SHARE

| Oct-13-2021

Patiala Court sought response on the non-initiation of action against firms evading GST from CBIC

In State v. Mohit Maan [FIR No. 301/2020 dated September 29, 2021] the Honorable Patiala House Court sought a response from Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (“the CBIC”) for not initiating appropriate action against delinquent firms involved in Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion worth Rupees 940 Crores.

The Assistant Commissioner appeared on behalf of State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and has claimed that they have already initiated action at their end not only against the delinquent firms but also against their employees. However, the Assistant Commissioner has categorically insisted that information was duly shared by them with the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and yet the CGST Authorities was not inclined to initiate any action against the remaining 202 firms out of 486 firms.

The Honorable Patiala House Court said that from the replies filed on behalf of the CGST Dept, a very sorry state of affairs is revealed. Evidently, as per the claim of the CGST Dept, the SGST Dept is not even aware of the correct address of the CGST offices.

“The Court is in pain to observe that instead of initiating appropriate action against the delinquent firms in the matter, wherein as per the claim of Delhi Police, a tax evasion of Rs.940 crores is involved, the authorities are involved in the blame game. Unfortunately, none is present on behalf of SGST and even no reply has been filed on behalf of Chairperson, CBIC,” the Court while expressing its dissatisfaction said.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.

Similar reads

Appellant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit to the date of refund

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of

Oct-13-2021

Read More

Waiver of pre-deposit is not tenable on account of financial inability

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view

Oct-13-2021

Read More

Excise duty cannot be demanded for clandestine removal based on third party evidence

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held

Oct-13-2021

Read More

Arbitrary valuation of goods not subjected to BIS specifications is invalid

The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods

Oct-13-2021

Read More

EOU not entitled to claim refund of TED on its own, may avail of the entitlements of DTA supplier specified in FTP

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export

Oct-13-2021

Read More