Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
It cannot be said that the petitioner had any intent to evade the tax or the mismatch as the quantity is very low, and that shall not entail proceedings under Section 129 of the Act: Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court
In M/s Raghav Metals v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 25057 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that from a perusal of the e-Invoice it is clear that the quantity of consigned goods is shown to be 10,430.7 kilograms. An amount of ₹ 12,76,717.68/- has been paid as tax on the consignment whereas as per the State, it was 10,520 kilograms. The said difference in weight is less than 1%. As per State, the alleged evasion shall not be more than ₹ 11,000/-. Keeping in view these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any intent to evade the tax or the mismatch in the quantities is of such nature which shall entail proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. A person, who has already paid a tax of ₹ 12,76,717.68/- on a consignment cannot be said to have an intent to evade tax amounting to ₹ 11,000/-. At this stage, the petitioner is ready to pay even the tax and penalty imposed by the State-Authorities which comes to be around ₹ 22,000/-. In light of the fair stand taken by the petitioner and the fact that the mismatch cannot be termed as a contravention of the provisions of the Act, we deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition. Proceedings against the petitioner under Section 129 of the Act are hereby quashed.
The show-cause notice in the E-way Bill issue should have been faced by the petitioner: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In M/s Yash Pigment LLP. v. The Dy. State Tax Officer, Static Roving Squad Intelligence-I, AC(ST) and Ors., Writ Petition No. 3920 of 2022 And W.M.P. No. 4070 of 2022, the Hon’ble HC held that a show-cause notice was issued and hence it should be faced by the petitioner by giving a reply and to appear before the Revenue and whatever defence he wants to take, he can take before the concerned authority of the Tax Department. Without taking the said route in replying to the show cause notice and cooperating with the Revenue for completing the adjudication proceedings, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the very show cause notice itself along with the detention order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to or impressed with the grounds raised by the petitioner to have a successful challenge against the impugned proceedings.
One more opportunity is given to remove the defect in light of interest of justice and Covid-19 pandemic: Hon’ble Kerala High Court
In Balachandran Iyyadurai v Commissioner (Appeals)-V, WP(C) No. 30146 of 2021, the Hon’ble HC held that though the petitioner is bound to cure the defects, within the time stipulated in the notice issued by the respondent, in the present circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner to rectify the defects. Interests of justice demand that a liberal approach is adopted, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic has affected every person, in every walk of life. The limitation periods had even been extended by the Supreme Court due to the unprecedented situation prevailing so that the litigants are not prevented from having access to justice, on account of prescribed periods of limitation. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside.
Department Appeal against Bundl Technology Pvt. Ltd. dismissed: Hon’ble Karnataka High Court
In UOI and Ors. v. Bundl Technology Pvt. Ltd., W.A. No. 1274 OF 2021 (T-RES) in W.P. No. 4467 of 2021 (T-RES), the appeal filed by the department on all issues were answered against them, issues include interalia (i) collection of tax during the investigation – the amount was voluntarily paid during the investigation by the company under section 74(5) of CGST Act or not? (ii) amount was recovered from the company during an investigation under the coercion and threat of arrest or not? matter conducted in a high handled and arbitrary manner during the course of the investigation or not? (iv) petition filed by company suffers from delay or laches or not?. Bundl Technology before Hon’ble Single Judge available at Newsletter – Vol. 1, Issue 16.
Restoration of cancellation of registration where cancellation was done in Sep. 2019:
In M/s Tamilagam Steel Trading v. AC (Circle), Salem, W.P. No. 5846 of 2022 And W.M.P. Nos. 5937 & 5940 of 2022: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In TVL. Alamelu Contracts v. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax and Ors., W.P(MD). No. 4264 of 2022: Hon’ble Madras High Court
Transitional Credit, Allowed:
In M/s Avatar Petro Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. GST Council and Ors., W.P(MD). No. 7093 of 2020: Hon’ble Madras High Courts
The author may be reached at email@example.com*