Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update No 186 on validity of adjudication on basis of summary SCN

GST update No 186 on validity of adjudication on basis of summary SCN
It is well settled principle that the show cause notice lays the foundation for initiation of any proceedings against taxpayer and therefore, needs to be communicated effectively to the concerned taxpayers. Time and again various Courts had upheld the ideology that the “Notice is the first limb of the adjudication proceedings and therefore, must be precise and unambiguous”, failure of which will result into violation of principles of natural justice. The revenue authorities are reluctant to make a note of this principle thereby leading to knocking the doors of the courts repeatedly. Recently, the validity of the adjudication order was challenged before hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/S GODAVARI COMMODITIES LTD. V/S STATE OF JHARKHAND on the grounds that summary SCN was issued and no personal hearing was granted. The decision imparted is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner is engaged in trading of coal and purchases the same from various Governmental entities. The petitioner was directed to produce documents pertaining to the movement of goods relating to sale and purchase of the coal but they were unable to do so. Consequently, the petitioner was issued an intimation in DRC-01A dated 29.01.2020 directing the petitioner to make payment of tax, interest and penalty. Subsequently, a “summary of show cause notice” was issued on 14.03.2020 and a later on “summary of the Order” in Form-GST DRC-07 dated 11.09.2020 was also issued. An order sheet was issued on 14.03.2020 and thereafter straightaway order sheet was next issued on 14.08.2020. The petitioner failed to make the payment. An adjudication order was dated 11.09.2020 instead of 13.08.2020 which was communicated to the petitioner for the first time. It was further noticed that no SCN or “Summary SCN” was issued to the petitioner. Hence, the entire adjudication proceedings were being CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??4 questioned on the grounds that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the petitioner for defending their case thereby leading to violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that since no SCN was issued, it results into violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on the following Judicial Pronouncements: • M/s. Prime Alloys V/s. The State Tax Officer being W.P. Nos. 26250 & 26252 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 27700 & 27701 of 2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. • Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Akanksha Distributers Private Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai being W.P. Nos. 22507 & 22512 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 23732 of 2021. • Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Akanksha Distributers Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai being W.P. Nos. 22507 & 22512 of 2021 and W.M.P. Nos. 23732 of 2021. • M/s. OCEAN SPARKLE LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) reported in 2021- VIL-356-AP • Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of KorrapathiJanardhana Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2021) 35 TAXLOC.COM 100 (AP). • Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs. Union of India by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 2021- VIL-120-GUJ. • Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of B.M. Patel and Company Vs. State Tax Officer being Writ Petition No. 13652 of 2020 and WMP No. 16973 of 2020 • In the case of Enprocom Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax reported in 2020- VIL-25-GUJ • In the case of Enprocom Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax reported in 2020- VIL-25-GUJ The Counsel of the department argued that the investigation was initiated against the petitioner wherein the petitioner was directed to issue relevant documents related to movement of goods. However, the petitioner failed to furnish the same. Therefore, a summary SCN was issued. However, since it was also not replied by petitioner, adjudicating authorities CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 passed adjudication order dated 13.08.2020. But there was no recording of the same in the order sheet. The Court analysed that the issue is related to the fact that the initiation of adjudication proceedings without issuance of the SCN is void ab initio and the order passed thereon is non-est in the eyes of law. Reliance was placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/S NKAS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS/. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS, reported in 2021-VIL-732-Jhr. The Court opined that the said the present petition is required to be dealt in accordance with the Judgement since the procedure prescribed under GST Act is not followed by GST authorities. It was held that the manner in which the adjudication order is passed by the authorities demonstrates serious lacuna existing in the law. It was stated that the Adjudication order was passed in gross violation of the provisions of the Law and without issuance of SCN. It was held that on 14.03.2020, DRC—01 was issued without specifying any date of hearing and thereafter, on 13.08.2020, Adjudication Order was passed straightaway which showcases that the provisions of Law and principles of natural justice were being violated. Further, there was no satisfactory explanation provided for the order mentioning the date as 11.09.2020 instead of 13.08.2020. It was directed by the Court to the revenue authorities to follow proper procedures and guidelines regarding the manner of issuance of show cause notices and proceedings thereon since a huge revenue of state is also involved in the said matters. Directions were given to quash the summary orders since the summary SCN was not having ingredients of proper SCN and entire proceedings deserves to be set aside. The above decision is yet another epitome of the fact that improper issuance of Show Cause Notice can lead to quashing the entire proceedings. Recently, Department of Trade and Taxes (Delhi) has also issued Indicative Guidelines for Issuance of Show Cause Notices F. No. 1(2)/DTT/L&J/Misc./2019-20/77-79 dated 01.02.2022 which are to be strictly adhered to by the lower authorities to avoid contravention of provisions of Law. It is observed that the authorities are following wrong practices and thereby initiate proceedings on vague subject lines. Looking at the present scenario, a strict action to streamline proper adjudication process is anticipated CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6 from the Government’s end at the earliest possible.
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