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 REFUND CANNOT BE HOLD DUE TO PENDING CROSS VERIFICATION BY DEPTT AUTHORITY #034/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON REFUND CANNOT BE HOLD DUE TO PENDING CROSS VERIFICATION BY DEPTT AUTHORITY #034/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON REFUND CANNOT BE HOLD DUE TO PENDING CROSS VERIFICATION BY DEPTT AUTHORITY
High Court of Telangana in the case of ACC Ltd. v/s Assistant Commissioner CT LTU vide its Writ Petition No: 943 dated 27th April 2020 has held that cross verification is not a valid reason to withhold the refund of the assessee after the prescribed period.

The petitioner M/s ACC Limited is engaged in the manufacture of cement and cement products. The petitioner was assessed to Sales tax during the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 on the turnover relating to packing material i.e. gunnies under the APGST Act, 1957.

The original adjudicatory authority levied tax at basic rates of 3% and 8% on packing material and cement respectively and completed assessment for 1979-80. A similar order was passed on 20.3.1985 for the assessment years 1980-81. Subsequently, the said orders were revised by the Dy. Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division on 11.3.1987 (1979-80) and 9.3.1987 (1980-81) on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer had levied basic tax at 3% instead of 8% on packing material, and so an additional demand was raised by Form B-3 demand notice.

The said additional demand was challenged before the Supreme Court by applicant. Pursuant to an interim order passed by the said Court, petitioner paid Rs.13,03,679/- and Rs.15,06,753/-(i.e. total of Rs.28,10,432) through Demand drafts bearing No. 014826 and 014827 both dated 31.5.1988.
However, the Supreme Court on 25.9.1989 remanded the matter to Dy. Commissioner (CT), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad(respondent) and the department again confirmed the levy on packing material at the basic rate of 8% and levied additional tax 28, 10,432/- on 24.01.1990.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner appealed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.  The Tribunal, by a common order dt. 3.2.1993 allowed the appeals filed by the petitioner. In spite of the said favourable orders, the said amount of Rs.28,10,432/- was not refunded to petitioner. Petitioner therefore seeks refund of Rs.28,10,432/- from the respondent.

The respondent directed to withhold Rs.28,10,432/- for want of getting cross verification on payment details from the Commercial Tax Officer concerned on 05.05.2009.

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus [A (writ of) mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion] declaring that the impugned order dt.5.5.2009 withholding the refund of Rs.28, 10,432/-is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; to set aside the same and to direct the Dy.Commissioner to refund the said amount with interest at 12% p.a. from 2.8.1993 to 22.1.2004 as per Sec.33-F of the Act and also at 12% p.a from 5.11.2009 till date as per Sec.33-F of the Act apart from costs.

Sub-section (2) of Section 33F deals with the refunds withheld under the provisions of Section 33C and enjoins the State Government to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of refund ultimately determined to be due as a result of the appeal or further proceedings for the period commencing after the expiry of six months from the date of the order referred to in Section 33C to the date the refund is granted.

High Court held in the instant case, the respondents had withheld the refund for 11 years on the ground of 'want of cross-verification details' which is not a ground mentioned in Sec.33-C for withholding the refund due to petitioner. Admittedly no proceeding such as an appeal or revision was pending against the petitioner. So Sec.33 F(2) of the APGST Act is also inapplicable.

Also, a refund withholding order must invariably specify (as per Sec.33C) the period of time during which it will be in force and a refund cannot be withheld indefinitely as has been done in the instant case. Sec.33-E and 33-F of the APGST Act give 6 months' time to the respondents to complete the verification and the authorities cannot withhold the refund beyond the said period.

Thus there has been an ex-facie abuse of power by the respondent in denying refund to the petitioners of the sum of Rs.28, 10,432/-. The court ordered to repay the refund amount along with interest at 12% p.a from 2.8.1993 to 22.1.2004 as per Sec.33-F of the Act and also at 12% p.a from 5.11.2009 till date as per Sec.33-F of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the petitioner.

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