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

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