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/2015-16/2998

Restoration of appeal which has been dismissed on giving Ex-parte decision

Case-MAHESHWARI MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
 
Citation-2015 (40) S.T.R. 566 (Tri. - Del.)

Brief Facts-This is a miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal No. ST/672/2008 filed by the appellant which had been dismissed ex parte vide Final Order No. 51038/2014, dated 21-2-2014. At the time of hearing of the appeal on 21-2-2014, when this matter had been called, none representing the appellant had appeared.
 
Appelants Contention-Shri Jatin Singhal, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that prior to its hearing on 21-2-2014, the matter had been listed for hearing on various dates, i.e. 9-7-2013, 16-8-2013, 17-10-2013 and 12-12-2013 and each time though the appellant was present, the matter was adjourned as the case did not reach for hearing; that after 20-12-2013, no notice for hearing was received by the appellant and only after receipt of the order dated 21-2-2014 on 27-3-2014, the appellant learnt that their appeal has been dismissed ex parte, that non-receipt of the hearing notice was the only reason for the appellant’s failure to cause appearance on 21-2-2014; that appellant have good case on limitation as well as on merit but since the appeal was heard ex-parte, then points were not considered and that in view of this, final order dated 21-2-2014 dismissing appeal may be recalled and the appeal may be restored and heard afresh.
 
Respondents Contention-Shri Govind Dixit, ld. Department Representative, opposed the restoration application pleading that notice for adjourning the matter to 21-2-2014 had been issued by the Registry on 8-1-2014 by RPAD; that the communication about date of hearing sent on 8-1-2014 by RPAD has not been returned undelivered, and that in view of this, it has to be presumed that the communication regarding date of hearing had been received by the appellant. He also pleaded that final order dated 21-2-2014 had been passed after considering the merits of the case and is covered by the Larger Bench Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Bhagwati Traders v. C.C., Kochin reported in 201l (24) (S.T.R.) 290 (Tri.-LB). He pleaded that in the circumstances of this case, the extended limitation period has been correctly invoked and that since the matter has been decided after considering the merits of the case there would be no justification for recalling final order and restoration of the appeal for the final hearing. He therefore pleaded that there is no case for recalling final order dated 21-2-2014 and restoring will appeal for fresh hearing.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-We have considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. From the records, it is clear that prior to 21-2-2014, this matter had been listed for hearing on 20-12-2013 and at that time this matter had been adjourned to 21-2-2014 and the notice in this regard had been issued by Registered post with acknowledgement due on 17-1-2014. There is no document on record to indicate that the notice was not delivered by the postal authorities and was returned undelivered. Once notice for hearing has been issued to an appellant by RPAD in accordance with the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944, it has to be presumed that the notice has been received by the appellant and if the appellant disputes the receipt of the notice,
 
burden is on him to produce positive evidence regarding non-receipt. Since no such evidence has been produced, the appellant’s plea that the notice was not received cannot be accepted. In view of this, miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal is dismissed.
 
Decision-Application dismissed
 
Comment-If the noticeof hearing is sent by registered AD post to the assessee, and the same is not returned or either undelivered or unserved then also service of notice complete. And, this is the valid presumption of receipt of notice by applicant. The burden of proving the non-receipt of notice is on assessee. And, therefore on this ground the appeal is dismissed and the department is correct in giving ex-parte decision.

Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 

Post a Comment
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