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 LAW/2016-17/3035

Whether appeal can be restored when there is a delay of 13 days in compliance with pre-deposit.

Case:DELTA INFORMATION SERVICE LTD. Vs COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

Citation:2015 (40) S.T.R. 39 (P & H)

Brief  Facts:The appellant is before High Court challenging order dated 10-6-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby his appeal has been dismissed for failure to comply with order of pre-deposit within the time granted by the Tribunal.

Appellant’s Contention: Counsel for the appellant submits that though it is true that the amount as directed by the Tribunal was deposited after a delay of 13 days and the appellant may be remiss in his duty to file an application for extension of time, but the error committed by the appellant may be condoned particularly after taking into consideration extenuating circumstances brought to the notice of the Tribunal and pleaded in the present appeal.
Counsel for the appellant further submits that copy of order dated 29-4-2014 was prepared by the registry of the Tribunal on 22-5-2014 and received by the appellant by post on 27-5-2014 i.e. the last date for depositing the amount as directed by the Tribunal. The appellant deposited the amount within two weeks from 27-5-2014. The conduct of the appellant is, therefore, neither culpable nor negligent and, therefore, the appeal may be allowed.

Respondent’s Contention: Counsel for the revenue submits that as adequate time was granted to the appellant, in the presence of his counsel, it was not necessary for the appellant to wait for a certified copy of the order. The delay in forwarding the copy to the appellant is a mere excuse and as admittedly there is a delay in complying with the order of pre-deposit, the appeal may be dismissed.

Reasoning of Judgement:A perusal of the facts reveals that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal for failure to deposit the amount of pre-deposit within the time granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 29-4-2014 directed the appellant to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- within four weeks. A certified copy of the order was prepared on 22-5-2014 and received by the appellant on 27-5-2014. The last date for complying with the order of pre-deposit was 27-5-2014. The appellant deposited Rs. 40,000/- after a delay of 13 days.
The appellant obviously could not have complied with the order of pre-deposit but should have, in the fitness of things at least approached the Tribunal for extension of time. Be that as it may, the appellant was not at fault as copy of order dated 29-4-2014 was received on 27-5-2014 i.e. on the last date for pre-deposit. The only fault that can be found with the appellant was failure to file an application for extension of time. This, however, cannot deprive the appellant of his right to seek adjudication of his appeal on merits as he has deposited the amount demanded by the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order dated 10-6-2014 is set aside and the appeal is restored to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh in accordance with law.

Decision:Appeal Allowed

Comment:The case is related to delay in complying with pre-deposit order of Tribunal. The assessee has deposited the amount after a delay of 13 days therefore Tribunal has passed the order against assessee.
Assessee has filed the appeal before High Court on the ground that the delay should be condone because they have complied with pre-deposit and also the order of Tribunal was received on the last date of compliance of pre-deposit.
The High court has set aside the order of Tribunal and held that the only fault that can be found with the appellant was failure to file an application for extension of time. This, however, cannot deprive the appellant of his right to seek adjudication of his appeal on merits as he has deposited the amount demanded by the Tribunal.
 

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