Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 198 on confiscation of goods by way of corrigendum

GST Update No 198 on confiscation of goods by way of corrigendum

A corrigendum in general parlance is a document issued to correct the errors in a document or publication which is already been issued. It is issued to alter minor clerical mistakes occurred while issuing any notice/order. However, the revenue authorities are adopting a practice of using this as a tool for correctly grave lacunae in drafting of notice/orders. Similar practice was followed by revenue authorities recently and the matter reached before the hon’ble Chennai CESTAT in the case of M/S AKR LOGISTICS INDIA PVT LTD. V/S COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS wherein it was held that an order for confiscation of goods cannot be made through corrigendum issued to the original order. The decision delivered in this respect is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.

 

Brief facts are that on receiving specific intelligence, a special team of Chennai–III Commissionerate conducted search at the Kasimedu Fishing Yard garbage area and recovered two white colour thermocol boxes with markings showing airway bill numbers. These boxes were examined and found to contain 490 numbers of Star Tortoises. Investigation revealed that the said consignment was filed vide Shipping Bill dated 5.11.2018 by declaring the goods as ‘Live Mud Crabs’. The shipping bill was filed by Customs Broker M/s. AKR Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. who is the appellant herein. Shri P. Thirumoorthy is the proprietor of the said firm. The exporters name was shown as M/s. Daily Fresh Exports and Imports, Nagapattinam and the goods were destined for Malaysia.

 

The Counsel of petitioner argued that in the show cause notice there was no proposal as regards to the confiscation of goods. The authorities issued a corrigendum after passing order in original and ordered for confiscation of goods. Consequently, the order was passed beyond the scope of show cause notice and therefore, no penalty can be imposed. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of N.B. SANJANA, ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY AND OTHERS VS. THE ELPHINSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. reported in 1978 (2) ELT J399 (SC). Furthermore, it was argued that the seizure of goods was undertaken outside the precincts of Custom Area and therefore, penalties cannot sustain. It was argued that the shipping bills pertains to Chennai VII Commissioner while the search was conducted by Chennai III Commissionerate. Therefore, show cause notice issued based on investigation of Chennai III Commissionerate has no jurisdiction.

 

The Counsel of revenue argued that the goods are liable for confiscation as per Section 113 of Customs Act and therefore, the error in order in original is rectified by issuing corrigendum in this regard. Further, it was argued that the searches conducted by Chennai III Commissionerate is legal and proper. It was argued that the shipping bill is fake and no KYC documents were furnished. Therefore, penalties should be applicable.

 

The Court held that only shipping bill was filed and no documents related to KYC were submitted. It was held on perusal of records that the prohibited goods were not exported. Further, on perusal of show cause notice as well, there was no proposal related to confiscation of goods and hence, no penalty can be levied in this respect. The authorities tried to rectify the error by issuing Corrigendum to Order in Original which, however, can be issued only in case of typographical error. It cannot be used to cover the main part of the notice and hence, not acceptable in the eyes of law.

 

The above decision is a yet another epitome supporting the fact that the revenue authorities can issue corrigendum for rectifying any typographical errors. The same is also clarified by CBIC vide Master Circular No. 96/1/2017-CX. 1 dated 19.01.2017. Issues on similar subject matter had been a matter of discussion in erstwhile GST regime wherein it was held that corrigendum can only be issued in case of clerical and arithmetical errors and accidental slip ups. It is high time that the revenue authorities should make a note of this settled principle failing which will render corrigendum issued as void and illegal in the eyes of Law. 

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