Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No. 108 ON RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE BEFORE SCN REPLY

GST UPDATE No. 108 ON RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE BEFORE SCN REPLY
It is a settled principle of law that assessee has the right to test the veracity of evidences used against him including the statements relied upon in the show cause notice. However, what is important is the time of exercising the said right by the assessee. The assessee has right to cross-examine the witness or persons whose statements are being used in the proceedings initiated against him. However, the question arises is whether the assessee can seek cross examination of the persons even prior to filing reply to the show cause notice issued to them. This issue was recently examined in detail by the hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PRAKASH RAGHUNATH AUTADE VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA &B ANOTHER [WRIT PETITION NO. 5753 OF 2021]. The analysis of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner contended that the right to cross examine should be provided beforehand and relied upon the decision given by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of G-TECH INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA reported as [2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P & H)] wherein the provisions of section 9D were analyzed and the request of cross examination was accepted. The counsel for the department submitted that the request for crossexamination of the witness was premature as the petitioner had not even filed reply to the show cause notice. It was held that the request for crossexamination of the witness would be examined after the petitioner files his reply, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed on the decision given by the hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of KANPUR CIGARETTES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2016 (344) E.L.T. 82 (ALL.)] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I VERSUS PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD. [2010 (260) E.L.T. 514 (ALL.)]. The hon’ble Bombay High Court conceded with the view taken by Allahabad High Court as cited by revenue department wherein it was held that opportunity for cross examination can be given only after reply has been filed and the adjudicating authority seeks to place reliance on the statements as evidence. It was held that show cause notice is only a step in the process of adjudication and there is no adjudication at the stage of show cause notice. The show cause notice itself is not an order of assessment and so the assessee being entitled to cross examination, even before adjudication has commenced would not arise. It was held that the exercise of cross examination commences only after the proceedings for adjudication have commenced and not available before the reply to show cause notice has been filed. Therefore, petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice and for adjudication of the case as per procedure prescribed in law after providing reasonable opportunity to cross examine witness if his statement is found as relevant and is relied upon during the course of adjudication. There are numerous favourable decisions rendered by the courts regarding allowing the assessee to cross examine the witnesses but it has been largely opined by various High Courts that this exercise of cross examination is available only after submission of reply and after adjudication of the show cause notice when the statements are considered as significantly relevant by the adjudicating authority. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of MULCHAND M. ZAVERI V/S UNION OF INDIA wherein it was held that stand of petitioner to allow cross examination before filing reply of Show Cause Notice, cannot be accepted. Thus, it is crystal clear that the assessee cannot demand his right of cross examination before replying to show cause notice. He can demand his right while replying to the said notice or after adjudication of the case because every statement recorded during the preliminary stage of investigation may not be found to be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com