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 on imposition of onerous bail conditions leads to depriving accused with liberty 137/2020-21

GST Update on imposition of onerous bail conditions leads to depriving accused with liberty 137/2020-21
It is a settled rule of law that person is to be presumed as innocent till he is found guilty and so the punishment cannot be given to the accused without proper trial. Recently, before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of RANJIT SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [CRM-M-14856-2020], it was pronounced that imposition of onerous and stringent conditions of bail tantamount to denial of bail which is not justifiable. The decision rendered by the High Court is the subject matter of discussion of the present update.
 
The allegation against the petitioner was that he was involved in issuance of fake invoices in GST by creating 18 fake firms and since the GST liability was beyond Rs. 5 Crores, the offence was cognizable and non-bailable under section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, had allowed the bail application of the petitioner subject to payment of outstanding liability of Rs. 1,94,78,017/- along with interest and furnishing of bail bonds to the extent of Rs. 50 Lakhs with one surety of like amount. It was contended by the petitioner that imposition of such conditions for bail resulted in practically denying the bail to the petitioner as he is not in position to pay the outstanding amount and so it is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the liberty of the petitioner is being deprived.
 
The Hon’ble High Court concurred that it is a settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and mere seriousness of the charge is not a factor to be taken into account while denying the valuable right of liberty. The basic principle being the man is innocent till he is found guilty. It was held that the investigation and enquiry was complete and relevant documents were already in possession of the prosecution so the petitioner cannot be detained during trial only on account of the fact that a bail order in the form of recovery proceedings has been passed against him to pay the outstanding amount worth almost Rs. 2 Crores along with interest. The hon’ble High Court relied on the Apex Court decision given in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VS CBI [2012 (1) SCC 40] wherein it was held that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and bail should be granted as far as the court has confidence that the accused will not betray the trust by absconding. The stringent conditions on bail are to be imposed only where it is threat that the accused would tamper with evidences or witnesses which is not the case. The discretion of granting bail affects the valuable right of liberty of person so great care and caution is to be exercised. Moreover, the hon’ble High Court stated that since the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,94,78,017/- has been confirmed against the petitioner, it makes the offence bailable under section 69(3) and section 132(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
 
Hence, the hon’ble High Court held the conditions of bail as unreasonable and set aside the condition of payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 1,94,78,017/- along with interest. The bail bonds of Rs. 50 Lakhs with one surety were reduced to Rs. 25 Lakhs which shall be in the form of immovable property.
 
The cases of fake invoices reported in GST have increased manifold which have lead to increased arrests in GST. However, it is high time that the authorities realise the significance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to ensure that the valuable right of the liberty of the accused is not being deprived. Although there are significant judicial guidelines against arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers but it is observed that rarely the guidelines are being followed. We expect that the administration will be diligent in ensuring that the powers are not abused.



 
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/@capradeepjain21and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16
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