Article
Demand without challenging assessment – Is it sustainable?
By Akhilesh Kangsia and Tridipa Banerjee
The recent judgement of the Supreme Court in ITC v. CCE, Kolkata has been quite unsettling for the assessees, as their refund claims are being rejected because of non-challenge to the assessment. However, this ruling is likely to pose an issue for the department as well. The Court has ruled that even the department needs to challenge the assessment by filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before coming to demand route under Section 28. According to the authors, though the normal period for raising demand is 2 years, however as a result of this judgement, the same is reduced to 90 days [60 + 30 days for filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)]. The authors further cite various Supreme Court judgements which may be of help to the assessees in contesting the demand within normal period of limitation in the absence of challenge to the bills of entry by the department. They however note that applicability of these judgments for demand beyond normal period of limitation needs to be tested. It would be interesting to see how the Courts deal with this issue...
Goods & Services Tax (GST)
Notifications and Circulars
- 38th Meeting of the GST Council – Highlights
- E-invoicing mandatory for certain taxpayers with effect from 1-4-2020
- Supply of Information Technology enabled Services – Circular No. 107/26/2019-GST withdrawn ab initio
- Standard Operating Procedure to be followed in case of non-filers of returns
Ratio decidendi
- Seized goods to be released only as per mechanism prescribed under CGST Act and Rules – Supreme Court
- Rectification of TRAN-1 when credit accumulated in pre-GST regime and entitlement to distribute not disputed – Kerala High Court
- Power of arrest not to be exercised at whims of any officer or for sake of recovery or terrorizing any businessman – Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Detention of goods on grounds of possibility of evasion is not correct – Kerala High Court
- Detention of goods on ground that consignee was defaulter is not correct – Kerala High Court
- Anti-profiteering – Findings of DGAP cannot be construed as price regulation – No set prescriptions can be laid while computing profiteering – NAA
- Payment received as bonus paid/payable to persons deployed as security personnel liable to GST – West Bengal AAR
- GST leviable on damages for delay in supply when liability of payment of liquidated damages gets established – Andhra Pradesh AAR
- GST on activity of land development under JDA and sale of plot – Karnataka AAR
- Membership fees collected by club from its members when liable to GST – AAAR Pune
- UK VAT – Digital newspapers are ‘newspapers’ within VAT provisions and accordingly zero rated – United Kingdom’s Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)
Customs
Notifications and Circulars
- Implementation of Auto Out of Charge under Express Cargo Clearance System (EECS)
- Mandatory uploading of invoice and Bill of Lading declared in B/E and mention of document code and IRN in B/E
- Registration under Steel Information Management System clarified
- STP units to submit Service Exports Reporting Form monthly
- Gifts – Prohibition on import of goods where Customs clearance sought as gifts
- Toys – Import Policy condition revised
- Peas – Import restrictions tightened
- Jewellery exports – Submission of self-attested copy of exporter’s copy of shipping bill as proof of export
Ratio decidendi
- Ports specified in exemption notification not exhaustive – Exemption, when port notified subsequently – Madras High Court
- Export benefit not deniable because of technical lapse – MEIS benefit available even if concerned box not checked in shipping bill – Kerala High Court
- EOU – Non-obtaining of permission from DC for clearance into DTA is procedural error – CESTAT Mumbai
- Writ petition also raising issue of competence of the concerned authority under ASEAN FTA, maintainable – Supreme Court
- Redemption fine to be determined according to market value of goods at time of seizure – CESTAT Bangalore
- Aluminium Scrap ‘Throb’ is not aluminium ingots merely because of high aluminium content – CESTAT Allahabad
- Principles of natural justice violated if assessee not given enough time to respond to complete SCN – Bombay High Court
Central Excise, Service Tax & VAT
Circular
- Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 – Clarifications
Ratio decidendi
- Exemption to Basic Excise duty not automatically extends to Cess and NCCD – Supreme Court Larger Bench
- Cenvat credit not available on fuel inputs used in manufacture of exempted goods – Supreme Court Larger Bench
- Deemed sale – Use by charterer exclusively for six months is a contract of transfer of right to use – Supreme Court
- Cenvat credit can be availed on tour expenses of dealers – CESTAT Allahabad
- Scrapping not falls within ambit of Central Excise Rule 16 for availing Cenvat credit on goods brought back – Allahabad High Court
- Export of readymade garments – Not following of procedure under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) not fatal – CESTAT Ahmedabad
