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 WIDE POWERS OF COMMISSIONER APPEALS IN CUSTOMS

GST UPDATE on WIDE POWERS OF COMMISSIONER APPEALS IN CUSTOMS
The Budget, 2021 had amended the provision contained in section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as follows: - SECTION 5 POWERS OF OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS- (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, a Commissioner (Appeals) shall not exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on an officer of customs other than those specified in Chapter XV, section 108 and sub-section (1D) of section 110. Furthermore, the provisions as referred above are listed for the sake of convenient reference as follows: - Chapter XV pertains to Appeals and Revision Section 128A Procedure in appeal- (3) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper- (a) confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against; or (b) referring the matter back to the adjudicating authority with directions for fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, in the following cases, namely: - (i) where an order or decision has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, or; (ii) where no order or decision has been passed after re-assessment under section 17; or (iii) where an order or refund under section 27 has been issued by crediting the amount to Fund without recording any finding on th evidence produced by the applicant. Section 108 Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required.  ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 SECTION 110 SEIZURE OF GOODS, DOCUMENTS AND THINGS.- “(1D) Where the goods seized under sub-section (1) is gold in any form as notified under sub-section (1A), then, the proper officer shall, instead of making an application under subsection (1B) to the Magistrate, make such application to the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction, who shall, as soon as may be, allow the application and thereafter, the proper officer shall dispose of such goods in such manner as the Central Government may determine.”. Therefore, according to amended section 5 of the Customs Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for decision afresh, power to summon a person for tendering statements and even to seize gold in form. The above provisions are no doubt very wide in ambit but they seek to distort the set framework of adjudication and appeal procedure in indirect taxation. As per general parlance, the Commissioner Appeals being first appellate authority is only a quasi judicial authority which is liable to re-consider the order already passed by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner Appeals usually do not have the power of initiating investigation such as issuance of summons or carry out seizure of goods, documents or things. The issuance of summons for recording statement is the preliminary stage of investigation which cannot be resorted by the first appellate authority but the Customs Act, 1962 gives wide powers to the Commissioner Appeals. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that one of the most common contentions made by the assessees is that the order cannot be passed beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice. In other words, the issuance of show cause notice marks an end to the possibility of any further addition or advancement in the allegations made towards the assessees. Consequently, it has been pleaded in number of judicial pronouncements that the order passed beyond the allegations of the show cause notice is not at all legally tenable. Reference may be made to the following decisions:- • APEX FLUIDOMATICS LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [2014 (313) E.L.T. 106 (TRI. - AHMD.)] • ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD VERSUS KRISHNA PETROCHEMICALS ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6 [2014 (304) E.L.T. 744 (TRI. - AHMD.)] • SAURABH ORGANICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE [2012 (275) E.L.T. 582 (TRI. – MUMBAI)] In light of the above cited decisions, it is clear that the Customs Act, 1962 empowering the Commissioner Appeals with the power of issuance of summons for statements and for seizure of gold is clearly distorting the already set mechanism of adjudication proceedings thereby adding to complexities. Consequently, the government should re-look their decision to empower Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs with such powers that have direct nexus with the adjudication of the case. This will lead to very unpleasant situation where a taxpayer contends that the order is moving beyond the show cause notice then Commissioner (Appeal) will start investigation once again. Else, on pleading of not taking of statements of a key person, the Commissioner summons that person and start taking his statement. So, starting of investigation once again by Appellate authority does not match with basic role of appeal by Commissioner (Appeal). Hence, delegation of such power to Commissioner (Appeal) will create chaos and confusion and lead to more disputes and litigation.
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