violation of statutory conditions governing removal and warehousing - Redemption fine under Section 125 is imposable despite provisional release of goods as statutory consequences flow from confiscation. Penalty under Section 112(a) correctly imposed for failure to ensure compliance with statutory obligation - The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Classification of construction services - Construction of Complex Service versus Works Contract Service - Composite nature of construction contract involving supply of materials and services - Appellant engaged in construction of residential complex and internal development works for GNIDA - Whether service tax demand can be confirmed under Construction of Complex Service when show cause notice proposed such demand but adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider in light of Larsen and Toubro principle that composite services involving supply of materials and services should be classified as Works Contra... [Read more]

Service Tax - Classification of construction services - Construction of Complex Service versus Works Contract Service - Composite nature of construction contract involving supply of materials and services - Appellant engaged in construction of residential complex and internal development works for GNIDA - Whether service tax demand can be confirmed under Construction of Complex Service when show cause notice proposed such demand but adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider in light of Larsen and Toubro principle that composite services involving supply of materials and services should be classified as Works Contract Service - HELD – In Larsen and Toubro decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has finally settled the issue as to whether a composite contract involving provision of service as well as transfer of property in goods could be covered under CICS and CCS from the date of introduction of service tax levy on such services. The Apex Court has observed that in as much as Section 67, dealing with valuation of taxable services, refers to the gross amount charged for service, the services of CICS and CCS would cover only pure service activities, as any contrary view would imply that the Government can levy service tax on the gross amount, including the value of transfer of property in goods also, which is constitutionally impermissible – Further, once SCN proposes demand under particular category of taxable service, adjudicating and appellate authorities cannot travel beyond scope of allegations and confirm demand under different category as assessee was not put on notice of such alternative category - The adjudicating authority's action to confirm demand under Construction of Complex Service without reclassifying under Works Contract Service constitutes violation of judicial protocol and failure to properly follow Tribunal's remand directions - The orders under challenge are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

GST – Service of Show Cause Notice and Assessment Order - Signature Requirement under Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Service through GST Portal - The show cause notice and the order were uploaded on the GST portal under the tab "Additional Notices and Orders" instead of "View Notices and Orders" tab, bore no digital signature or physical signature though they carried a system generated reference number – Whether a show cause notice and an assessment order devoid of digital signature or physical signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 can be sustained in law – HELD - Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 is... [Read more]

GST – Service of Show Cause Notice and Assessment Order - Signature Requirement under Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Service through GST Portal - The show cause notice and the order were uploaded on the GST portal under the tab "Additional Notices and Orders" instead of "View Notices and Orders" tab, bore no digital signature or physical signature though they carried a system generated reference number – Whether a show cause notice and an assessment order devoid of digital signature or physical signature as mandated by Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 can be sustained in law – HELD - Rule 26(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 is couched in mandatory language and requires that all notices, certificates and orders shall be issued electronically through digital signature certificate or E-signature as specified under Information Technology Act, 2000 or through such other mode of verification as notified by the Board. The issuance and authentication are two distinct and cumulative requirements. Mere electronic generation of a document on the portal satisfies only the requirement of electronic issuance but not the requirement of authentication - A digital or physical signature is not an empty formality or procedural nicety but is the very mode by which an electronic document acquires legal existence and binding character in a paperless GST regime. A reference number or document identification number merely tracks and catalogues the document within the system and shows when the document was created but does not show that the proper officer authenticated it. Tracking is not authentication and one cannot substitute the other - A show cause notice and order which are neither digitally signed nor physically signed are no notice and no order in the eyes of law. The defect is not a mere curable irregularity but goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority to proceed - The denial of an authenticated notice and effective opportunity of personal hearing vitiates the entire proceedings and violates the principles of natural justice. The impugned show cause notice is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the consequential proceedings culminating in the impugned order and the recovery notice are also set aside - The Respondent authorities are liberty to proceed afresh by issuing a duly authenticated show cause notice and passing a fresh order after affording the Petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing in accordance with law - The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST – Real Estate Housing Project - Anti-profiteering complainant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit by way of commensurate reduction in price in contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - Upon examination of the DGAP Report, it is observed that the ratio of ITC availed to the purchase value decreased from 8.26% during the pre-GST period to 7.87% during the post-GST period. Thus, no additional benefit of ITC accrued to the Respondent upon implementation of GST - The Respondent has undertaken multiple projects, and its returns and financial statements conta... [Read more]

