Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/2011

No tax can be collected from assessee without a proper assessment order being passed.

Case:-CHITRA BUILDERS P. LTD. VERSUS ADDL. COMMR. OF C., C.E. & S.T., COIMBATORE

Citation:-2013(31) S.T.R. 515 (Mad.)

Brief Facts:-This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 2 crores, collected by the respondent-Department, under coercion, during the search conducted by it at the branch office of the petitioner-company, located at 119, Amaravathy Second Street, Gurusamy Nagar, Bharathar University Post, Coimbatore, on 1-3-2012.
 
It has been stated that the petitioner is registered with the Central Excise Service Department, Kolkata, for the payment of Service Tax, relating to the works undertaken by it, within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Commissionerate, under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, read with the Service Tax Rules, 1994. As such, the petitioner has been paying the Service Tax due from it, regularly, without any default.
 
It has also been stated that the petitioner is also registered with the Central Excise and Service Tax Department, Rayagada, for the payment of Service Tax, in respect of the woks undertaken by it, within the jurisdiction of the Rayagada Commissionerate.
 
Appellant Contentions:-It has also been stated that there is no liability on the part of the peti­tioner to pay Service Tax. While so, the collection of a sum of Rs. 2 crores, by the respondent-Department, from the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to return a sum of Rs. 2 crores, collected by them, from the petitioner, during the search conducted, on 1-3-2012.

It has also been stated that the registered office of the petitioner is lo­cated at the Centre Point Building, 21, Hemant Basu Sarani, 4th floor, Room No. 405, Kolkata, West Bengal. During the regular course of its business, the petition­er has executed certain works in the nature of excavation and sites clearance, for M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, as the main contractors for the various infrastructural works, which had been entrusted to it. None of the works had been carried out by the petitioner, within the jurisdiction of the Coimbatore Commis­sionerate. However, a search warrant had been issued by the Additional Com­missioner of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein for the search conducted, on 1-3-2012, at 119, Amaravathy Second Street, Gurusamy Nagar, Bharathiar University Post, Coimbatore. On the same date, a search had been conducted at the residence of the Director of the petitioner-company. When the search had been conducted, a deposition had been recorded, from Rakhi Shah, one of the directors of the petitioner-company. The said deposition had been recorded, under coercion. It is recorded as though a sum of Rs. 2 crores was being paid to the respondent-Department, voluntarily, as part of the arrears of Service Tax, due from the company. It is a well settled position in law that no tax can be collected from the assessee without a proper assessment order being passed, in accordance with the procedures established by law.

It has been further stated that the respondent has no jurisdiction to search the premises of the petitioner-company, or of its Directors, as the petition­er is not carrying on its business within the jurisdiction of the respondent. Fur­ther, the petitioner has not been registered under the respondent-Department, at Coimbatore.
 
Respondent Contentions:-A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents deny­ing the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the res­pondents, it has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner, having collected a huge amount of Rs. 17 crores, as Service Tax, by raising tax invoice, and by enabling the service recipient, namely, M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, to avail the input service credit, does not have the locus standi to claim for the return of the sum of Rs. 2 crores, paid by the petitioner-company, voluntarily, during the search con­ducted, on 1-3-2012, to be adjusted against its Service Tax liability. The said amount had been paid by the petitioner to mitigate the offence committed by it under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. While so, it is not proper on the part of the petitioner to pray that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to return the sum of Rs. 2 crores, paid on behalf of the petitioner-company, vo­luntarily, in respect of its Service Tax liability. Therefore, the present writ peti­tion, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well the respondents, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the consi­dered view that the collection of Rs. 2 crores by the respondent-Department, from the petitioner-company, during the search conducted, on 1-3-2012, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law.

Even though it has been stated, on behalf of the respondents, that a sum of Rs.2 crores had been collected from the petitioner-company, voluntarily, in respect of its Service Tax liability, it has not been shown, by the respondent, that the petitioner was liable to pay Service Tax to the respondent-Department, relating to the works being carried on by it, during the course of its business.

It is a well settled position in law that no tax could be collected from the assessee, without an appropriate assessment order being passed by the authority concerned and by following the procedure established by law. However, in the present case, it is noted that no such procedures had been followed by the respondent, while collecting the sum of Rs. 2 crores, from the petitioner-company, during the search conducted, on 1-3-2012. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to return the sum of Rs. 2 Crores, collected from the petitioner, during the search conducted, on 1-3-2012, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
 
Decision:-  Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that no tax can be collected from assessee without a proper assessment order being passed in accordance with provisions contained in the law. Accordingly, the amount deposited as “tax” in pursuant to the search proceedings is invalid and illegal unless and until it is backed by order reflecting tax dues on the part of the assessee.
 
 
 
 
 

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