GST LAW
M/s. Sonam Berlia Vs State of Odisha and others; W.P.(C) No.157 of 2020: –
In the instant matter, the Petitioner's business premises were impounded by the Director-General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Bhubaneswar Zonal Unit. During the course of search records, documents were seized, and summons were issued to the Petitioner. Concurrently, the Additional CT and GST Officer (State Authority) had issued the SCN alleging that the tax dues have not been paid or short paid or refund has been released erroneously or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilized as provided u/s 74 of the OGST Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa quashed the SCN issued by the State Authorities holding that simultaneous investigation cannot be initiated by Central and State GST Authorities and directed that, till the conclusion of the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner by the DGGSTI, no coercive action should be taken against the Petitioner by the State GST authority: High Court of Orissa.
M/s. Shree Gobind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others; W.P.(C) No. 16242 of 2021: –
In the instant matter, the Petitioner has assailed the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, as per which ITC can be availed by buyer/recipient of goods or services subject to the condition that the supplier of goods or services has discharged its output tax liability, either by utilizing the ITC or by cash. The Petitioner has contended that the ITC will be denied only where purchases are proved to be collusive and in nature of sham (fake) transactions. Further, denying ITC to a buyer of goods or services for default of the supplier of goods or services will be tantamount to shifting the incidence of tax from the supplier to the buyer, over whom it has no control whatsoever, is arbitrary and irrational & therefore violative of the Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa issued the notices to the Government on a plea challenging the denial of ITC to the buyer of goods or services for default of the supplier: High Court of Orissa.
M/s. Tvl. Mehar Tex Vs Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise; W.P.(MD)Nos. 22996, 22999 & 23001 of 2019: –
The Petitioner is an exporter and has made zero-rated sales during the months of October 2017, November 2017, and February 2018. Accordingly, Petitioner stated that he is entitled to refund claims of SGST for the October month, CGST for the November month, and CGST, SGST, and IGST for the February month. However, when the refund applications were uploaded, the entire claim got consolidated and figured under the head SGST alone. The issue raised in the instant matter was that whether the Petitioner's claim for refund of CGST and IGST can be denied on the ground that the entire refund amount got consolidated under one head i.e., SGST, due to the technical error and new system of software in GSTN. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras held that, if the assessee was otherwise eligible to refund, the refund claim should not be denied on the ground of technical glitches and error occurred due to auto-population in GSTN software: High Court of Madras
M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs Asst. Commissioner St And 4 Others; W.P. No. 9688 of 2020: –
In the instant matter, the petitioner made an inter-state supply of goods through a tax invoice and generated an e-way bill. The respondent authority detained the goods due to the expiry of the e-way bill and levy the tax and penalty. The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana held that the mere non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill does not amount to tax evasion. The court further ruled that there has been a blatant abuse of power by the 2nd respondent in collecting from the petitioner tax and penalty both under the CGST and SGST and compelling the petitioner to pay Rs. 69,000/- by such conduct. Further, the respondent authority was directed to refund the said amount collected from petitioner within four weeks with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (when the amount was collected from petitioner till the date of repayment). The respondent was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner in four weeks: Telangana High Court.
CUSTOMS LAW
M/s. Baby Marine Seafood Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C, Cochin; Customs Appeal No. 20401 of 2020: –
In the instant matter, the appellant is engaged in the business of import of seafood for the purpose of trade and export. The appellant has imported 1000 packages of seafood that are compliant with the Indian food safety standards and submitted the test certificate which would certify, the goods imported were compliant with FSSAI. After import of the consignment, the products in question were subjected to laboratory analysis wherein the same failed in two out of eighteen quality and safety parameters. Since the imported products were not certified by FSSAI the appellants requested permission to re-export the imported goods to the country of export. Thereafter, the original authority vide Order-in-Original confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2 Lakhs u/s 125 of the Customs Act and penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. The appellant paid the redemption fine and penalty and re-exported the goods. Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the said appeal. The Hon'ble CESTAT while deleting the redemption fine and penalty reiterated that the confiscation is permissible only when the goods imported are contrary to the prohibition under Customs Act, 1962. Further, there is no mala fide on the part of the appellant-importer nor a case is made out against them that they have ventured to import prohibited/restricted goods in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act: CESTAT Bangalore.
NEWSFLASH
- GST Council sees a little revenue impact in further easing tax compliance.1
- Govt ready for another cut in import duty on steel to tame prices.2
- The onus placed on importers to curb Chinese goods coming via FTA Countries.3
- E-way bill integrated with FasTag, RFID; GST authorities to get real-time data of commercial vehicles.4
- COOIT urges Govt to ban the import of refined edible oils from Nepal, Bangladesh.5
- EXIM work at Chennai port takes a hit as 2-wheelers not issued e-passes.6
- Trade with India jumped by over 70% in 2021, shows China's customs data.7
- RoDTEP: Rates for export promotion scheme likely to be announced in 10 days, says FIEO.8
Footnotes
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