GST – Real Estate Housing Project - Anti-profiteering complainant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pass on the benefit of Input Tax Credit by way of commensurate reduction in price in contravention of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - Upon examination of the DGAP Report, it is observed that the ratio of ITC availed to the purchase value decreased from 8.26% during the pre-GST period to 7.87% during the post-GST period. Thus, no additional benefit of ITC accrued to the Respondent upon implementation of GST - The Respondent has undertaken multiple projects, and its returns and financial statements contain consolidated figures for all such projects. As per the DGAP report and clarification, the, project-wise bifurcation was not feasible. Accordingly, the investigation has been based on the duly CA-certified data submitted by the Respondent - As per the records, the Respondent had availed VAT credit as transitional SGST credit and passed on the corresponding benefit to the eligible purchasers in accordance with Maharashtra Trade Circular No. 18T of 2017. However, in the case of the Applicant, the agreement was executed and registered after the implementation of GST. Accordingly, VAT was collected only on the pre-GST advance, which was duly deposited with the VAT Department. Therefore, no VAT credit had accrued to the Respondent in respect of the Applicant’s transaction and, consequently, no corresponding benefit was available for passing on to the Applicant - The Report submitted by the DGAP is accepted and the present proceedings are disposed of [Read less]

Service Tax - Exemption from Service Tax to Governmental Authorities - Statutory Interpretation of Entry No. 60 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST - Appellant provided works contract services by way of construction, repair and painting of shops pertaining to Mandi Samiti to the Rajya Krshi Utpad Mandi Parishad and Mandi Samiti, which are bodies corporate established under an Act of State Legislature - Revenue confirmed the demand of service tax on the ground that services rendered do not fall under the category of services mentioned in Entry No. 60 of Notification - Whether the works contract services provided to Governmental ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Exemption from Service Tax to Governmental Authorities - Statutory Interpretation of Entry No. 60 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST - Appellant provided works contract services by way of construction, repair and painting of shops pertaining to Mandi Samiti to the Rajya Krshi Utpad Mandi Parishad and Mandi Samiti, which are bodies corporate established under an Act of State Legislature - Revenue confirmed the demand of service tax on the ground that services rendered do not fall under the category of services mentioned in Entry No. 60 of Notification - Whether the works contract services provided to Governmental Authorities relating to marketing of agricultural produce are exempt from service tax under Entry No. 60 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST – HELD - The Mandi authorities qualify as Governmental Authorities as they are bodies corporate set up by an Act of the State Legislature and expressly deemed to be local authorities - The functions assigned to Panchayats under the eleventh schedule include agriculture and promoting agricultural extension - The Appellant's services relating to repair and painting of shops pertaining to Mandi Samiti facilitating marketing of agricultural produce fall within the ambit of Article 243G of the Constitution and are in relation to promoting marketing activity of agricultural produce by farmers – The Works contract services rendered by Appellant are exempted from payment of service tax as per Entry No. 60 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 - As the issue involves interpretation of statutory provisions and no allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty can be attributed to interpretation issues, and no evidence of suppression, fraud, collusion or misstatement has been adduced by the Department, the entire demand raised by invoking extended period of limitation is barred by limitation - For rent income received, as the gross taxable value is less than the prescribed threshold, the appellant is eligible for threshold exemption - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

Service Tax – Time Share Holiday Scheme - Classification of Service - Club or Association Service or Short-term Accommodation Service - Appellant introduced a Time Share Holiday Scheme under which interested persons purchased a right to occupy specified accommodation for one week annually for a period of 12 years upon payment of predetermined consideration. Department alleged that the consideration represented subscription collected from Club Members and attracted service tax under Club or Association Service - Whether the consideration received by the appellant under its Time Share Holiday Scheme is liable to service ta... [Read more]

Service Tax – Time Share Holiday Scheme - Classification of Service - Club or Association Service or Short-term Accommodation Service - Appellant introduced a Time Share Holiday Scheme under which interested persons purchased a right to occupy specified accommodation for one week annually for a period of 12 years upon payment of predetermined consideration. Department alleged that the consideration represented subscription collected from Club Members and attracted service tax under Club or Association Service - Whether the consideration received by the appellant under its Time Share Holiday Scheme is liable to service tax under the taxable category of Club or Association Service and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act – HELD - The statutory definition of Club or Association contemplates an organization providing facilities, services or advantages primarily to its Members for a subscription or any other amount. Taxability cannot depend merely upon the terminology employed in an agreement - The Time Share Agreement demonstrates that the customer merely acquires a contractual right to occupy specified accommodation for limited duration every year for a fixed number of years. The consideration is directly linked with the category of accommodation selected. The agreement neither confers ownership rights nor management rights in the company. The relationship remains that of service provider and customer - The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Membership of a company is acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The persons enrolled under the Time Share Scheme do not satisfy the statutory requirements for becoming Members of the Company - If accommodation provided through Time Share Scheme was already taxable under Club or Association Service, there was little necessity for Parliament to create an entirely separate taxable entry - The commercial substance clearly establishes that the appellant is selling accommodation rights and not Membership of a Club. The activity undertaken by the appellant is essentially one of providing accommodation and cannot be classified as “Club or Association Service”. The introduction of “Short Term Accommodation Service” with effect from 01.05.2011 itself supports the conclusion that such activity was not taxable under the earlier entry - The appellant had voluntarily discharged service tax together with interest relating to other services before the issuance of the SCN. The appellant is therefore entitled to statutory benefit under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 – The appeal is partly allowed [Read less]

