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 269 on right of filing appeal after voluntary payment of GST/penalty

GST Update No 269 on right of filing appeal after voluntary payment of GST/penalty
It is well known that filing of appeal by the taxpayer is statutory and substantive right wherein intention of legislation is to grant relief to the aggrieved. Yet, the revenue authorities time and again harass the taxpayers by not admitting and deciding the appeal filed by the taxpayers. One case on similar lines was recently reported before the hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN STEEL AND CEMENT [W.P. NO. 17454 OF 2022] wherein the departmental authorities opined that all the proceedings stand concluded and no further appeal can be filed by taxpayer in case any payment is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017. The analysis of the decision is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner opted to make payment in terms of provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 to release the seized goods/conveyance. On payment of the same, the goods and the conveyance were released by issuing Form GST MOV-05 and an order was issued under Form MOV-09. However, a summary order was not issued in DRC07. Consequently, no appeal could be filed under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017. It was submitted that as per Section 129 of the Act and Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018, the order in Form MOV-09 should be accompanied by Summary order under DRC-07. Without this, no appeal can be filed since system accepts an appeal only if summary order in DRC-07 is issued. The Counsel of revenue argued that in case assessee opts to pay tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, the proceedings are deemed to be concluded. It was further contended that the payment is made voluntarily in DRC-03 by the taxpayer and thus, cannot be refunded back. Further, on payment the entire proceedings should be treated as concluded. Reference was drawn to CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 Rule 142 of CGST Rules, 2017 wherein the concerned person seeks to continue the proceedings by opting a bank guarantee under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 meaning thereby that the proceedings cannot be deemed t be concluded. It was argued that no proceedings under DRC-07 can be initiated if in case payment is made voluntarily. The provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 do not make a distinction between the persons who opt to provide security and who opts to make payment under Section 129 of the Act. The Court held that whether the aggrieved chooses to make payment under Section 129 of the Act or provide security in terms of Section 129 of the Act, the officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance has to issue a notice specifying tax and penalty. Therefore, the responsibility of concerned officer to issue and upload the summary order in DRC-07 continues. It was stated that the proceedings can be challenged by the concerned taxpayer if demand is illegally raised on him. Failing this will result into violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Further, appeal can be preferred within a period of 3 months from the date on which such order or decision is communicated to the aggrieved person. It was therefore held that the payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Act does not deprives the right of assessee to file an appeal. The fact that the system does not generate a demand or contemplates filing of appeal without demand does not means that the intention of the legislature was different. It was directed to the SGST department to issue an appropriate Circular in this respect to avoid any future litigations on the subject matter. The above decision is a welcoming initiative wherein the already settled subject matter is upheld that the right of filing appeal is statutory right of the assessee which cannot be deprived on frivolous grounds. The revenue authorities cannot refrain from issuing an order even if the tax amount along with interest and penalty stands deposited by the taxpayer voluntarily as without issuance of order, the right of appeal of the taxpayer is being compromised which is not the intention of the legislature. It is hoped that the revenue authorities proactively follow the settled principles of law so as to avoid any unwanted litigations in the future.
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