Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback for the period 20 October to 26 October 2024.
Table of Contents
Supreme Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Canon India Judgment | DRI Officers Are ‘Proper Officer’ To Issue Show-Cause Notices Under Customs Act: Supreme Court Allows Customs Dept. Review Petition
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs Vs. M/S Canon India Private Limited
The Supreme Court has allowed the customs department review petition in the case of Commissioner Of Customs Vs. M/S Canon India Private Limited and held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officers are A ‘Proper Officer’ to issue show-cause notices under Customs Act.
The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that DRI officers are “proper officers” to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Delhi High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Appeals Preferred After 1 April 2005 Can’t Be Subject To Rigours Of Procedure Under Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court Admits Appeal
Case Title: M/S Calcom Electronics Ltd. Vs The Commissioner, VAT
The Delhi High Court has admitted the appeals preferred under Section 81 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act and held that appeals preferred after 1 April 2005 cannot be subject to rigours of procedure under Sales Tax Act.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the obligation to petition the Tribunal for drawal of a statement of case cannot be construed as a liability accrued or incurred. It was merely a matter of procedure and which did not impair the right of appeal. This more so since a referral by the Tribunal to draw a statement of case was subject to review and correction.
Bombay High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Section 26(5)(a) Of MVAT Act Prevails Over Rule 36(2): Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. National Building Construction, Nagpur and anr. -Vs.- State of Maharashtra and others
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has held that Section 26(5)(a) of MVAT Act (Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act) prevails over Rule 36(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules.
The bench of Justice Avinash G. Gharote and Justice M.S. Jawalkar has observed that between a statute and a Rule, it is the Statute, which has primacy and therefore, prevails upon the Rule. In that view of the matter, while deciding the appeal, the Authority will have to be governed by the mandate of Section 26(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act and decide the appeal in the manner as indicated therein, the Rule being subservient to it.
Karnataka High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Electronic Credit Ledger Can’t Be Blocked Citing Enforcement Authority’s Reports: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S Prince Steel Versus State Of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court has held that electronic credit ledger cannot be blocked citing enforcement authority’s reports.
The bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has observed that no pre-decisional hearing was provided/granted by the assessee before passing the order, coupled with the fact that the order invoking Section 86A of the CGST Rules by blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe except by placing reliance upon the reports of Enforcement authority which is impermissible in law.
Kerala High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
30 November Time Limit For Claiming ITC Applies Retrospectively From 1 July 2017: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S. Holy Cross Hospital Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that 30 November is a time limit for claiming GST ITC applies retrospectively from 1 July 2017.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that the time limit for furnishing the return for the month of September is to be treated as 30th November in each financial year with effect from 01.07.2017, in respect of the petitioners who had filed their returns for the month of September on or before 30th November, and their claim for ITC should be processed, if they are otherwise eligible for ITC.
Punjab & Haryana High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Accused Involved In Raising Fake Invoices, Wrongfully Claiming GST ITC
Case Title: Anupam Singla Versus State Of Haryana
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted the bail to accused involved in raising fake invoices and wrongfully claiming GST ITC.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil has observed that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3 years, 2 months and 16 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Telangana High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Petition Challenging Tariff Notifications Imposing Fixed Rate Of Tariff On Imports Of Gold Findings: Telangana High Court Stays Custom Duty Demand
Case Title: M/s. SR Jewellery House Versus Union of India
The Telangana High Court has stayed the demand in the petition challenging tariff notifications imposing fixed rate of tariff on imports of gold findings.
The bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has granted a stay on demand raised for alleged non-payment of Customs Duties as per Tariff Notifications.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court – Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback
Excise Dept. Failed To Decide Refund Claim Under Section 11-B Before Taking Action: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Quashes SCN
Case Title: M/S Quality Zinc Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court has quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and held that the excise department failed to decide refund claim under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before taking action.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani has observed that the claim of the petitioner for the refund in terms of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ought to have been decided before taking any action as is envisaged in the show cause notice against the petitioner.