Central Excise - Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Whether the provision requiring a defaulter assessee to clear goods on payment of duty without utilizing CENVAT credit is Constitutional and not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - HELD - the applicability of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, allowing the assesse to pay central excise duty by utilizing the Cenvat credit is squarely answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indsur Global Limited v. Union of India which has now achieved finality. No question of law, much less any substanti... [Read more]

Central Excise - Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Whether the provision requiring a defaulter assessee to clear goods on payment of duty without utilizing CENVAT credit is Constitutional and not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution - HELD - the applicability of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, allowing the assesse to pay central excise duty by utilizing the Cenvat credit is squarely answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indsur Global Limited v. Union of India which has now achieved finality. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal - The Revenue appeals are accordingly dismissed [Read less]

Service Tax - Pre-deposit requirement, Restoration of the dismissed appeals - Appellant engaged in business of providing immovable property on rent was demanded service tax with penalty - The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement imposed by the stay order. Subsequently, the Department recovered the entire service tax liability through attachment of the appellant's bank account and the remaining differential amount was paid by the appellant. The appellant then approached the Tribunal for restoration of the dismissed appeals - Whether the Tribunal can restore appeals whi... [Read more]

Service Tax - Pre-deposit requirement, Restoration of the dismissed appeals - Appellant engaged in business of providing immovable property on rent was demanded service tax with penalty - The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement imposed by the stay order. Subsequently, the Department recovered the entire service tax liability through attachment of the appellant's bank account and the remaining differential amount was paid by the appellant. The appellant then approached the Tribunal for restoration of the dismissed appeals - Whether the Tribunal can restore appeals which were dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-deposit requirement when the entire service tax liability was subsequently recovered by the Department through attachment and partial deposits - HELD - The entire service tax liability payable by the appellant has been recovered by the Department and therefore there is sufficient compliance of the order imposing pre-deposit of the amount. The right of appeal is sacrosanct and should not be lightly taken away - The Tribunal is vested with powers under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to pass such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to secure the ends of justice. Even where the pre-deposit requirement is not initially fulfilled, a relaxed view should be taken of belated compliance if there is an explanation for the delay - The reasons assigned by the Tribunal that once the matter was dismissed for non-payment of the pre-deposit amount, the same cannot be restored even after the amount paid, is not tenable and the Tribunal ought to have passed an order exercising the powers under Rule 41 of the Rules to restore the Appeals - The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and both appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal to be decided on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law – The appeals are allowed [Read less]

GST – Cancellation of GST Registration and revocation thereof - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by Proper Officer on ground that petitioner failed to furnish statutory returns and pay taxes. Appeal against cancellation order was dismissed by Appellate Authority on limitation grounds only without considering merits - Whether petitioner can be permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30 of CGST Act - HELD - Appeal dismissed on limitation grounds only as appeal was not filed within prescribed period. However, petitioner who is willing and able to deposit all taxes due with interest a... [Read more]

GST – Cancellation of GST Registration and revocation thereof - Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled by Proper Officer on ground that petitioner failed to furnish statutory returns and pay taxes. Appeal against cancellation order was dismissed by Appellate Authority on limitation grounds only without considering merits - Whether petitioner can be permitted to apply for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30 of CGST Act - HELD - Appeal dismissed on limitation grounds only as appeal was not filed within prescribed period. However, petitioner who is willing and able to deposit all taxes due with interest and penalties should not be denied opportunity to apply for revocation of registration under Section 30. Dismissal of appeal on limitation ground does not preclude petitioner from seeking revocation if conditions are satisfied - Petitioner is given two weeks from date of judgment to furnish all pending returns and deposit entire amount of tax with interest and penalties. Proper Officer directed to consider and decide application for revocation within four weeks from filing of representation application - The writ petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Mode of Refund when business is discontinued and registration is surrendered - Whether refund amount credited as ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger can be paid in cash when the Electronic Credit Ledger has ceased to be functional upon discontinuation of business and surrender of registration - HELD - There is no prohibition under the provisions of the GST Law against making payment in cash of the amount which was earlier directed to be re-credited as ITC. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner's business is no longer in existence and the Electronic Credit Ledger has... [Read more]

GST - Mode of Refund when business is discontinued and registration is surrendered - Whether refund amount credited as ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger can be paid in cash when the Electronic Credit Ledger has ceased to be functional upon discontinuation of business and surrender of registration - HELD - There is no prohibition under the provisions of the GST Law against making payment in cash of the amount which was earlier directed to be re-credited as ITC. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner's business is no longer in existence and the Electronic Credit Ledger has ceased to be functional, payment in cash is appropriate - The concerned authorities are directed to refund the amount in cash along with applicable interest if any in accordance with the provisions of the Act - The writ petition stands disposed of [Read less]

