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 Law /2016-17/3266

Whether auction purchaser to whom GIDC declined to issue No-objection certificate on the ground of unpaid dues of the Excise Department can be upheld?.

Case:- NANDANI RASAYANEE LTD. Versus REGIONAL MANAGER  

Citation:-2016 (337) E.L.T. 187 (Guj.)    
 
Brief Facts:-The brief facts are that the case and having regard to the compass of the matter and with request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final consideration. Therefore, rule, returnable forthwith, The Learned advocates for the respective parties waives service of notice of rule. The petitioner has prayed for a direction against respondent Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation to issue a No-objection certificate demanded by it by letter dated 30th October, 2013.The petitioner is an allottee of plot Nos. 122/4 and 122/5 by the Corporation at Vadodara. The No-objection certificate requested from the Corporation is refused on the ground that the Central Excise Department has a claim against the petitioner for its dues of Rs. 09,44,435/-. It is stated by the petitioner that said recovery was dropped by the Central Excise Tribunal; however, Department’s appeal is pending before this Court for final disposal.
Petitioner Contention:-Learned advocate for the petitioner states that necessary application in the prescribed format, if not made, will be made on or before 15th June, 2016 as required by the Corporation. The Corporation shall thereafter process the same in light of the law declared in the present order and issue necessary No-objection certificate. Needless to say that Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation shall be entitled to recover its dues in accordance with law. The issue is already answered by the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 3rd March, 2010 in Sureshkumar M. Bhingaradia v. Union of India being Special Civil Application No. 8948 of 2008 [2010 (258) E.L.T.28 (Guj.)]. In that case, petitioner therein was auction purchaser to whom GIDC declined to issue No-objection certificate on the ground of unpaid dues of the Excise Department.
 
Respondent Contention:-The Department is not in a position to point out any provision either under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or any rules there under which would permit Central Excise authorities to send the communication of the nature of the communication forwarded by Central Excise Department to GIDC. “GIDC is a statutory Corporation having been incorporated under the provisions of the Statute and is thus bound by its own Constitution as per provisions of the said Act. GIDC can raise a demand, even in the form of asking for an NOC, only in relation to any dues to which GIDC is entitled as per the terms and conditions under which the immovable property belonging to GIDC is leased out. The GIDC is right to the extent GIDC is asking for an application for transfer in the prescribed format accompanied by requisite fees, if any. Similarly, if any dues of GIDC are outstanding in relation to the immovable property in question, GIDC is entitled to seek satisfaction thereof before effecting transfer of the immovable property in favour of the petitioners. However, by no stretch of imagination can GIDC seek to recover dues of Central Excise Department by asking the petitioners to obtain an NOC from Central Excise Department.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:-The communication by Central Excise Department cannot bind GIDC and GIDC is duty bound to effect transfer of the immovable property if all other requisite formalities as required by law are completed by the petitioners. GIDC is, therefore, directed to effect transfer of the immovable property subject to the petitioners making an application in the prescribed format accompanied by necessary fees. In view of above, GIDC cannot refuse No-objection certificate to the petitioner on the ground that the Central Excise Department has been demanding its dues from the petitioner. The prayer and the petition deserve to be allowed by issuing necessary directions to the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation.
 
Decision:-ThePetition is accordingly allowed.

Comment:-The crux of the case is thatGIDC is duty bound to effect transfer of the immovable property if all other requisite formalities as required by law are completed by the petitioners. GIDC is, therefore, directed to effect transfer of the immovable property subject to the petitioners making an application in the prescribed format accompanied by necessary fees.
 
Prepared by:- Bharat

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