Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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