Central Excise - Refund of Duty paid Under Protest - Time-Barred Demand - Appellant-Company challenged the order of the Tribunal dismissing its appeal for refund of CENVAT credit which it had debited in its account on receipt of show-cause notice proposed to recover the credit under Rule 57C and 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant accepted the liability on merits before the Tribunal but the demand was held time-barred both by the Tribunal. Thereafter the appellant filed refund application which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner but rejected in review by the Commissioner - Whether an assessee is entit... [Read more]

Central Excise - Refund of Duty paid Under Protest - Time-Barred Demand - Appellant-Company challenged the order of the Tribunal dismissing its appeal for refund of CENVAT credit which it had debited in its account on receipt of show-cause notice proposed to recover the credit under Rule 57C and 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant accepted the liability on merits before the Tribunal but the demand was held time-barred both by the Tribunal. Thereafter the appellant filed refund application which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner but rejected in review by the Commissioner - Whether an assessee is entitled to refund of CENVAT credit debited by it under protest on receipt of show-cause notice when the demand for recovery is subsequently held to be time-barred and the assessee is found not to be liable for payment - HELD - The assessee is entitled to refund of the CENVAT credit which was debited under protest on receipt of the show-cause notice when the demand is subsequently held to be time-barred and the assessee is found not to be liable to pay the demand. It is immaterial whether the show-cause notice is set aside on the ground of limitation or on merits, the fact remains that the assessee was not liable to pay the demand and accordingly the amount deposited was rightly refunded - The decision in India Cements Limited is not applicable in the facts of the case because in that case there was an accepted liability on merits and what was barred was only the machinery of recovery under Section 11A of the Act. However, in the instant case, the liability itself is found not to be legally due and payable when the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The distinction is material- where a liability is legally due on merits but time-barred under the limitation provisions, one category of cases arises; where a liability is found not to be legally due at all, an entirely different situation is presented - When the demand is held to be time-barred, implying the assessee has no liability, the amount deposited must be refunded. The assessee's obligation to pay ceases to exist when the demand is adjudged as time-barred and not legally due. Unjust enrichment does not arise when duty is paid subsequent to clearance of goods and no burden lies on the assessee to prove it was not passed on to the buyers - Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT have committed an error in applying the decision of India Cements Ltd. which is not applicable in the facts of the case – The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed [Read less]

GST – Time period for availing of Input Tax Credit - Petitioner availed Input Tax Credit on 20.12.2019 for FY 2018-19 whereas prescribed deadline under Section 16(4) of CGST Act was 20.10.2019. Respondent issued assessment order directing petitioner to reverse irregularly availed ITC - Whether assessment order requiring reversal is valid when legislature subsequently introduced Section 16(5) extending time for availing Input Tax Credit up to 30.11.2021 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 - HELD – The Section 16(4) of CGST Act prescribed time limit of 20.10.2019 for availing Input Tax Credit for FY 2018-19. Assessment order was i... [Read more]

GST – Time period for availing of Input Tax Credit - Petitioner availed Input Tax Credit on 20.12.2019 for FY 2018-19 whereas prescribed deadline under Section 16(4) of CGST Act was 20.10.2019. Respondent issued assessment order directing petitioner to reverse irregularly availed ITC - Whether assessment order requiring reversal is valid when legislature subsequently introduced Section 16(5) extending time for availing Input Tax Credit up to 30.11.2021 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 - HELD – The Section 16(4) of CGST Act prescribed time limit of 20.10.2019 for availing Input Tax Credit for FY 2018-19. Assessment order was issued directing reversal as ITC was availed on 20.12.2019 beyond prescribed date. However, subsequent insertion of Section 16(5) extended time limit for availing Input Tax Credit in any return under Section 39 up to 30.11.2021 for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21. Since Input Tax Credit in question was availed before 30.11.2021 as per new provision, assessment order requiring reversal stands vitiated by change in law – The impugned order set aside and the writ petition is allowed [Read less]

Customs – Refund of Special Additional Duty - Importer claimed refund of Special Additional Duty paid at time of import following Notification No.102/2007-Cus for refund on sale of goods in open market on payment of appropriate Sales Tax or VAT. Appellant-Revenue rejected refund claims on ground that they were filed beyond stipulated time limit of one year from date of payment of duty in view of Notification No.93/2008-Cus. Tribunal allowed appeals of importer - Whether time period of one year for refunding Special Additional Duty can be prescribed through subordinate legislation by notification when Section 27 of the Cu... [Read more]

