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

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