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 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