News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
CGST Rules - Challenge to vires of Rule 44A - Prima facie case for interim relief: HC

By TIOL News Service    

NEW DELHI, SEPT 06, 2017: PETITIONERS challenge the Notification 22/2017-Central Tax dated 17th August 2017, whereby Rule 44 A is inserted in the  Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (CGS Rules)  requiring reversal of 5/6th of the CENVAT Credit which had already accrued to the Petitioner on account of payment of additional duty of customs ("Countervailing Duty"/"CVD") levied under Section 3(1) of the CTA, 1975 and paid at the time of importation of gold dore bar.

Incidentally, the said CVD was allowed to be carried forward in full as a transitional measure under Section 140 of the  CGST Act, 2017.

The Petitioners state that they fulfilled all the conditions and the credit of the CVD paid on imported gold dore bars accrued to them.However, the subject rule 44A has sought to deny the credit already accrued to the Petitioner.

The petitioner challenges this Rule 44 A as being ultra vires Section 140 of the CGST Act as well as the rule making powers under Section 164 thereof. It is contended that the impugned Notification is grossly discriminatory and unreasonable and has imposed the restrictions which are applicable only to imported gold dore bars. The contention is that the impugned Notification has singled out only imported gold dore bars resulting in imposition of a higher burden of tax on these goods as com pared to other imported goods as well as compared to any similar domestic goods.

The petitioner submits that if the interim orders are not granted then the credit of CVD already availed and utilized for payment of tax on finished goods by the Petitioners would be electronically reversed and they would have to deposit cash and would be severely prejudicial to them.

The High Court after considering the submissions observed -

"…Petitioners have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief in their favour. Further, the balance of convenience is in their favour for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, it is directed that till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken by the Respondents to recover the credit already availed by the Petitioners ."

The matter is listed on 25th September, 2017.

(See 2017-TIOL-1777-HC-DEL-GST)


POST YOUR COMMENTS