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 WHETHER SEIZURE ORDERS OF GOODS ARE APPEALABLE? 66/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON WHETHER SEIZURE ORDERS OF GOODS ARE APPEALABLE? 66/2020-21
GST UPDATE ON WHETHER SEIZURE ORDERS OF GOODS ARE APPEALABLE? 
 
With the introduction of e-way bill mechanism, the cases of seizure of goods and conveyances have increased manifold as numerous cases are being reported even for minor discrepancies in the e-way bill and related documents. The goods that are being accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills but minor discrepancies are also being detained and the owner of goods is being asked to pay applicable tax and penalty equal to 100% of the tax payable on such goods. If the owner does not come forward for payment of tax and penalty, the goods are released only on payment of applicable tax and penalty equal to fifty per cent of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon. One important point to note here is that the provision contained in section 129(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit states that “on payment of amount referred to in sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded”. Now, what is the meaning of the phrase “deemed to be concluded” used in section 129(5) of the CGST Act, 2017? Whether it indicates that the proceedings will be final and it is not possible to file appeal before the appellate authority by the assessee against the detention/seizure order? We will try to answer this question in our present update.
 
In our opinion, the seizure orders passed under section 129 are appealable orders but it is necessary to analyse the relevant provisions to reach at correct conclusion. It is pertinent to note that the provision contained in section 129(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 states that where the person transporting any goods or the owner of goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section (1) within seven days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated under section 130 pertaining to confiscation of goods or conveyances. Therefore, in our opinion, the meaning of the phrase “deemed to be concluded” used in section 129(5) is not to indicate that the seizure order is not appealable but rather it indicates that if the applicable amount is paid, then confiscation proceedings under section 130 would not be initiated and the matter raised in show cause notice for seizure/detention of goods or conveyances would be deemed to be concluded.
 
Now, coming to the provision contained in section 121 of the CGST Act, 2017 pertaining to non-appealable decisions and orders. It is stated in section 121 (b) of the CGST Act, 2017 that no appeal shall lie against any decision taken or order pertaining to the seizure or retention of books of account, register and other documents. If we carefully read the above provisions, it is found that the seizure of goods or conveyances is not specified. Therefore, again, this provision fortifies our view that seizure order of goods or conveyances is appealable in GST.
 
In this context, reference is also placed on the recent decision pronounced by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S SHIV AGRO wherein it was held that since order in form GST MOV-11 has already been passed confiscating the goods and conveyance and so the applicant is directed to avail statutory remedy of filing appeal before the appellate authority under section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the High Court refused to interfere in the matter. Hence, the above decision also substantiates our opinion that the orders of seizure passed under section 129 are appealable under GST law.
 
It is clear that the assessee may prefer appeal against the seizure/detention orders but another practical difficulty being faced by them is confusion as regards the authority before which appeal should be filed. Whether the appeal is required to be filed before appellate authority of intercepting officer region or the jurisdictional appellate authority? As of now, the assessees are filing appeal before both the authorities to be on safer side. A clarification on this aspect is awaited from the government

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