| 77 |
CSTA No.3 of 2019 |
31.08.2021 |
JSW Steel Ltd |
Mangalore Customs Commissionerate
Bangalore Customs Zone
|
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the appeal filed by the Department against CESTAT FO No.21384/2018 dated 20.09.2018 which directed the Department to pay interest in a refund claim. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of lapses on his part in not submitting complete documents. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.07.2022 has dismissed the CA No.4573 of 2022 filed by M/s JSW Steel Ltd against the said High Court order. |
click here
|
| 76 |
477/2022 |
15.09.2021 |
M/s Ratek Pheon Friction Technologies Pvt Ltd. and Others Vs. UOI & Others |
CGST Noida & Other Formation |
Tran 1 Issue |
click here
|
| 75 |
DB CWP No. 11298/2018 |
10.01.2022 |
Ercon Composites |
CGST, Jodhpur |
The petitioner as a DTA unit exported the goods and claimed refund of excise duty previously paid in its capacity as an EOU. Hon'ble High Court ordered that they do not find that there is any procedure in law to deprive the petitioner from such benefit. The appellate authority has correctly discussed the legal position. The revisional authority has committed error in reversing the said order. In the result, Hon'ble High Court allowed all the petitions and the respective impugned orders are set aside. |
click here
|
| 74 |
DBCWP No. 977/2020 |
04.02.2022 |
Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills Ltd., Pali, Rajasthan |
CGST, Jodhpur |
The petitioner exported goods under Drawback Scheme and claimed drawback at higher rate (which is available when Cenvat facility has not been availed) and also paid duty from credit of capital goods and claimed rebate claim which was rejected by the adujudicating authority. Hon'ble High Court held that the department as well as this Court have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner having claimed and received the drawback of excise duty, could not thereafter claim rebate of the same component of duty and High Court vide Order dated 04.02.2022 dismissed the writ petitions filed by the party. |
click here
|
| 73 |
DBCWP No. 14492/2021 |
16.05.2022 |
P G Foils Limited, Pali |
CGST, Jodhpur |
Hon’ble High court vide order dated 16.05.2022 allowed the writ petitions and quashed SCN and OIOs on the ground that no information given to the petitioner that their SCN was pending in call book and delay adjudication of call book cases. Hon’ble High Court referred judgment in case of M/s. Parle International Ltd., M/s. Raymond Ltd. and M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. which is similer matter against the revenue. |
click here
|
| 72 |
W.P. 1690 of 2019 & Others |
13.04.2022 |
M/s Ambica Fertilisers & Others |
Aurangabad Commissionerate |
TRAN-1 issue |
click here
|
| 71 |
OTAPL. No. 29/2009 |
24.11.2021 |
NTPC SAIL POWER COMPANY Pvt. LTD. |
GST & Central Excise Commssionerate Rourkela |
M/s NTPC-SAIL power supply company Pvt. Ltd. CPP_II Administrative Building, SAIL RSP Complex, Rourkela were producing electricity on behalf of SAIL and hence are covered under Business Auxillary Service w.e.f 10.09.2004 and so are liable to Service Tax for rendering such service for the period from 10.09.2004 to 28.02.2005 under Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 91 and section 95 of the Finance Act, 2004. The high Court of Orissa in its order dated 24.11.2021 against OTAPL NO.29/2009 relied upon the judgemnet of Hon,bl;e Supreme court upheld the decisions of Tribunal, Soputh Zonal Bench in the case of CMS(I) Operations and Maintenance Co. P. Ltd.- Vs.- CCE, Pondicherry reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 369 (Tri-Chennai) by holding that electricity was manfactured goods in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. |
click here
|
| 70 |
OTAPL. No. 34/2018 |
24.11.2021 |
M/s OCL India Ltd. Rajagangpur |
GST & Central Excise Commssionerate Rourkela |
M/s. OCL India Ltd. Rajagangpur, Dist:- Sundargarh are manufacture of Cement and Cement Clinker falling under Chapter heading 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985. During the period July,05 to June, 08 the assesseee availed Cenvat credit of various steel items viz M.S. Angels, Joints Channels etc. and cement treating them as inputs with the intent to utilise the said credit towards Payment of Central Excise Duty on clearence of their final products i.e. Cement and Clinker. As, the supporting structure are permanently embedded to earth, which rendered them immovalble, therefore the impugned item did not appear to be eligible as inputs and capital goods under rule 2(K) and rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The high Court of Orissa in its order dated 24.11.2021 against OTAPL no. 34/2018 relied upon the judgement of Commssioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vrs. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mill Ltd. 2020(255) E.L.T.481(S.C) where tjhe Supreme Court allowed MODVAT credit on steel plates and M.S. Channels used in the fabrication of chimney for the diesel generating set. Thus, the High Court of Orissa in its order dated 24.11.2021 held that '' the fabrication goods used for supporting structures were capital goods for which CENVAT credit was allowable.'' |
