Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Show cause notices not having adjudicated for almost 13 years, are quashed and set aside: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In Johnson and Johnson v. UOI and Ors., WP No. 301 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that there is no dispute that the Petitioner immediately on receipt of the show cause notices, as referred to above, filed its reply to all the show cause notices within time. It is not the case that adjudication of the impugned show cause notices was delayed at the behest of the Petitioner. Petitioner cannot be faulted with for non adjudication of the show cause notice for slumber of 10 to 13 years. No steps were taken by the Respondents to adjudicate the show cause notices. The Division Bench of this court in the cases referred to above have set aside the show cause notices sought to be adjudicated after 10 to 13 years.
Contentions not considered by the appellate authority; matter remanded back: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., WP No. 1697 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that it would appear that the appellate authority has not considered the judgement of this Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Mgd. Co. Ltd. (Supra). The said judgment is relied by the Petitioner to contend that in similar circumstances, show cause notice issued seeking to recover transition of EC and SHEC in the Electronic Credit Ledger based on the Amendment Act, 2018 was set aside. The said aspect has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. Additional submissions also does not appear to have been considered. The contention of the Petitioner that the order could not travel beyond the show cause notice, also does not appear to have been considered by the appellate authority. In light of the above, impugned judgment of the appellate authority is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for deciding afresh.
No higher drawback, the drawback claimed was the same as the custom component: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In Gujarat Nippon International Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., WP No. 5942 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that from the facts on record, it is evident that the Petitioner is claiming drawback of the custom component only for the goods exported by the Petitioner at the rates specified therein. The rates of drawback under column ‘A’ and ‘B’ for the product exported by the Petitioner is the same. The said fact is not disputed by the Respondents. It is only on technical ground that affixing suffix ‘A’ claim of the Petitioner is denied. The case of the Petitioner is similar to the one decided by Gujarat High Court in the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court.
The mandatory application of deeming fiction of 1/3rd of total agreement value towards land even though the actual value of land is ascertainable is clearly contrary to the provisions and scheme of the CGST Act and therefore ultra-vires the statutory provisions: Hon’ble Gujarat High Court
In Munjal Manishbhai Bhat v. UOI and Ors., R/SCA No. 1350 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that when the statutory provision requires valuation in accordance with the actual price paid and payable for the service and where such actual price is available, then tax has to be imposed on such actual value. Deeming fiction can be applied only where actual value is not ascertainable – the mandatory application of deeming fiction of 1/3rd of total agreement value towards land even though the actual value of land is ascertainable is clearly contrary to the provisions and scheme of the CGST Act and therefore ultra-vires the statutory provisions.
The period of technical glitches while filing an appeal be deemed to have remained suspended for reason of appeal forum being not made available for filing of appeal by the petitioner: Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
In M/s Brij Bihari Singh v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Lucknow and Anr., Writ Tax No. – 902 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that the statutory right of appeal is not an illusory remedy given to the assessee or a person aggrieved. It is an effective and real remedy granted within the structure of the statute to allow for redressal of genuine grievances – In face of clear evidence existing on record that such technical glitches were resolved by the GSTN authority on 17.09.2021, the period of limitation to file appeal started running from that date only. For the period 28.02.2019 to 17.09.2021, the period of limitation to file the appeal must always be deemed to have remained suspended for reason of appeal forum being not made available for filing of appeal by the petitioner, through prescribed mode.
Notice to the non-fliers of return should be issued electronically not by registered post: Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court
In Jabir Hasan v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, GST, WPMS No. 1547 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that it is not disputed that Rule 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for notice to the non-filers of returns – a notice in form GSTR – 3A shall be issued electronically to a registered person who fails to furnish return under Section 39 or Section 44 or Section 45 or Section 52. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State that in fact, no notice, as envisaged in Rule 68 of the Rules, was issued, rather a postal notice (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) was sent. It is a settled principle of law that if enactment or legislation prescribes a particular procedure to conduct business affairs, then it has to be followed. In this case, impugned order has been passed without issuing electronic notice to the petitioner but by issuing registered postal notice. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders 26.06.2021 and 28.09.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. The Authority concerned is directed to comply with Rule 68 of the aforesaid Rules and reconsider the matter of the petitioner, in accordance with law.
The author may be reached at email@example.com*