Customs – Refund of Special Additional Duty - Importer claimed refund of Special Additional Duty paid at time of import following Notification No.102/2007-Cus for refund on sale of goods in open market on payment of appropriate Sales Tax or VAT. Appellant-Revenue rejected refund claims on ground that they were filed beyond stipulated time limit of one year from date of payment of duty in view of Notification No.93/2008-Cus. Tribunal allowed appeals of importer - Whether time period of one year for refunding Special Additional Duty can be prescribed through subordinate legislation by notification when Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not cover Special Additional Duty - HELD - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes the limitation for filing refund claims before expiry of one year from the date of payment of duty. However, Special Additional Duty is not covered by the provisions of Section 27. Therefore, the time limit for refunding Special Additional Duty cannot be further prescribed by subordinate legislation through notification. The attempt to prescribe a one-year limit for SAD refunds through notification amounts to amending the substantive provisions of the Act itself, which is not permissible in law. The notification cannot extend the provisions of the Act or prescribe limitation as a matter of subordinate legislation dealing with substantive rights - Since the mechanism of filing refund claims under Section 27 of the Act would not be applicable to Special Additional Duty, the same period of limitation could not have been extended through notification without statutory amendment. The imposition of a period of limitation by way of notification without statutory amendment is not permissible in law. The Tribunal was justified in following the decision of the Delhi High Court and holding that the time period of one year would not be applicable from the date of payment of the duty – The Revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

Customs - Confiscation of Goods - Classification of Burnt and Damaged Vehicles - Negative List of Imports - Vessel carrying Japanese manufactured motor cars caught fire while sailing from Colombo off the Sri Lankan coast. After salvage operation, the vessel and cargo consisting of burnt and damaged cars were brought to Alang port for ship-breaking - The Customs Authorities seized the cargo and vessel alleging that the cars were imported without valid import license in violation of Serial No.3 Part J of Negative List of Imports requiring license for commercial and passenger automobile vehicles - Whether burnt and damaged ca... [Read more]

Customs - Confiscation of Goods - Classification of Burnt and Damaged Vehicles - Negative List of Imports - Vessel carrying Japanese manufactured motor cars caught fire while sailing from Colombo off the Sri Lankan coast. After salvage operation, the vessel and cargo consisting of burnt and damaged cars were brought to Alang port for ship-breaking - The Customs Authorities seized the cargo and vessel alleging that the cars were imported without valid import license in violation of Serial No.3 Part J of Negative List of Imports requiring license for commercial and passenger automobile vehicles - Whether burnt and damaged cars which lost their complete identity and utility as motor vehicles due to extensive fire damage and were to be scrapped only can be classified as commercial and passenger automobile vehicles requiring import license under Serial No.3 Part J of Negative List of Imports - HELD - The burnt and damaged cars which suffered extensive fire damage and completely lost their identity and utility as motor vehicles cannot be considered as commercial and passenger automobile vehicles requiring import license under Serial No.3 Part J of Negative List of Imports. All parties to the transaction including the insurers, vessel owner, salvor and subsequent buyers recognized and accepted through contractual provisions and agreements that the cargo was not cars in any serviceable condition but scrap resulting from damage by fire. The distinction between bringing the vessel alongside a port and physically unloading cargo from the vessel is material - Merely bringing the vessel to port does not constitute unloading of cargo. Unloading is physical removal of cargo from the ship, which occurred only after seizure by the department. No unloading in contravention of Section 33 or 34 took place by or under the direction of the appellant before seizure. The vessel was brought to Talaja port which had been notified as a port for ship-breaking under Section 7 of the Act, and no specific permission was required under the Act for the vessel to enter the port - The Customs authorities had wrongly refused permission which was not required by law. Section 111(d) requiring import license, Section 111(h) relating to unloading in contravention of Sections 33 or 34, and Section 115(2) relating to confiscation of conveyance carrying contravened cargo were not attracted in the facts of the case. The CESTAT correctly held that the burnt cars converted into scrap cannot be classified as prohibited goods and are not liable for confiscation – The appeal is answered in favor of assessee and against the revenue - The Appeals are accordingly disposed of [Read less]

Customs - Provisional release of imported goods - Discretionary power of competent authority under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - Rejection of application for provisional release on ground that goods appeared to be misdeclared and investigation was pending - the petitioner’s request for provisional release was considered with reference to CBIC Circular No.35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017 - Whether provisional release can be denied merely on ground of pendency of investigation and alleged misdeclaration when Section 110A provides for provisional release - HELD - Executive instructions may supplement statute but canno... [Read more]

