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 270 on interest on refund allowed for amount deposited during investigation

GST Update No 270 on interest on refund allowed for amount deposited during investigation
The discussion as regards to payment of interest on refund granted during the course of investigation has laid its roots from the erstwhile GST regime. On several occasions the departmental officers visit the premises of the taxpayers, carry on investigations and compel the assessee to deposit the alleged amount demanded. Subsequently, in various cases, the consideration is refunded to the taxpayer because the order attains finality. However, the moot question which pre-occupied the minds of taxpayers is whether the interest shall also be paid along with the amount refunded and if yes, at what rate and for which time period. There had been catena of cases on the subject matter under consideration. On parallel lines, one case came in front of New Delhi CESTAT in the case of M/S BBM IMPEX PVT. LIMITED. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update. The appellant has imported certain goods wherein dispute arose as regards to the value of goods. The appellant deposited the differential amount for the purpose of provisional release of goods amounting to Rs. 13,50,000/-. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued as on 04.02.2016 and order in original was passed wherein the proposed duty was confirmed along with penalty and fine. The appeal was allowed and demand and penalty were set aside. Hence, refund claim of amount deposited was filed as on 20.07.2020 along with interest. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. The matter was preferred further wherein it was imparted that the refund shall be granted along in accordance with provisions of Section 27A of Customs Act from the end of 3 months from date of application of refund. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim on 20.07.2020 claiming for the refund of the amount deposited of Rs. 13,50,000/- on 22.09.2015 along with appropriate interest. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the interest and granted refund only for the principal amount of Rs. 13,50,000/-. Thereafter, appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to hold that the appellant is entitled to interest under section 27A of the Customs Act. It was further observed that as per Section 27A, interest is payable from the end of three months, from the date of application of refund and accordingly, allowed interest on refund for the period 12.01.2021 to 04.03.2021 only, on the amount of Rs.12,85,013/-, observing that in view of the appropriation in the order-in-original, the appellant is not entitled to interest on the amount adjusted towards fine. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. The appellant submitted that the issue under consideration is not res integra and therefore interest is payable as per Section 129EE of the Customs Act. Therefore, the amount of pre-deposit should be refunded along with interest under Section 129EE of the Customs Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on recent decision in the case of Indo Rubber and Plastic Works wherein it was held that the deposit made during investigation becomes pre-deposit ifso facto and accordingly entitled to interest as per law from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Reference was also drawn to decision of Apex Court in the case of Reeba Textiles Ltd.- 2022 (Vol.3) TMI 693 and Sandvik Asia Ltd.- 2007 (8) STR 193 (SC). The Counsel of revenue placed reliance on decision of same Tribunal in the case of Jovex International wherein the case was travelled to Delhi High Court and stay has been granted for the order of the Tribunal. The Court after analysing the provisions and the precedent decisions held that the appellant is entitled to grant of interest as per Section 129EE of the Customs Act from the date of deposit till date of refund at the rate of 12%p.a. The decision was delivered in line with the decision of Apex Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. stated above. The above decision proved to be welcoming decision by the business community. Although the subject matter under discussion is well acknowledged in various Judicial Rulings and is settled in favour of the assessee,reference may be made to the decision given by the CESTAT in the case of Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Pvt. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Customs and in the case of Marshall Foundry & Engg. (P) Ltd. V/s CGST. It is high time that these settled judgments should be recognised by the departmental officers so that unnecessary can be avoided.
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