Download .pdf version, to share it with your colleagues – link here.
Constitutionality of Section 70 (Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents) upheld: Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
In M/s S.K. Mittal v. Assistant Commissioner and Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 466/2022, answering in the constitutional validity of Section 70 Hon’ble HC held that we do not find such powers are in any manner beyond the competence of legislature or opposed to any of the fundamental rights or other provisions of the Constitution of India. We may also recall that Section 14C of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act contain similar provisions authorizing the appropriate officer with the power to summon attendance of a witness for recording statement or for production of documents. The vires of the said section must be upheld. On unreasonable short time: If the summons in a particular case grants unreasonably short time which in any case is impossible for the noticee to comply with, it is always open for the aggrieved person to seek extension from the authority or to take a shelter of the court proceedings.
Section 73 or under Section 74 they stand attracted only where such credit was not only availed but also utilised for discharging the tax liability: Hon’ble Madras High Court
In M/s Aathi Hotel v. The Assistant Commissioner and Ors., W.P. No. 3474 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 3980 & 3982 of 2021, while acknowledging the wrongful availment of transitional credit by the petitioner Hon’ble HC held that further before levying penalty or interest, a proper excise was required to be made by a proper officer under Section 74(10) after ascertaining whether the credit was wrongly availed and wrongly utilised. Though under Sections 73(1) and 74(1) of the Act, proceedings can be initiated for mere wrong availing of Input Tax Credit followed by imposition of interest penalty either under Section 73 or under Section 74 they stand attracted only where such credit was not only availed but also utilised for discharging the tax liability.
Once the final Order of assessment is passed provisional attachment must cease to subsist: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Fine Exime Private Limited v. UOI & Ors., Writ Petition No. 7373 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that in the case of Radha Krishan Industries has held that, once assessment Order is passed, no proceedings of nature referred to in Sub-Section 1 of Section 83 can continue. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries applied to the facts of this case thus, once Assessment Order is passed pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice, the Order of provisional attachment cease to exist and comes to an end.
Summary order is quashed as no other order is passed by the authority: Hon’ble Bombay High Court
In M/s Ekta Supreme Corporation v. The Commissioner of State Tax and Anr., Writ Petition No. 528 of 2021, facts: There are no other Orders passed by the Respondent-State, other than Summary of Orders. Thus, the Hon’ble HC quashed and set aside the summary order as there is no reasoned order.
Registration cannot be suspended for more than thirty days and SCN is bereft of any reason or facts, hence registration restored: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In M/s. Shakti Shiva Magnets Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner & Ors., W.P. (C) 1559/2022, Hon’ble HC held that since in the present case, petitioner’s registration has been lying suspended for more than two months on the basis of a show cause notice which is bereft of any reason or fact, this Court quashes the impugned show cause notice dated 11.11.2021 and directs the respondents to restore the petitioner’s registration forthwith. Respondents are permitted to issue fresh SCN – the Commissioner, Delhi, GST, is also directed to issue a practice direction so that in future, if any show-cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is issued, the same is not bereft of any material particulars or reasons.
The impugned provisional attachment orders have ceased to have effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date the order had been passed under Section 83(1) of the Act: Hon’ble Delhi High Court
In M/s Mahavir Transmission Limited v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (HQRS) & Anr., W.P. (C) 167/2021 & C.M. No. 478/2021, Hon’ble HC held that this Court disposes of the present writ petition by observing that the impugned provisional attachment orders have ceased to have effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date the order had been passed under Section 83(1) of the Act. The Respondents are directed to de-freeze the Petitioner Company’s Bank Accounts within three workings days of uploading of the present order.
The author may be reached at abhishek@gstivy.in*