Customs - Provisional release of imported goods - Discretionary power of competent authority under Section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - Rejection of application for provisional release on ground that goods appeared to be misdeclared and investigation was pending - the petitioner’s request for provisional release was considered with reference to CBIC Circular No.35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017 - Whether provisional release can be denied merely on ground of pendency of investigation and alleged misdeclaration when Section 110A provides for provisional release - HELD - Executive instructions may supplement statute but cannot override or replace statutory provision. CBIC Circular cannot take away right of provisional release provided under Section 110A. Provisional release has to be considered under Section 110A while ensuring interest of revenue is protected. Pendency of investigation, by itself, cannot be ground to deny provisional release when statute specifically provides for such release. Questions of classification of goods, misdeclaration, violation of import policy, and differential customs duty can be decided in adjudication proceedings; such pendency does not justify continued detention. Interest of revenue can be adequately protected by imposing appropriate conditions for provisional release such as payment of differential duty and personal bond. Impugned order rejecting provisional release is set aside. Competent authority directed to release subject goods provisionally on listed conditions - The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Refund of IGST on Exports - Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 – Applicability of Rule 96(10) inserted by Notification No.54/2018-CT dated 09.10.2018 - Petitioner challenged the show cause notice issued under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which placed restrictions on claiming refund of IGST paid on exports of goods. The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice and for declaration that Rule 96(10) is ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act - HELD - The issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by judgment in the case of M/s Hikal Limited Vs Union of India. In view of striking ... [Read more]

GST - Refund of IGST on Exports - Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 – Applicability of Rule 96(10) inserted by Notification No.54/2018-CT dated 09.10.2018 - Petitioner challenged the show cause notice issued under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 which placed restrictions on claiming refund of IGST paid on exports of goods. The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice and for declaration that Rule 96(10) is ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act - HELD - The issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by judgment in the case of M/s Hikal Limited Vs Union of India. In view of striking down of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Act coupled with the fact that respondents themselves have omitted Rule 96(10) vide Notification dated 08.10.2024, the impugned Show Cause Notice and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed – The writ petition is allowed [Read less]

GST - Consolidated Show Cause Notice - Jurisdiction of proper officer to issue consolidated demand for multiple financial years - Petitioner received consolidated Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 17.04.2024 for four financial years issued by Deputy Director DGGI - Petitioner contended notice was barred by limitation and should have been issued only under Section 73 and not Section 74 - Petitioner approached High Court almost one year after issuance of notice and an interim order was passed staying coercive action - Whether proper officer has jurisdiction to issue consolidated Show Cause Notice for multiple financial year... [Read more]

GST - Consolidated Show Cause Notice - Jurisdiction of proper officer to issue consolidated demand for multiple financial years - Petitioner received consolidated Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 17.04.2024 for four financial years issued by Deputy Director DGGI - Petitioner contended notice was barred by limitation and should have been issued only under Section 73 and not Section 74 - Petitioner approached High Court almost one year after issuance of notice and an interim order was passed staying coercive action - Whether proper officer has jurisdiction to issue consolidated Show Cause Notice for multiple financial years - HELD - Issue already decided by Coordinate Bench in case of M/s Tata Projects Limited holding that it is permissible to issue consolidated Show Cause Notice for different financial years under Section 73 or 74. No bar in passing consolidated order for different financial years together under Section 73 or Section 74. Proper officer was within jurisdiction conferred by law to issue consolidated SCN – The aspect as to whether case is made out under Section 73 or 74 depends on factual adjudication which cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution - For deciding whether fraud collusion or willful misstatement present factual adjudication required which can be addressed before forums available under Act - Petitioner granted 30 days to submit reply raising all contentions except jurisdictional aspect settled by coordinate bench – The petition is disposed of [Read less]

GST - Appellate remedy - Petitioner claimed it could not contest the assessment proceedings properly due to difficulties arising from fraudulent activities of a partner, health issues of another partner and having entrusted the entire matter to its lawyer - Petitioner seeks writ petition relief for setting aside the orders and for giving an opportunity to challenge the orders - HELD – The statutory assessment orders issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act can be challenged only through the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act and not through writ petition. The mere execution of a vakalathnama in f... [Read more]

GST - Appellate remedy - Petitioner claimed it could not contest the assessment proceedings properly due to difficulties arising from fraudulent activities of a partner, health issues of another partner and having entrusted the entire matter to its lawyer - Petitioner seeks writ petition relief for setting aside the orders and for giving an opportunity to challenge the orders - HELD – The statutory assessment orders issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act can be challenged only through the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act and not through writ petition. The mere execution of a vakalathnama in favour of a lawyer and entrusting the entire matter to the lawyer does not absolve the petitioner of the responsibility to track and monitor the proceedings. It is the petitioner's responsibility to track notices uploaded in the web portal and to intimate the lawyer about the hearing dates so that the lawyer can conduct the hearing and contest the matter. The responsibility for tracking notices and communicating with the lawyer lies with the petitioner and not with the lawyer. Once notices are uploaded in the web portal accessible to the petitioner, such uploading constitutes valid and sufficient service under the CGST Act. The petitioner failed to intimate the lawyer about the hearing dates or about the uploaded order, which was the petitioner's obligation. In such circumstances, there are no justifiable reasons to entertain the writ petition and the petitioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the statutory appellate remedy by filing a writ petition – The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Job Work Services on Handicraft Items - GST Rate and Applicable Conditions - Applicability of Concessional Rate to Registered Principal - Applicant sought Advance Ruling on GST rate applicable on job work services for handicraft items made of brass and wood - Applicant proposed to purchase raw brass under HSN 7403 and send to job workers for processing resulting in brass statues under HSN 8306 and also to avail job work services for wooden handicraft items under HSN 4420 - Whether concessional rate of 5% under Entry No. 26 of Notification 11/2017 applies to such services - HELD - Services by way of ... [Read more]

