Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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