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. 304 on bail granted in case of ongoing investigation proceedings

GST Update No. 304 on bail granted in case of ongoing investigation proceedings
It is well known principle that the primary objective of bail is to secure the presence of accused at the time of trial or hearing. The action of arrest is to be taken under extreme circumstances as it restricts the freedom of the accused which is the fundamental right of any citizen. It is pertinent to note here that a person should be taken into custody only if there are reasons to believe that they might flee or tamper with the evidence. However, it seems that the revenue authorities have failed to understand this concept and hence, they are not wiling to grant bails easily to the accused. Recently, on similar note, one case was reported before Gujarat High Court in the case of MUNAVVER ISMAIL MEMON V/S STATE OF GUJARAT. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The applicant was arrested as on 24.03.2022 and was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Court on the same day. The bail application filed was rejected vide orders dated 20.06.2022 and 20.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, this Writ application is filed. The applicant is proprietor engaged in the business of cosmetic items. The firm was under investigation based on the intelligence reports stating that the applicant was involved in tax evasion activities. It was stated that goods were supplied without issuance of invoice since a software was created by the applicant which was used for tax evasion and showcasing less sales. Further, the applicant has made unaccounted sales and kaccha invoices which were not included in the accounts. It was therefore, alleged that loss of Rs. 10.94 crores were made to the Government Exchequer.
The petitioner submitted that there is no corroborative evidence found during the course of search and therefore the allegations are based on just entries which are made on assumptions and presumptions. Further, the applicant is regular taxpayer and return filer. Therefore, transaction related to sales and purchase are uploaded on the portal. Hence, the custody of applicant is not necessary. It was argued that no show cause notice under Section 61, 73 or 74 have been issued and the applicant is wiling to deposit 10% of the amount within a period of 6 months from date of release before department. It was further argued thatconstitutional right of liberty must be protected, unless further custody of the applicant is necessary as the basic jurisprudence of bail is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.
The counsel of respondent contended that the applicant has acted contrary to the provisions of the Act. Thus, investigation is going on and therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, the investigation would adversely affect and considering the background facts of the applicant since he can temper with the evidence and influence the witnesses.
The court refereed to the judgement delivered by the Apex Court in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, (2020) 13 SCC 791. Further, it was stated that merely raising the contention that investigation is still going on is not enough. The department should have pointed out that the further custody of the applicant is necessary. It is the right of the assessee to file an appeal against the assessment subject to the pre-deposit amount. Therefore, it was decided to release the applicant on bail subject to certain conditions and on execution of personal bond.
The above decision is a favouring decision for the trade and industry. The Court adopted a liberal approach and granted relief to the taxpayer after acknowledging the repercussions faced by the business houses. It is pertinent to note here that powers of arrest should not be invoked by the departmental officers in routine matter without having any reason to believe that the taxpayer would abscond. Merely having vague belief cannot be considered as a valid ground to compromise with the constitutional right of freedom of any person. The Government should come up with a set of guidelines in this respect to save trade and industry from the wrath of tax officers.
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