GST – Rajasthan AAR - Job Work Services on Handicraft Items - GST Rate and Applicable Conditions - Applicability of Concessional Rate to Registered Principal - Applicant sought Advance Ruling on GST rate applicable on job work services for handicraft items made of brass and wood - Applicant proposed to purchase raw brass under HSN 7403 and send to job workers for processing resulting in brass statues under HSN 8306 and also to avail job work services for wooden handicraft items under HSN 4420 - Whether concessional rate of 5% under Entry No. 26 of Notification 11/2017 applies to such services - HELD - Services by way of job work in relation to handicraft items of brass consisting of raw brass HSN 7403 processed into brass statues HSN 8306 attract GST at 5% under item ii(j) of Sl. No. 26 of Notification 11/2017 as substituted from 22.09.2025. Same rate of 5 percent applies to job work services in relation to handicraft items of wood covered under HSN 4420 being carved wood products - The concessional rate available only if applicant is registered person at relevant time so that process answers definition of job work under Section 2(68) and goods qualify as handicraft goods meaning products made by craftsmen predominantly by hand as per Notification 32/2017. Where conditions not fulfilled services attract GST at 18 percent under residual item - During period of non-registration any treatment or process would not amount to job work and concessional rate not available – Ordered accordingly - Classification of Resin Statues and Vases - Tariff Classification - Applicability of Heading 9703 for Original Sculptures - Applicant sought classification of resin statues and vases proposed to be dealt in business under HSN 9703 00 90 originally sculptures and statuary - Whether mass produced resin articles qualify for classification under Heading 9703 - HELD - Heading 9703 covers original sculptures and statuary in any material but Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 97 excludes mass produced reproductions and works of conventional craftsmanship of commercial character. Resin statues and vases by their nature are articles produced commercially through casting or moulding in multiples and cannot be regarded as original sculptures or statuary. Resin is artificial synthetic plastic material covered under Chapter 39 and articles of plastics not elsewhere specified fall under heading 3926. Statuettes and other ornamental articles of plastics are specifically covered under sub-heading 3926 40. Resin statues merit classification under tariff item 3926 40 29 statuettes other and ornamental resin vases under tariff item 3926 40 99 other ornamental articles - Classification under HSN 9703 00 90 rejected and correct classification determined as 3926 40 29 for resin statues and 3926 40 99 for resin vases - Exemption Status of Deities Made of Marble and Wood - Chapter Level Classification - Applicant sought clarification on GST exemption for deities made of marble and wood and correct eight digit HSN classification - Whether deities made of marble classifiable under Chapter 68 and wooden deities under Chapter 44 are exempt under S. No. 124 of Notification 10/2025 dated 17.09.2025 - HELD - Deities made of marble and wood are covered under exemption entry S. No. 124 of Notification 10/2025 which exempts goods falling under Chapter 44 or 68 answering description deities made of stone marble or wood from GST. The exemption available with effect from 22.09.2025 and only where article supplied is in fact a deity meaning idol or murti of god or goddess and decorative statues not qualifying as deities would not get benefit - Exemption does not depend upon particular sub classification at eight digit level as entry in column 2 is at Chapter level. Deities made of marble being worked monumental stone of marble fall under heading 6802 specifically under tariff item 6802 91 00 other marble travertine and alabaster. Deities made of wood being statuettes and ornaments of wood fall under heading 4420 specifically under tariff item 4420 11 00 where made of tropical wood or tariff item 4420 19 00 where made of any other wood depending on species. [Read less]

GST - Limitation Period for Appeal - Exclusion of Time in Rectification Proceedings under Section 14 of Limitation Act - Scope of Rectification Petitions under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner case that time spent in prosecuting a rectification petition is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before appellate authorities under Section 107 of the CGST Act - HELD - The Limitation Act per se does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies, b... [Read more]