click here
|
| 69 |
W.P.(C) 10052/2022 |
17.05.2022 |
M/s JSW Steel Ltd. |
GST & Central Excise Commssionerate Rourkela |
M /s. JSW Steel Ltd.(in the State of 0disha) having GSTN 21AAACJ4323N2ZR has paid OGST and CGST under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) on bid premium, royality, DMF, NMET, npv ETC. towards availing of licensing services for right to use minerals including exploration and evaluafion in respect of four mines located inside the State of Odisha falling under Heading 9973. M/s.JSW Steel Ltd. in Odisha has paid tax on RCM and has passed on the ITC in shape of IGST to M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. in Maharashtra registered as ISD having GSTN 27AAACJ4323N2ZF. The ITC transfered by M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. in Odisha have been distributed by M/s JSW steel Ltd. in Maharashtra (ISD) to other units of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. Located in state of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. As M/s JSW steel Ltd. in Odisha is not registered as ISD, thereby its input tax credit could not be distributed by M/s JSW steel Ltd. in Maharashtra (ISD) to other units located in other States including the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, action has been initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 74 of OGST ACT, 2017 &
CGST Act,2017 vide dated 28.03.2022 and demanded Tax amounting to Rs, 901,48,27,137/-. Assailing the Order dated 28.03.2022; the petitioner has approached to the Hon,ble High Court of Orissa. Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 17.05.2022 in WPC No. 10052 of 2022 along with I.A No. 5190 of 2022 not stayed on this court. |
click here
|
| 68 |
CA Nos. 5591/2015 |
08.03.2021 |
M/s Adhunik Steels Limited Vs the Union of India & Ors. |
CGST & CX, Jamshedpur |
The petitioner has challenged the OIO on the Ground (i) Non-availment of credit on any of the Capital Goods at the time of erection of plant and /or purchases of machineries and no Central Excise duty was levied upon when the Goods were sold, (ii) the extended period of limitation and (iii) unawareness of existence and receipt of OIO. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition with observation that writ petition was preferred bypassing the alternative remedies under CEA,1944 and the same has been preferred after expiry of statutory period of limitation without any cogent explanation. |
click here
|
| 67 |
CA Nos. 2039/2020 |
24.02.2021 |
M/s Himanchal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India & ors. |
CGST & CX, Jamshedpur |
The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Show Cause Notice on the Ground that pre-consultation as per Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 and exception clause 5.0(Preventive and offence). The petitioner relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of AMADEUS India Pvt Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Delhi reported in 2019 SCC Online DEL 8437. The Hon’ble Court has dismissed the writ petition upholding the department stand that the Show Cause Notice comes within the exception clause of para 5.0 of the above said circular. |
click here
|
| 66 |
WP (MD) No. 2133 of 2021 |
06.04.2022 |
Peetee Coach Builders pvt ltd |
Trichy Commissionerate(Chennai Zone) |
Dept made the Demand of GST at the rate 28% instead of rate 18 %, on the bus buliding activity on chassis supplied by ther customer to the assessee, in SCN no. GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/ADC/20/2020- ADJN dated 15.12.2020. The assessee in the Writ Petiton has prayed for quasing the SCN. Case disposed in favour of the department & dept is allowed to go ahead with the adjudication process. |
click here
|
| 65 |
WP No. 22952 of 20191 |
15.3.2022 |
M/s Bismi Fishries ltd, Mayilauthurai |
Trichy Commissionerate(Chennai Zone) |
party Challenged Para 4 of Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 of CBICCourt allowed the party petiton Dept is going on appeal. |
click here
|
| 64 |
WP(MD) 8250/20211 |
13.04.2022 |
M/s Vetrivel Explosives Pvt. Ltd, Trichy |
Trichy Commissionerate(Chennai Zone) |
Issue involved: Non-filing of TRAN-1 forms due to technical glitches faced by the petitioner up to due date 31.03.2020.
Party appeal is allowed.Dept is going for appeal . |
click here
|
| 63 |
Bail No. 8654 of 2019 (Shridam Adhikari Vs Union of India through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I) with 03 other Bail cases |
22.09.2021 |
1. Shridam Adhikari
2. Ram Prakash
3. Surjeet Kushwaha
4. Chet Ram @ Ram Veer
|
DRI Zonal Unit, Lucknow |
Accused applicants of NDPS case sought for bail under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hon’ble HC did not find any reasonable ground in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to hold the applicants are not guilty of an offence and they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, did not find any good ground for enlarging the applicants on bail at that stage and rejected the bail applications. |
click here
|
| 62 |
Writ Tax No. 1085 of 2021 (M/S Sultan Tanneries And Leather Products Vs Union of India and 3 Others) with 02 other Tax Writ cases |
07.04.2022 |
1. M/S Sultan Tanneries and Leather Products
2. M/S Homera Tanning Industries Pvt Ltd
3. M/S Homera Tanners
|
DRI Zonal Unit, Lucknow |
Parties inter-alia challenged the jurisdiction of DRI to issue SCN under Section 28, jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority in view of the Canon India Judgment and requested for opportunity of cross examination of the witness whose testimony was relied upon in the case. Hon’ble HC found that petitioner was not entitled to any of the relief claimed in petition and finding the petition devoid of merit dismissed the same. |
click here
|
| 61 |
W.A. 772 of 2022 |
30.03.2022 |
M/s Trinity Clearing and Shipping Agencies |
Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai |
M/s Trinity Clearing and Shipping Agencies had incurred certain expenditure towards various charges such as Bank Charges, B/L charges, CCTL charges, CFS charges, CE charges,
C.Misc charges, CWCL charges, DO charges, DEPB License charges, Freight charges, GSP charges, S. Agent charges, Survey charges, AAI charges, Textile committee charges etc.
It appeared that the assessee had excluded the said charges from the taxable value and thereby not paid the service tax on the same claiming that the said charges being
reimbursable expenditure are not leviable to service tax contravening the Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 read with Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994.
Upon issuance of SCN to assessee, HC of Madras was approched by filing W.P. No. 26189 of 2018, single bench judge delivered order in favour of assessee.
This Writ Appeal Order set aside the said WP Order stating that legal intent of the Government is clearly spelt and articulated that reimbursable expenditure or cost
incurred by the Service Provider forms part of consideration. Even otherwise, when show cause notice was issued by an authority having jurisdiction, the respondent cannot
subject it to challenge before this Court by invoking Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The respondent (party) has got a statutory remedy before the quasi judicial authority,
but without exhausting the same the writ petition was filed by party.
|
click here
|
| 60 |
W.P. No. 4809/2012 |
17.08.2021 |
M/s Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd |
Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai |
petitioner is of view that service tax is not levied on renting of immovable property and wanted HC to quash the O-i-O 54/2012.
But Hon’ble High Court upheld the view that, Revenue is kept at hardship by just filing WP against the O-i-O and not preferring the appeal against said O-i-O,
also HC states that this is calculated way of prolonging the litigation by application to tag this WP with other WP which can never be encouraged by the Courts.
Interim stay if sought by petitioner is granted by HC, petitioner would not be liable to pay interest and Revenue will be at great hardship.
Hence with balancing approach not to prolong the litigation on account of multiplicity of proceedings HC disposed the instant case in favour of Revenue.
|
click here
|
| 59 |
W.P. No. 27159 of 2018 |
02.06.2021 |
M/s MMD Heavy Machinery (India) Pvt. Ltd |
Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai |
The petitioner prayed to the Hon’ble HC to allow manual filing of Form GST ITC-02 by them to transfer the unutilized ITC of Rs.2.86 Crores u/r 10 of CCR, 2004 from their closed
down unit in Ambattur, Tamilnadu to their unit in Sri City, Andhra Pradesh (or) alternatively, direct the respondents to refund the amount of ITC.
In the instant case HC observed that Sub Section 2 to Section 25 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 also makes it clear that a person seeking registration under
the aforesaid Act shall be granted a single registration in a State or Union Territory. The proviso also makes it clear that a person having multiple places of business in a
State or Union Territory may be granted a separate registration for each such place of business, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
That apart, sub section 4 to Section 25 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 also makes it clear that a person who has obtained or is required to obtain more than one
registration in a State or Union Territory, whether in one State or Union Territory or more than one State or Union Territory shall, in respect of each such registration,
be treated as a distinct persons for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, even though the petitioner has closed the operation at its Ambattur location and has obtained
separate registration under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and it is a distinct person different from the registration obtained under the provisions of the
same Act in Andhra Pradesh
|
click here
|
| 58 |
W.P. No. 18746 of 2021 |
03.01.2022 |
M/s.G K Shetty Builders Pvt Ltd. |
Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai |
Email communication dated 03.06.2020 sent by the Department to the petitioner stating that because of big difference in ITC available as per the GSTR2A and ITC availed in GSTR3B
returns, the ITC has been blocked by the proper officer. Petitioner approached HC with prayer that, as no notice was issued and no order was communicated by the proper officer,
before ordering blocking of ITC credit, action of the Proper Officer is without authority, violative of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to unblock
the ITC for utilisation of payment of appropriate taxes. Hon'ble HC in the instant case ordered that, petitioner was asked to furnish certain details by an email dated 03.06.2020
and the petitioner appears to have not furnished the same to the respondents, as a result of which the difference in the Input Tax Credit in GSTR2A and GSTR3B remains unexplained,
also HC disposed Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the respondents with all particulars called for by communication dated 03.06.2020.
The respondents shall hear out the petitioner and consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
|
click here
|
| 57 |
W.P. No. 27882 of 2016 |
15.06.2021 |
M/s.Pentagon Industrial Services |
Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai |
The issue involved is that the assessee has filed a revised declaration dt.31.12.2013 which was received on 01.01.2014, wherein they have declared the tax dues as zero.
The reason for declaring the tax dues is zero is that they have inadvertently classified their services as Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services;
the Original Authority rejected the revised declaration dated 31.12.2013 filed by the petitioner on 01.01.2014 and therefore, the declarant is not entitled for the benefit under
VCES Scheme 2013 in respect of the tax dues declared under original declaration dated 14.08.2013 as they did not pay the minimum of 50% of the tax dues declared.
HC held that it is relevant to note that the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 has been introduced by the Central Government,
in exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) of section 114 of the Finance Act, 2013 (17 of 2013) with effect from 13.5.2013 by Notification 10/2013 and hence,
it is not a self~contained code, but is to be construed as a part and parcel of the Chapter V of the Act, 1994 in view of the contents of section 105 of the Finance Act, 2013,
the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax by following the procedures.
|
click here
|
| 56 |
W.A. No. 2450 of 2021 |
23.02.2022 |
Vital Rao Jayprakash |
Chennai North Commissionerate, Chennai |
Petitioner seeks to quash the entry regarding SVLDRS-I and accept the declaration filed by the petitioneragainst the audit quantification of admitted duty to the tune of Rs.3208952/- as per the provisions of the Act and circulars issued by the department. Petition filed after closure of SVLDRS scheme. Since the investigation itself was not completed and the quantification of liability does not crystallize,
the application of the appellant was rejected on the ground of ineligibility. The learned Judge, taking note of the fact that the writ petition was filed after the period specified under the scheme has come to an end, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and it does not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, it is evident that for availing the benefits of the scheme,
one of the conditions precedent is that the tax liability of the tax payer ought to have been quantified. Even though the appellant had submitted a letter dated 13.06.2019,
much before the date of closure of the scheme, the fact remains that his tax liability has not been quantified and therefore he cannot avail the benefits of the scheme.
|
click here
|
| 55 |
CMA No.2083 of 2010 |
16.09.2021 |
M/s.Sudhan Spinning Mills Private limited |
Madurai GST Commissionerate |
The assessees are not challenging the fact that they are required to pay the excise duty on the amortized value of the indigenously procured
capital goods duty-free under the EOU scheme when they converted to EPCG scheme on merit and they are also not challenging the fact that the quantum of duty computed which was payable by them has not been actually paid. |
click here
|
| 54 |
WP(MD) No.19314/2020 |
31.03.2021 |
Shri P.Sikkandar |
Madurai GST Commissionerate |
The petitioner who had not paid the tax determined under SVLDRS within due date preferred writ remedy. The Hon'ble Court also allowed the petition and directed to make the payment within 7 days vide Order dated 08.01.2021. |
click here
|
| 53 |
WP(MD) No.2510 of 2021 & 46 others |
23.03.2022 |
T.Krishnan & 46 Others |
Madurai GST Commissionerate |
The petitioners are the Government Contractors who were issued SCNs for non-payment of service tax on construction services provided by them under works contract. They had filed the writ petitions mainly by challenging the SCNs on limitation. |
click here
|
| 52 |
W.P.(MD) Nos.21614, 21616, 21621, 21622, 21627, 21628, 23500, 23501,23503, 23505, 23507, 23508, 23510, 23514, 23518, 23519, 23521, 23528, 23531,23536, 23537, 23543, 23545, 23547, 23550 and 23553 of 2019
|
18.03.2022 |
"The Joint Commissioner,
Central Excise,
Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise,
Tractor Road NGO 'A' Colony,
Tirunelveli 627 007." |
Tirunelveli, Madurai |
Some consumers filed compaints before District Consumer forum against Some Hotels charging extra GST amount. In the said Compaints the Joint Commissioner, CGST also had been made as respondent. |
click here
|
| 51 |
Crl Petn. No. 1 of 2022 |
17.02.2022 |
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Shillong Regional Unit, Shillong
Vs.
Shri Ajay Babu Manda |
Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati |
When Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers proper officer to release seized goods to the owner, then there is no necessity to approach the Magistrate to employ Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of release of such goods. |
click here
|
| 50 |
Bail Application No. 51/2022 |
18.01.2022 |
Birjit Ahanthem and Anr. Vs. The Union of India Rep. by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence |
-do- |
For the grant of bail against cases booked under the Customs Act, 1962, the whole value of the goods seized from different accused shall be considered and not on the recovery of such goods made from individual possessions, since all were in the league in committing the offence. |
click here
|
| 49 |
WTAX No.
748/2021 |
29.03.
2022 |
M/s
Ridhi
Sidhi
Pharmac
hem |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 48 |
WTAX No. 1115/201
9 |
29.03.2022 |
Vaishno trading |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous |
click here
|
| 47 |
WTAX No.
642/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
Bikash
Sarma |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous |
click here
|
| 46 |
WTAX No.
310/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
M/s
Monjurul
Haque
Laskar |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 45 |
WTAX No.
210/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
Maa
Gouri
Traders |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 44 |
WTAX No.
644/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
Vaishno
Trading |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 43 |
WTAX No.
309/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
Govind &
Company
|
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 42 |
WTAX No.
1340/201
8
|
25.03.
2022 |
T.N.
Enterpris
es
|
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 41 |
WTAX No.
1339/201 |
25.03.
2022 |
T.N.
Enterpris |
Customs (P)
Commission |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous |
click here
|
| 40 |
WTAX No.
1338/201
8
|
25.03.
2022 |
T.N.
Enterpris
es |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 39 |
WTAX No.
1337/201
8 |
25.03.
2022 |
T.N.
Enterpris
es |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 38 |
WTAX No.
1334/201
8
|
25.03.
2022 |
25.03.
2022
T.N.
Enterpris
es |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 37 |
WTAX No.
592/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
M/s
Gungun
Traders |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous.
|
click here
|
| 36 |
WTAX No.
1401/201
8 |
25.03.
2022 |
Rameng
mawii |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow
The WP dismissed as
infructuous |
click here
|
| 35 |
WTAX No.
1400/201
8 |
25.03.
2022 |
Rameng
mawii |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 34 |
WTAX No.
645/2019 |
25.03.
2022 |
Roshni
Traders |
Customs (P)
Commission |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous.
|
click here
|
| 33 |
WTAX No.
1294/201
8
|
25.03.
2022 |
M/s Maa
Vaishno
Traders |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP dismissed as
infructuous. |
click here
|
| 32 |
Anticipato
ry BAIL
No.1834/
2022
|
14.03.
2022 |
Ram
Gopal
Soni |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
Anticipatory Bail application
allowed on certain conditions. |
click here
|
| 31 |
BAIL
No.399/2
022 |
09.03.
2022 |
Gargi
Saha |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms
and conditions |
click here
|
| 30 |
WTAX No.
307/2019 |
08.03.
2022 |
Paliwal
Distribut
ors |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The WP is dismissed as
withdrawn |
click here
|
| 29 |
WP
No.1431/
2018 |
28.02.
2022 |
Prahlad
Namamal
Setia |
Customs (P)
Commission
erate
Lucknow |
The Court was not incline to
interfere with the orders of
recovery apart from the
position that the petition has
abated. |
click here
|
| 28 |
BAIL No. 14704/2021 |
22.12.2021 |
Mohd Nafees |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms and conditions |
click here
|
| 27 |
BAIL No. 14704/2021 |
22.12.2021 |
Mohd Nafees |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms and conditions |
click here
|
| 26 |
BAIL No. 14703/2021 |
22.12.2021 |
Smt Mafia |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms and conditions |
click here
|
| 25 |
BAIL No.7073/2019 |
22.12.2021 |
Satnam Singh |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms and conditions |
click here
|
| 24 |
BAIL No. 6939/2019 |
22.12.2021 |
Bittu Singh |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms and conditions |
click here
|
| 23 |
BAIL No.10195/2021 |
20.12.2021 |
Mohammad Faizan |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Bail allowed on certain terms and conditions |
click here
|
| 22 |
WTAX No.757/2019 |
15.11.2021 |
Vaishno Trading |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
The matter is dismissed as infructuous |
click here
|
| 21 |
WTAX No.1028/2018 |
04.10.2021 |
M/s Accumen Laminators LLP |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
The WP disposed of with direction to issue refund or issue a proper notice for assessment.. |
click here
|
| 20 |
WTAX No.1499/2018 |
21.09.2021 |
M/s Commercial |
Customs (P)Commissionerate |
The WP dismissed as infructuous. |
click here
|
| 19 |
WP U/s 482 No.14732/2021 |
07.09.2021 |
Ram Gopal Soni |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
WP disposed of with direction to appellant to appear before the concerned court and to move application for recall of NBW. |
click here
|
| 18 |
PIL Civil No.4869/2020 |
27.08.2021 |
Manoj Kumar Singh |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
The writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution |
click here
|
| 17 |
WTAX No.324/2021 |
13.07.2021 |
Emco Exports |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
Disposed of the petition with direction to the Department to decide the representation of theparty. |
click here
|
| 16 |
WP Misc Bench No.8322/2021 |
23.03.2021 |
Sunil Kumar |
Customs (P)Commissionerate Lucknow |
WP disposed of finally with liberty to petitioner to file appeal challenging the impugned order before appellate authority |
click here
|
| 15 |
CWJC No.8740 of 2020 |
09.03.2022 |
Indriyash Masih & another Vs UOI & others |
Cus(P) Divn., Muzaffarpur |
Case filed for quashing of seizure memo of seized black pepper with truck dated 05.10.2019 done by the DRI and for release of it. In judgement -The court finds that since there is no alleged procedural illegality, cout is not inclined to interfere with the seizure, hence the case stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise in appropriate proceedings. |
click here
|
| 14 |
CWJC No.8737 of 2020 |
09.03.2022 |
Md. Sajid@Saillu Vs.UOI & Others |
Cus(P) Divn., Muzaffarpur |
Case filed for quashing of seizure memo of seized black pepper with truck dated 05.10.2019 done by the DRI and for release of it In judgement -The court finds that since there is no alleged procedural illegality, court is not inclined to interfere with the seizure, hence the case stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise in appropriate proceedings. |
click here
|
| 13 |
CWJC NO 1611of 2020 |
24.01.2022 |
L’oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI & Others |
Cus(P) Divn., Motihari |
Issue related to commercial tax. In judgement-it is accepted by the court to remand the matter to the tax assessing authority for deciding the case afresh. During pendency of case no coersive steps shall be taken against the petiioner. |
click here
|
| 12 |
Cr. WJC 904 of 2021 |
31.01.2022 |
filed by Road Star Logistics Pvt Ltd. Vs UOI |
LCS Raxaul |
A NDPS case. Psychotropic substance has been recovered by the Customs (P0 Divn., Muzaffarpur. The petitioner being neither the owner of the container in question, nor producing any authorization from the owner, this Court would hold that no case is made out by the petitioner for maintaining prayer of release of the container in question. In judgement–Case is disposed by the High court Patna on the basis of writ petition being devoid of merit . |
click here
|
| 11 |
Writ C. No No.23531/2021 |
22.12.2021 |
Gurmukhrai Basdeodass Vs Coal India Ltd & Ors before Allahabad High Court |
Customs HQ.Patna |
Case filed for staying the effect of the Notice issued by Respondent No. 1(coal India Ltd.) in a e -online trading platforms of coal in terms where of the Petitioner has been debarred from participating in any further e-auction of coal being conducted by Respondent No 1 or its subsidiaries . In Judgement finding no good ground to keep the writ petition pending, it is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2 i.e G.M Coal India Ltd, Kokata to take decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after considering reply submitted by the petitioner on 17.07.2021 to the show cause notice dated 13.07.2021. |
click here
|
| 10 |
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 705 of 2016 dated 30.08.2016 |
28.06.2019 |
Ranjeet Kumar @ Manjeet Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & another |
Cus(P) Divn., Muzaffarpur |
The case is filed against judgement of conviction dated 23.06.2016 of additional Session Judge, Muzaffarpur in Customs NDPS case No. 206/1998. In judgement of the High court conviction is not at all tenable in the background of the fact that during course of statement u/s 313 CrPC the aforesaid incriminationing material has not been confronted to him along with the infirmities persisting on record as indicated. Consequent thereupon the judgement of lower court would not survive. Hence the appeal is allowed. |
click here
|
| 9 |
CWJC No. 8129 of 2020 |
15.11.2021 |
M/S Govind & Company Vs. UOI & Ors |
Cus(P) Divn., Motihari |
A case of seizure of betel nut. Agrieved by order of Joint Commissioner, Cus(P) HQ, whereby a condition had been imposed on the petitioner for furnishing bank guarantee covering 70% of the value of the Betel nuts for release of goods provisionally. The case is disposed off by the court with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before appellate authority within two weeks with entitlement to file an application by condoning any bar of limitations. |
click here
|
| 8 |
MA No. 405 of 2018 |
15.11.2019 |
Filed by Commissioner of Customs Vs Gopal Prasad & Others |
Cus(P) Divn., Motihari |
Filed against the final order No. 77608-77610/2017 dated 30.10.17of CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata.
In Judgement, it is stated that u/s 130 of customs act 1962 an appeal would be maintainable before the High court from every order passed in appeal by the Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. In hon’ble High Court’s opinion,
in absense of a substantial question of law raised in the appeal, the same is not maintainable, hence case is dismissed. |
click here
|
| 7 |
Cr. Misc No. 25821 of 2021 |
15.12.2021 |
Sandrika Prasad Sah & