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

Is the taxpayer empowered to make a copy of the seized document under Section 67 (5) under Chapter XIV of GST Act? 99/2020-21

Is the taxpayer empowered to make a copy of the seized document under Section 67 (5) under Chapter XIV of GST Act? 99/2020-21
The term ‘seizure’ has not been specifically defined in GST. In legal parlance, seizure is the act of taking over something or someone by force through legal process, such as the seizure of evidence found at the scene of a crime. It generally implies taking possession forcibly against the wishes of the owner.
Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the case of J.S. Pigments Private Ltd. VsThe State of West Bengal &Orshas held that the taxpayer is empowered to make a copy of the seized document under Section 67 (5) under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The appellant i.e. J.S. Pigments Private Ltdsubmitted that they are not in a position to participate in the proceedings because of non-availability of copies of seized documents.
The appellant placed its reliance on Section 67 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.According to Section 67(5),the person from whose custody any documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorized officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation.
The petitioner pleaded that he had already approached the authority for supplying the certified copy of the seized documents.Unfortunately, till date no step had been taken by the authority to supply the same.
The High Court directed the petitioner to take steps in terms of Section 67(5) under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. If the appellant/petitioner takes steps as per Section 67(5), then the respondent was directed to allow the appellant/petitioner to make copies of the seized documents by 13th July, 2020 subject to compliance of statutory formalities.Thus, a taxpayer is empowered to make a copy of the seized document under Section 67 (5) under Chapter XIV of GST Act.
Pursuant to Section 67(5) the taxable person is entitled to get copies or take the extracts of the documents seized u/s 67(2).However, the officer may deny such a request if in his opinion the furnishing of the copies of the documents would prejudicial to the process of Investigation.
Further, as per Section 67(3) documents, books or things which have not been relied upon for the issue of notice under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be returned to such person within a period not exceeding thirty days of the issue of the said notice.
Seeing the trend since the implementation of GST, the High Courts have never pronounced pro revenue decisions rather relied upon the facts and provisions under the law while delivering the decision. A major chunk of disputes fall in two areas - advance ruling and anti-profiteering orders.And High Court has proven the oasis in the desert of lost hope for the taxpayers in the GST regime for filing writs against such orders. Allowing manual rectification of GSTR 3B, GSTR 1 and GST TRAN 1, ordering release of goods if minor mistakes made in e way bill, payment of interest on net liability etc. are some of the landmark judgments that have provided enormous relief to the assessee and was essential for businesses.
Even it is seen that the department is denying the legitimate rights to assessee which are provided in the Act like taking xerox of documents is provided in the law but the same is also denied to him. Only exception is to deny is when it is prejudicially affect the proceedings. It is exceptional but the department take it is as its right to deny the photocopies. Such type of act by department in each case against assessee creates frustration against the system. Pro-revenue approach is also hampering the department also. This invites unnecessary litigation and delays the complete investigation. This is also incurring cost for the department as well as loss of revenue due to delays. Hence, the department should conduct training program and teach them to be judicious rather than biased approach. It is not helping the department and on the contrary running against their objective of revenue realization.
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