GST - Limitation Period for Appeal - Exclusion of Time in Rectification Proceedings under Section 14 of Limitation Act - Scope of Rectification Petitions under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner case that time spent in prosecuting a rectification petition is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before appellate authorities under Section 107 of the CGST Act - HELD - The Limitation Act per se does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies, but the principles underlying the Limitation Act, particularly Section 14, do apply to proceedings before GST appellate authorities. GST enactments neither expressly nor implicitly exclude the application of principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act - The term “other cause of a like nature” is not confined to causes falling within the same genus as defects of jurisdiction and extends to rejection of rectification petitions on the ground that no error is apparent. Time spent in pursuing a rectification petition in good faith and with due diligence can be excluded from the limitation period prescribed under Section 107, provided the petitioner satisfies all requisite conditions including that both proceedings relate to the same matter and were pursued between the same parties with due diligence and in good faith. Good faith requirement entails a broad examination of the rectification petition to determine whether there was some basis for lodging it - Rejection of a rectification petition on merits is not a full-fledged examination but qualifies as a bona fide mistaken remedy falling within the scope of other cause of a like nature, warranting exclusion of time. The extent of exclusion includes the entire time consumed from filing of rectification petition to date of rejection thereof. For purposes of evaluating exclusion under Section 14, it is necessary to examine each individual case to determine whether the petitioner has established entitlement to exclusion – In view of the facts of individual cases, seven writ petitions are allowed with direction to appellate authorities to receive and dispose appeals on merits; time exclusion granted in matters with rectification grounds meeting criteria of good faith and due diligence; certain cases remanded with specified remittance conditions; remaining cases dismissed – Ordered accordingly [Read less]

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Eligibility to input tax credit on purchase of Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) - Appellant purchased Duty Entitlement Passbook and imported plastic granules utilising DEPB and availed Input Tax Credit under Section 19 of TNVAT Act on tax borne while purchasing DEPB, claiming plastic granules were partly used in manufacturing plastic products and partly sold as granules for manufacturing other plastic products - Whether DEPB licenses are eligible for Input Tax Credit under Section 19(1) of TNVAT Act despite being goods as defined under Section 2(21) of the TNVAT Act - HELD – The DEPB licenses t... [Read more]

Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 - Eligibility to input tax credit on purchase of Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) - Appellant purchased Duty Entitlement Passbook and imported plastic granules utilising DEPB and availed Input Tax Credit under Section 19 of TNVAT Act on tax borne while purchasing DEPB, claiming plastic granules were partly used in manufacturing plastic products and partly sold as granules for manufacturing other plastic products - Whether DEPB licenses are eligible for Input Tax Credit under Section 19(1) of TNVAT Act despite being goods as defined under Section 2(21) of the TNVAT Act - HELD – The DEPB licenses though constitute goods within purview of Section 2(21) of TNVAT Act, 2006 are not entitled to Input Tax Credit because they are not specified in First Schedule and do not fall under any category enumerated in Section 19(2), (3) or (4). DEPB licenses are distinct and different from goods that can be imported on strength of those licenses and confer only a right to import goods at concession. Only goods actually imported on strength of DEPB licenses may fall within Section 19(1) provided tax is payable or paid under TNVAT Act on those goods and those goods are listed in First Schedule - The Court relied upon the binding precedent of Division Bench decision in M/s. Sha Kantilal Jayantilal case which had appropriately decided scope of Input Tax Credit under Section 19 of TNVAT Act qua DEPB after considering intent of TNVAT Act - the appellant is not entitled for Input Tax Credit qua Duty Entitlement Passbook – The writ appeals are dismissed [Read less]

GST – Levy of GST on Plan Sanctioning – Authority demanded GST on fees for obtaining plan sanction – Whether GST is chargeable on sanctioning of building plan – HELD - There is no supply of goods or provision of service in sanctioning the building plan and hence no element of quid pro quo exists. Authority is not entitled to collect GST on plan sanctioning as there is no supply of goods or provision of services involved in the process – Demand for GST is set aside – Ordered accordingly

GST - Maintainability of writ petition challenging order rejecting delayed appeal - Statutory limitation period for filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act 2017 - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution - Whether High Court can entertain writ petition filed beyond statutory period of limitation for filing appeal and whether Court can condone delay beyond period specified in Section 107(4) of BGST Act 2017 - HELD - When statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, writ petition should not be entertained ignoring said statutory dispensation. Section 107 of BGST Act 2017 mandates... [Read more]

GST - Maintainability of writ petition challenging order rejecting delayed appeal - Statutory limitation period for filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST/BGST Act 2017 - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution - Whether High Court can entertain writ petition filed beyond statutory period of limitation for filing appeal and whether Court can condone delay beyond period specified in Section 107(4) of BGST Act 2017 - HELD - When statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance, writ petition should not be entertained ignoring said statutory dispensation. Section 107 of BGST Act 2017 mandates appeal to be filed within 3 months from date of communication of order and Appellate Authority has power to condone delay only upto one month further. Legislature in its wisdom has prescribed time-bound compliance of provisions and condonation of delay beyond statutory period will frustrate legislative intent and render legislative scheme otiose - Powers of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution are wide but not wider than principles of statutory interpretation and legislative intent. High Court cannot entertain writ petition filed beyond statutory period of appeal in ordinary circumstances, such entertainment being limited to exceptional circumstances involving breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or challenge to vires of statute or delegated legislation. Writ petition filed after gross delay of almost three years from impugned order is not entertainable – The writ petition is dismissed [Read less]