21)Statutory Provisions sought to be exploited for derailing the process of adjudication
Case of Indus Integrated Information Mgmt Ltd Vs PR CGST & CS reported in 2018-TIOL-61-HC-Kol
Writ petition filed challenging the final order passed by respondent No. 1 determining the Service Tax finally payable by petitioner along with interest and penalty – Argument of the Petitioner was that as per provisions of Section 4(B)(b) of Finance Act, 1994, Authority responsible for determining tax should complete the adjudication within one year from the date of Demand Notice – It was argued that the respondent No. 2 is the only officer who heard the petitioner and, therefore, the Demand having been decided by a different respondent No. 1, cannot be sustained.
The High Court held as under Arguments advanced by petitioner are based on hyper technicalities which are not of a nature so as to derail the adjudication process – This Court is satisfied that the statutory provisions relied upon by respondents to take care of the contingencies sought to be exploited by the petitioner for filibustering the adjudication.
22) Faulty SCN
Case of TVS Motor Company Vs Asstt Commr reported in 2018-TIOL-71-HC-MAD-GST
Issue in brief
The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.5.2018, which according to the respondents is only a SCN – The petitioner’s case is that the impugned order is not a SCN, but a demand, which has been made on them without considering the objections filed by petitioner and that it is not in the nature of a SCN, as a final decision has been taken and communicated to them – It is further submitted that the impugned order denying a legitimate transitional credit eligible to petitioner in accordance with Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice- Case of TVS Motor Company Vs Asstt Commr reported in 2018-TIOL-71-HC-MAD-GST
Decision of High Court
The High Court held that the impugned order, is not in the nature of a SCN, but a demand by itself whereby the petitioner’s claim for transitional credit has been rejected and that they have been directed to reverse the credit along with interest within 15 days, failing which, penal action would be initiated for recovery of arrears under Section 79 of the said Act – These are sufficient grounds to hold that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice – On this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to succeed