Vol. 2, Issue 9 dated 27.02.2022

Owner of the conveyance cannot be foisted with the vicarious liability of any mis-declaration/fraud by the owner of the goods: Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

In M/s Vijay Mamgain v. The State of Haryana and Ors., CWP-1564-2022 (O&M), the department did not release the conveyance even though the fine was paid as prescribed under proviso to Section 130 (2), the department contended that the owner of the conveyance has to pay tax, penalty (as per s. 129) and fine (as per s. 130) to get the vehicle and goods released, as the owner of the conveyance has vicarious liability and the fine under Section 130 doesn’t dissolve the rigours of Section 129. Hon’ble HC held that to force the owner of the conveyance to pay the tax, penalty and fine on the goods would mean that the owner of the conveyance is also foisted with the vicarious liability of any mis-declaration/fraud by the owner of the goods despite the proviso engrafted on to Section 130(2) of the Act. Consequently, the argument of the learned State counsel is rejected and it is directed that the conveyance be released forthwith. The goods obviously would be confiscated and disposed of by the respondents in accordance with the law.

Show cause notice is completely silent on the violation or contravention alleged, quashed: Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court

In M/s Nkas Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., W.P.(T) No. 2659 of 2021, Hon’ble HC held that SCN is issued without striking out any relevant portions and without stating the contraventions committed by the petitioner. Even summary notice (which cannot be substituted to a SCN) doesn’t disclose against which works contract service completed or partly completed the petitioner has not disclosed its liability in the returns filed under GSTR-3B - violation of Section 75(7) - SCN and Summary Notice quashed.

Interest liability is not automatic, the department has to adjudicate the interest liability: Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court

In M/s R.K. Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors., W.P.(T) No. 1404 of 2020, Hon’ble HC relied upon Mahadeo Construction Company v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(T) No. 3517 of 2019 and held that interest liability under Section 50 of the CGST Act cannot be determined without initiating any adjudication proceeding and recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST Act cannot be initiated for recovery of interest under Section 50 without initiation and completion of the adjudication proceedings. Quashed the Garnishee Notice issued under Section 79. .

Refund for the period April 2018 to February 2019 is covered by the extension of limitation by Hon’ble Supreme Court: Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court

In M/s A.G. Exports v. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors., Writ Petition No. 3049 of 2022, Hon’ble HC held that the rejection of the claim has been solely on the ground that as per the NN. 91/2020 dated 14.12.2020, the time was extended only till 31.03.2021 for the activities which fell within the dates 20.03.2020 to 30.03.2021. The Court would note that such Notification is dated 14.12.2020 that is much prior to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.03.2021. Moreover, it need not be overemphasized that the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would finally hold the field and in the present case, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order referred to above has clearly indicated that any computing of period of limitation for any such appeal, application of proceeding the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded and in the present case admittedly the application for refund having been filed on 12.05.2021, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of such order.

The personal liberty of the bail petitioner would become completely curtailed, merely on account of his inability to fulfill the harsh, oppressive, and, exploitative bail conditions: Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

In M/s Sandeep Kumar Puri v. Inspector (Preventive), CGST Tax, Ludhiana, CRM-M-31525 of 2021 (O&M) - Default bail – Held: The personal liberty of the bail petitioner would become completely curtailed, merely on account of his inability to fulfil the harsh, oppressive, and, exploitative bail conditions. Consequently, this Court deems it fit to modify the conditions of default bail.

Bail Granted - offence constituted under Section 132(1)(b)(c) - In Yogender Yadav v. UOI and Ors., CRM-M-53014-2021 (O&M) : Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Bail Granted – alleged preparing fake invoices and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and its monetization through refunds – In Tarun Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors., CRM-M-42142-2021 (O&M) : Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court?

The author may be reached at [email protected]*