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 ON IMPORTANCE OF PANCHNAMA 022/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON IMPORTANCE OF PANCHNAMA 022/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON IMPORTANCE OF PANCHNAMA
 
We all know that the investigation proceedings are required to be compiled and documented very precisely as many a times, the entire proceedings get vitiated merely on account of some procedural or technical grounds. In this present update, we wish to discuss the importance of Panchnama in the investigation proceedings.
 
Panchnama is a document that is prepared during the course of investigation proceedings which records evidences and findings that the officer makes at the scene of offence/crime. The document contains the description of the activities during the course of proceedings and also mentions the details of inventory found during physical verification in case of taxation matters. The document called ‘Panchnama’ is required to be signed by the investigating officer who prepares it and at least two independent and impartial witnesses called ‘Panchas’ and also the concerned party whose proceedings are being convened. As far as witnesses are concerned, they should be respectable and should be in their senses at the time of panchnama proceedings. Only majors are to be taken as witnesses.
 
In simple words, a panchnama is a record of the things visually perceived or actually experienced by the Panchas in the course of investigation. In case of search proceedings, the panchnama should record everything that takes place in the course of search. If any documents is being seized then it is necessary to record what are the documents recovered from the premises, brief description of the exact place where the documents were located in the premises, and from where they were seized by the seizing officer. It is also necessary to record as to what steps the seizing officer had taken so as to refrain him and persons accompanying him from causing any damage to the documents and also avoid any interference in any manner with such documents and contents thereof. When any documents are seized, it is necessary to enclose the same in a cover and to seal such cover so that the contents of the document cannot be tampered with.

The panchnama should contain the name, age, parentage and address of the panch witnesses, the authority under which the proceedings have been initiated, describing each and every event and article found during investigation, declaration that during the proceedings no damage has been caused to any property or person and religious sentiments of the people are also not hurt.
 
After discussing about the contents of Panchnama, we now elaborate on the importance of panchnama during the investigation proceedings. It is observed that it is very important that the veracity and authenticity of the panchnama is not doubted as it can lead to declaring the entire investigation proceedings as null and void. It is essential that the copy of panchnama is served to the assessee along with the show cause notice. It is pertinent to place reliance on the decision given by the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of SHREE ROHIT SYN FAB (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II [2018 (363) E.L.T. 564 (TRI.-DEL)] wherein it was held that in the absence of panchnama, documents recovered from possession of assessee cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence. Similarly, in another case, the Hon’ble Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of GOLD PLUS GLASSES INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., ROHTAK [2018 (363) E.L.T. 381 (TRI.-CHAN.)] it was held that although panchnama was drawn and was signed by the panch witnesses but the panch witnesses filed affidavits saying that they were not part of the proceedings but were only called to sign the panchnama. Consequently, panchnama drawn during the course of investigation had no evidentiary value and demand based on the said panchnama was held as non sustainable. It is also worth mentioning that the panchnama should also record the method prescribed for stock taking and computation sheet of the said stock. In absence of calculation sheet and the methodology adopted for stock verification in panchnama, duty demand was set aside in the case of DAYA SUGAR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-MEERUT-I [2017 (358) E.L.T. 1006 (TRI.-ALL)].

The above decisions indicate the relevance of panchnama in the investigation proceedings and confirmation of tax demand against the assessee.  

This is solely for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21.
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