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 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