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 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