Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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