8th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Gati-Kintetsu Express Private Limited. Vs Asst Commr of State Tax : A seizure order u/s 129(1) of the CGST Act for goods seized was challenged in the writ petition. The order was appealable but the petitioner claimed it was covered by the exception carved out in Sec 121, hence, writ petition was maintainable. Revenue argued the exception relates to books of accounts, registers etc. where no statutory appeal is provided. The Court held :
"The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy available. It would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal from the impugned order before the designated appellate authority...."
7th June, 2018 : Calcutta HC: Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs UOI : The bail application was rejected by the Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah allowing the investigating agency to conduct custodial interrogation in connection with case under Section 132(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Since the custodial interrogation is yet to be done, the Court kept application is kept pending as deferred for a week.
6th June 2018 : Karnataka High Court : Gulf Oil Lubricants Vs GST Council & Ors : The writ petition was filed seeking the Court to issue directions to the respondents to amend the Section 140(3) and 140(5) of KGST Act to permit transitional credit which is allowed in other states such as Kerala, Bihar and Sikkim. The petitioner subsequently sought leave & withdrew the petition to approach the Authority for appropriate relief.
6th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Sukumar Chandra Saha Vs Dy Commr Commercial Taxes : The order passed by the revisional authority was challenged in the writ petition. The revisional authority sought certain clarifications on C – Forms. But before the clarifications were received from the purchaser, the revisional authority passed the order. The Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the revisional authority on the limited aspect of the clarifications.
5th June, 2018 : Calcutta High Court : Ota Falloons Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI : This judgement deals with a number of questions including (i) Can an appeallable order be challenged in writ petiton on grounds of jurisdiction ? (ii) Are the time limits in Regulation 22 & 20 mandatory or directory? (iii) Is the notice time barred ? (iv) If so, is the order vitiated by lack of jurisdiction? (v) If a wrong Regulation is cited will it vitiate an order? etc. After considering these issues in detail, the Hon'ble Court rejects the petition.
4th June, 2018: Calcutta High Court : Reliance Jute Mills Vs UOI : Jute bags were exempted from central excise duty. The jute industry, DGS & D, Min of Commerce and Government undertakings of the States and Centre proceeded on the basis that no excise duty was payable on jute bags. However, since the plaintiff marked the jute bags as mandated by the Jute Commissioner, the Revenue considered them to be branded and hence taxable. Excise duty, penalty and interest were therefore imposed on the jute bags.
The plaintiff contended that the markings on the bags were compulsory. They did not enhance the value of the jute bags. Also there is no connection between the aforesaid products and the manufacturer. This contention has been accepted and settled in the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 13th February, 2018 (RDB Textiles Vs. CCE) Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court restrained the Revenue from realizing any excise duty, penalty, interest etc. on the jute bags.
4th June, 2018 : Bombay High Court : Jignesh Prakash Shah Vs. CBI & Ors : In this case the Hon'ble High Court held that the CBI has no power to to impound the petititoner's passport and retaining it for a long period. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgement in Suresh Nanda Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Relevant portion of the judgement reads :
"Considering the observations of the Courts in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the power of impounding are vested with the Passport Authority. In the circumstances, the passport was seized by the respondents on 13th March, 2014. Retention of passport for such a long period amounting to impounding, which is not permissible in law. The illegality cannot continue in perpetuity. It is within the domain of the Passport Authority to initiate action under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act."
1st June, 2018 : Dehi HC : Rajesh Sharma Vs DRI : The petitioner sought interim bail for the purpose of medical treatment of his mother. She is about 70 years is ill and his wife had already sought divorce. After seeking independent medical opinion of a doctor the Court granted interim bail for a period of two weeks with conditions.
1st June, 2018 : Dehi HC : Agya Import Ltd Vs Jt Commr of Customs,ICD, Tughlakhabad : The petitioners imported on 24th February, 2016 goods from Germany but filed BoE for home consumption nearly 4 months later. One of the directors of the petitioner, was arrested was in judicial custody for 2 months on import of similar goods seized by SIIB. These goods were also seized on the belief they were undervalued and notice was issued. Nearly 18 months after seizure, the petitioner requested provisional release which was granted under order dated 28th May, 2018. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed. The Court declined to interfere in the matter as the petitioner can invoke the statutory appellate remedy.
31st May, 2018: Delhi High Court : Santani Sales Organisation Vs CESTAT : The Hon'ble Court set aside the stay order of the CESTAT under Section 35F requiring an additional pre-deposit of 10% of the confirmed demand after 2nd appeal. The petitioner had deposited 7.5% of the total duty and cess demand, and at the second stage made a further deposit of 2.5% of the duty and cess demand. Revenue demanded an addition 10% pre-deposit which will be a fresh and separate deposit. Therefore, cumulatively the pre-deposit should be 17.5% of the duty demand at the 3rd appeal stage.
The Court held : "12. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that a graded scale of pre-deposit has been provided. In case of first appeal, whether before the Tribunal or before the Commissioner (Appeals), 7.5% of the duty and penalty in dispute must be deposited. In case of second appeal before the Tribunal, the amount gets enhanced from 7.5% to 10%.....
24. Accordingly, we would allow the present writ petition and set aside the order and direction of the Tribunal that the petitioner must deposit additional 10% of the duty and penalty in dispute for the second appeal to be heard and adjudicated...."
31st May, 2018 : Madhya Pradesh High : Ramesh Chandra vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh : The High Court on an anticipatory bail application made by a Govt servant working in Commercial Tax Check Post, Navgaon grant the bail with conditions. The allegation was he took the Form 49 and handed over the same to co-accused Sonu. The Court concluded : "that investigation has already been over and charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is a government servant and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering of evidence, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. "
31st May, 2018 : Delhi High Court : Farha Hussais Vs UOI & Ors. : Wife's petition to release the COFEPOSA detenue Mr Sharaft Hussain is granted by the Hon'ble high Court. The detenue was a CHA who was arrested on allegations that 33 importers had imported using fraudulent licences. The detenue on the other hand stated that he has bonafide purchased scripts/licenses from the various firms of Mr. Pathror against payments. The detenue learnt that these licences were fraudulent / tampered with later when the customs officials informed him. The High Court lists out several factors which wree not taken into account the most important being "that the licenses for payment of duty was used by the G-Card Holder Mr Diwakar Sharma and not the Detenue.:"
The writ petition was allowed and the detenue ordered to be released forthwith.
Click for earlier Judgements in 2018