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 laws/2012-13/1064

Unjust enrichment - non-passing of incidence of duty whether proved on issue of debit notes afterwards?

Case: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXICSE, LUDHIANA V/S ORIENTAL TEXTILE PROCESSING COMPANY (P) LTD.
 
Citation: 2012 (276) E.L.T. 257 (TRI. – DELHI)
 
Issue: - Unjust enrichment- Whether issue of debit notes afterwards will discharge the burden of non passing of incidence of duty?
 
Brief Fact:- The appellant issued the invoices to their customers and buyers in which duty was included and later on the issued the debit notes to those customers. Such procedure is not permissible under law and thus department disregarded such procedure. The fact involved was that mere issuance of the credit notes or debit notes subsequent to the collection of the duty incidents in the terms of the invoices issued at the time of the sale of the goods do not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee. It amounted to unjust enrichment. A show cause notice dated 28-02-2003 was issued by deputy commissioner demanding refund of Rs 1,71,919 by cheque and deemed credit not availed at the time of clearance and Rs 44,922 by cheque of the amount of AED excess paid to the respondent.
 
The Adjudicating Authority has dropped the proceedings and ordered refund of Rs. 1, 71, 919/- by cheque and deemed credit not availed at the time of clearance and Rs. 44, 922/- by cheque of the amount of AED excess paid by respondent.
 
In appeal, the Commissioner (A) upheld the Original order and dismissed the appeal.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - Revenue contended that respondent had not established that the duty element was not passed over to the customers. Relying on judgment in Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd v/s CCE, Jaipur [1994 (71) ELT 989 (Tribunal), they submitted that records clearly disclosed that the procedure of recovering the duty from the customers by including the duty in the invoices and later on issuing debit notes to them is not a valid procedure in the eye of law. Mere issuances of debit notes to the customers would not relive the assessee from his liability to pay duty.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: -The Tribunal perused the order of the Adjudicating Authority and noted that it clearly disclosed that duty element was included in the price of the goods cleared on invoices to the buyers was never disputed by respondent. Rather it was specifically admitted and it was sought to be contended that subsequent to issuance of such invoices and payment having been received in terms of amount disclosed in invoices that the buyers issued debit notes in relation to duty elements.
 
The Tribunal perused the judgment given in Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd v/s CCE, Jaipur which was on the similar issue. It was also noted that appeal was filed against a comnnected matter and was dismissed by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Processing (India) Ltd v/s Collector [1994 (70) ELT A182 as well as in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Ltd v/s Collector [1999 (112) ELT A115 (SC).
 
The Tribunal held that once the law having been clearly laid down that mere issuance of credit notes or debit notes subsequent to the collection of duty incidents in terms of the invoices issued at the time of sale of goods do not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee, to come out of the principle of unjust enrichment applicable in such cases, merely because the buyers of the respondent had discharged their burden in that regard. It was held that the revenue are justified in contending that consequent failure on respondent’s part to establish the duty incident has not been passed over to the customers, the Authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Impugned orders not sustainable and set aside with consequential relief.
 
Decision: -Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:- When the duty has been charged in the invoice and payment is also received from customers then it clearly shows that the duty incidence has been passed on to the customer. But issue of debit note will not change this position. The concept of unjust enrichment is applicable in instant case.

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