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 290 on no difference between working day and holiday in matters related to detention

GST update No 290 on no difference between working day and holiday in matters related to detention

Looking at the present scenario, the issue regarding rampant and continuous detention of goods is a matter of grave concern for the taxpayers. Apart from facing financial burdens such as penalties, delay in working of businesses due to detention of order is not less than a nightmare for the taxpayers. However, with the passage of time, various High Courts have come forward and stepped into the issue to grant relief to the taxpayers, yet serious repercussions are being faced by the business houses. On similar lines, one case was recently reported before Madras High Court in the case of M/S D.K. ENTERPRISES V/S THE ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.The petitioner sought a mandamus directing to release goods detained on 13.08.2022 by Roving Squad of Commercial Tax Department. The consignment was intercepted on 13.08.2022 at 12:15 am and thereafter GST MOV-01 was also issued on the same day. Subsequently, GST MOV-02 was also issued. The goods were intercepted on the basis of presumption of officer that they were unloaded at an unregistered place. No details in this respect were provided further. It was argued that on 13.08.2022, MOV-04 was issued after which there had been no notice issued by the respondent till 24.08.2022. However, the same should have been issued within 7 days from date of detention/ seizure. The notice ostensibly issued dated 22.08.2022 was produced during the course of hearing. The petitioner argued that proper procedure regarding detention of goods was not complied with since the same is in contrary to the provisions contained in the Statue and Regulations. Further, representation was made requesting the conveyance to proceed on its way and setting out an explanation for alleged discrepancy. It was submitted that there is violation of provisions of Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017. The Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 issued by CBIC. Further it was argued that there is no statutory prescription for any forms that are referred in Section 129. It was further argued that the procedure was within time since the limitation of 7 days expires on a holiday, 19.08.2022 being Janmashtami and 20.08.2022 and 21.08.2022 being weekends on which GST department do not function. Therefore, notice has not been issued on 22.08.2022 but on 24.08.2022. The counsel relied on the Section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897, as per which the proceedings shall be deemed to be completed if it done or taken on the next day afterwards when the Court or office were open after a holiday. The Court was of the view that the procedure mentioned in the Circular is applicable to the sequence of events arising in the present case. It was concluded that there are serious flaws in the procedure since neither the detention order nor the SCN was issued within time. As per the provisions of Section 129, it is apparent that the detention order is to be issued prior to issuance of SCN. It was further stated that the officer not having obtained written permission from superiors for extension of time for proceedings, not adhered to the requirement for uploading of Part-B of Form GST EWB-03. It was further held that in matter of detention and seizure, GST department does not recognise the concept of ‘working day’ and ‘holiday’ since there was amendment vide Circular No.49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018 in F.No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST. Moreover, the department officers themselves agrees that the roving squad of the GST Department knows no distinction between working and non-working days and the wing works 24/7 through-out the year. Therefore, both the parties cannot have luxury of delaying the proceedings. Therefore, the act of the departmental officers runs directly contrary to the amendment under the Circular dated 21.06.2018. Thus, it is imperative that such intrusive acts are required to be followed strictly as per statutory provisions. Since the detention is a pre-condition for issuance of SCN, the order is to be issued within 7th day from date of detention of conveyance being 13.08.2022. As the same is issued on 22.08.2022, it is a serious lacuna.It was further stated that there is no requirement of referring to the provisions of Section 10 of General Clauses Act, since the department itself created a difference between working day and holiday. Further difference was drawn towards MOV-06 and directing the vehicle not to move till further orders. It was therefore, concluded that the matter is contrary to the statue’s requirement and the submissions of department are rejected.The above decision is a welcoming decision favouring the business houses pointing out the gross negligence of the tax officials while initiating any action of detention under section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. There had been situations in past as well wherein the departmental officers invoked draconian powers like these on inadvertent grounds. It is high time now, that these settled judicial precedents should be followed by them in proper and legal manner failing which will lead to unwanted litigations.

 

 

 

 

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