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/2015-16/2959

Whether voluntarily deposit can be adjusted against the estimated differential duty in the provisional release order?

Case:- ESSON FURNISHING P. LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL C.C. (IMPORT), ICD, TUGHLAKABAD
 
Citation:- 2015 (326) E.L.T. 282 (Del.)
 
Brief facts and Appellant’s contention:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the goods which have been detained by the respondents at the various godowns at Delhi, Ghaziabad & Thane have not been released despite the petitioner having been complied with the conditions of the provisional release order. The petitioner had applied for provisional release and on 28-4-2015 a provisional release order had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner (SIIB), ICD - Import, Tughlakabad. The said provisional release order reads as under:-
“To
M/s. Esson Furnishing Pvt. Ltd.,
D-193, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi-110 024
Sir/Madam,
Sub :    Provisional Release of goods detained/seized at your various godowns at Delhi, Ghaziabad and Thane - reg.
Please refer to your letter dated 13-3-2015 on the above subject addressed to DRI (MZU).
In this regard, it is informed that the competent authority has allowed provisional release of the goods seized at abovementioned address, subject to the following conditions : -
(i)         On payment of estimated differential duty amounting to Rs. 33,87,526/-.
(ii)        On execution of bond for full value (seizure value in this case) of the goods, i.e. Rs. 1,17,90,039/-.
(iii)       On furnishing of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10,16,260/-, i.e., 30% of differential duty, with auto renewal clause as per RBI guidelines.
(iv)       On furnishing an undertaking by the importer that the identity & weight of the seized goods will not be disputed/challenged at any stage.
(v)        Drawing of representative sample of goods by DRI before actual physical release.
You should comply with all the above said conditions for provisional release of the subjected goods at the earliest.

        Yours sincerely,
 
Deputy Commissioner (SIIB)
ICD-Import, Tughlakabad

Copy to : -
(i)         The Deputy Commissioner, (Bond), ICD-Import, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.
(ii)        The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, 3rd Floor, UTI Building, Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 in respect of your office letter vide F. No. DRI/MZU/F/Int-13/2015/2930, dated 1-4-2015 for drawing of representative sample of goods before actual physical release.
Deputy Commissioner (SIIB)
ICD-Import, Tughlakabad

 

It is evident from the above extract that the estimated differential duty came to Rs. 33,87,526/-. The petitioner states that it had during the course of investigation deposited a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- voluntarily towards the differential duty which at that time was roughly estimated to be Rs. 35,00,000/-. Insofar as all the other conditions are concerned, the petitioner states that he has complied with the same. The only bone of contention is with regard to the payment of the estimated differential duty of Rs. 33,87,526/-.
 
Respondent’s contention:- According to Mr. Satish Kumar appearing on behalf of the Customs Department, this amount is yet to be paid inasmuch as the sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- which was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner was towards the past clearances, as informed to the Customs Department by the Department of Revenue Intelligence. This is so stated in the counter affidavit filed by them.
It is also submitted by Mr. Satish Kumar that a detailed show cause has been issued on 21-8-2015 requiring the petitioner to inter alia show cause as to why the differential duty amounting to Rs. 3,62,62,555/- be not demanded and recovered in terms of the extended period under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under the provisions of Section 28AB (28AA from 8-4-2011) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner has also been required to show cause by virtue of the said notice as to why the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- deposited voluntarily during investigation should not be appropriated against the aforesaid demand. It is, therefore, the case of Mr. Satish Kumar that the said sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- is not available to the petitioner for the purpose of deposit of the differential duty in respect of the goods for which he is seeking provisional release.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- Theyare unable to agree with the submissions made by Mr. Satish Kumar. It is abundantly clear that the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner inter alia requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- deposited voluntarily during investigation should not be appropriated against the demand raised in the said show cause notice. This means that till there is an adjudication consequent upon the said show cause notice, the said sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- cannot be appropriated against the said demand. In other words, the said sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- is available to the petitioner for adjustment towards the differential duty which has been required to be deposited by virtue of the provisional release order dated 29-4-2015.
Consequently, the said sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-, which was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner, ought to be adjusted against the estimated differential duty of Rs. 33,87,526/-, which has been indicated in the provisional release order. The respondents are directed to release the said goods within ten days subject to the other conditions being complied with.
The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
 
Decision:-Petition allowed.
 
Comment:- The analogy of the case is that any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require. At the time of investigation 35 lakhs is deposited by petitioner. Amount deposited during investigations available with petitioner till it is actually appropriated in adjudication. Therefore the amount available to the petitioner can be adjusted towards the differential duty. The respondents are directed to release the goods within ten days subject to the other conditions being complied with.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak
 

Post a Comment
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