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/2011-12/1348

Waiver of Pre-deposit- Discretionary Power of Tribunal

Case: COROMANDEL GRANITE COMPANY LTD. Versus CESTAT, CHENNAI
 
Citation: 2011 (271) E.L.T. 187 (Mad.)
 
Issue:- Waiver of Pre-deposit for admitting appeal – Tribunal has discretionary powers to decide the same – Pre-deposit as directed to be deposited but amount reduced on considering mitigating circumstances. 
 
Brief Facts:- Petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order confirming the demand of duty with interest and imposition of penalty.   
 
In application for waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to make prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty and penalty. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs within six weeks. Upon deposit of the said amount, pre-deposit of the balance amounts of duty and penalty was to be waived and recovery thereof stayed till final disposal of the appeal.
 
Petitioner moved modification application before the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal had failed to consider the Coordinate Benches decision relied on for the purpose of considering prima facie case made out by the petitioner. The Tribunal passed an order in Miscellaneous Petition rejecting the prayer of petitioner for modification. In the circumstances, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay the said amount by extending the time by 8 weeks and directed to report compliance of the same on 15-3-2010.
 
Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition has been filed for waiver of pre-deposit.
 
Petitioner’s Contention:- Petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the decision of the Coordinate Benches decision, which is relied on by the petitioner for the purpose of prima facie case made out by him. The Tribunal erred in directing the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The Tribunal had not cared to refer even a decision cited by the petitioner which would amply demon­strate that the issue in question is covered by the decision of the Tribunal.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- The High Court noted from the perusal of the affidavit, and the documents that as against the demand of duty of Rs. 4,76,36,099/- [Rs. 3,86,36,099/- (demand of duty) plus Rs. 90,00,000/- (penalty)], the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. The order of waiver of pre-deposit is a pure and simple question of discretion which the Tribunal has to exercise on prima facie case made out by the petitioner.
 
The High Court does not find any justification in interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has come out of BIFR proceedings recently and in view of the financial con­straints that the petitioner is facing, as against the sum of Rs. 30 lakhs, the peti­tioner is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of six weeks from today. On such payment, there shall be stay of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
 
Decision:- Petition disposed off.
 
Comment:- The lowering of pre-deposit in case of BIFR units is a welcome step on the part of High Court. The unit is already sick and the department seeking huge amount to be deposited. But such unit will not be able to do so and will be deprived of legal remedy to pursue the matter.

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