Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax have been assigned functions as the ‘proper officer’: Hon’ble Telangana High Court
In M/s. Ambika Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., W.P. No. 28893 of 2021, the basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is the sine qua non that the Additional Commissioner who issued the show cause notice under Section 74(1) of CGST Act, has to be perforce a ‘proper officer’. Hon’ble HC held that in terms of Board’s Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018, more particularly in paragraph No. 4 thereof, it is clarified that all officers up to the rank of Additional / Joint Commissioner of Central Tax are assigned as the ‘proper officer’ for issuance of show-cause notices and orders under sub-section (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10) of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, corresponding to Section 3 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. As per the table appended thereto, Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax have been assigned functions as the ‘proper officer’, and the monetary limit is above ₹ 2,00,00,000.00 (Rupees two crores). Admittedly the monitory limit in the present case is above ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores). In such circumstances, and having regard to the above, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Additional Commissioner is not the ‘proper officer’ competent to issue the impugned show cause notice.
Bail granted in the case of alleged forged documents to avail ITC: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In Varun Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 49404 of 2021, the counsel for the applicant contended that there is nothing in the record to show whether the input credit actually benefited the applicant. There is no evidence that the applicant was benefited from the aforesaid input credit tax. Hon’ble HC held that the Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation. And the Court sees merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Refund gone in the wrong account should be refunded back to the petitioner: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In M/s Hardik Textiles v. State of Gujarat, R/SCA No. 7468 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that it is not in dispute that due to the mistake of the consultant engaged by the petitioner, the amount has been deposited in the wrong account. The amount which had gone to the wrong account of M/s. Meet Textiles had been refunded on 09.12.2020 by way of DRC-03 under Section 73(5) by way of voluntary payment. Let the refund amount be accordingly credited in the bank account of the petitioner, as it is not the fault of the petitioner to be deprived of this amount of refund. Let the same be done as the application has already been made. No further application will be necessary at a manual level. The officer concerned shall apply the mind and the deposit shall go directly in the account of the petitioner. The process is to be completed in four (4) weeks period, lest it shall fetch interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the second application.
Allow the presence of the applicant’s advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the course of interrogation: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Krushansinh Pratap Sinh Zala v. State of Gujarat, R/SCA No. 20149 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the applicant’s advocate is permitted to be present during the interrogation of the applicant, but he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible distance and the concerned advocate must be prepared to be present whenever the applicant is called upon to attend the interrogation.
The amount paid by the petitioner (as claimed under coercion) shall be treated as an amount paid by the petitioner “under protest” and will be subject to the final appropriation in the proceedings: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In M/s Aditya Energy Holdings v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI, Chennai, W.P. No. 9654 of 2021 And W.M.P. No. 10223 of 2021, it is the case of the petitioner that the amount paid by the petitioner when the officers of the respondent visited the premises of the petitioner was paid under coercion and therefore, the amount should be paid back to the petitioner. Hon’ble HC held that the amount paid by the petitioner shall be treated as an amount paid by the petitioner “under protest” and will be subject to the final appropriation in the proceedings to be initiated under Sections 73 / 74 of CGST Act, 2017.
Personal hearing u/s. 75(4) to be granted even if the petitioner has not asked for it: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In M/s. Prime Alloys v. The State Tax Officer (Inspection) and Ors., W.P. Nos. 26250 And 26252 of 2021 And W.M.P. Nos. 27700 & 27701 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that though specifically, the petitioner has not requested for a personal hearing in the aforesaid reply/representation, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned orders by confirming the demand proposed in the notice. As adverse orders would have been passed against the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to issue a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner. Though in this case, admittedly the petitioner had filed the reply belatedly on 16.08.2021 having considered the reply and having decided to pass an adverse order, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to call upon the petitioner for a personal hearing. Order quashed – remanded back.
HAPPY NEW YEAR
The author may be reached at email@example.com*