Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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