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/2015-16/2609

Requirement of mens rea in penalty imposition.

Case:-COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS G.E. PLASTICS INDIA LTD.
 
Citation:- 2014 (306) E.L.T. 180 (Guj.)

Brief facts:- Briefly stated, facts are that the respondent-assessee was alleged to have cleared the goods of Rs. 9,84,000/- without payment of Central Excise duty. There were other allegations of wrong availment of Modvat credit also. It is the case of the respondent-assessee that such duty was not paid on bona fide belief that the assessee was not required to pay the same. Be that as it may, even before the Department issued show cause notice for recovery of such unpaid dues, the dues were paid and the credit was reversed. It appears that to the extent the assessee had used certain items for captive consumption without payment of duty valued at Rs. 2,46,000/- Department issued show cause notice 2-7-1998 under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, calling upon the assessee, to show cause why penalty equivalent to such amount of Rs. 2,46,000/- be not imposed upon it. It was notice that there were certain other proposals in the said show cause notice. And however, in the present appeal are not concerned with rest of them. The Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 2,46,000/-. Ultimately, the issue reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment deleted the penalty on the short ground that the assessee had reversed the credit even before issuance of show cause notice and therefore, no penalty should be imposed. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Delhi Bench reported in 2004 62 RLT 709 = 2004 (168)E.L.T.466 (Tri.-Del.).
 
Appellant’s Contention:-Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the issue is decided by the Apex Court in their favour in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231)E.L.T.3 (S.C.) wherein it was held that penalty under Section 11AC is required to be imposed without the necessity to prove mens rea. He submitted that merely because the assessee deposited the amount before issuance of show cause notice would not mean that there was no intention to evade duty. He submitted that credit was reversed only after the Department started investigation.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra) has since been considered and explained by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spining & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238)E.L.T.3 (S.C.) and our attention was drawn to paras 18, 19 and 23 of the said judgment.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-As already recorded, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent only on the ground that the credit was reversed before the issuance of show cause notice. To the Court’s mind, by virtue of decision in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra), this cannot be the sole ground for deleting the penalty. However, in view of the decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra), explaining the decision in the case of Dharamendra Textiles, other defences of the assessee shall have to be examined. In other words, if the assessee can establish that it had sufficient reasons for not paying the duty and that there was no intention to evade duty, question of penalty under Section 11AC will have to be looked from that angle. In the result, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The proceedings are remanded before the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal of the assessee afresh after hearing both sides, bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove and those of the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
 
Decision:- Appeal disposed off.
 
Comment:- The essence of the case is that the reversal of duty before the issue of show cause notice by the assessee cannot be the sole ground for non imposition of penalty under section 11AC. The important thing that must be proved by the assessee is that they had no intention of evasion of duty and have sufficient reason of non payment  and only then penalty under section 11AC can be set aside. Hence, penalty under Sec 11AC is required to be imposed only if there was mens rea.

Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 
 

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