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 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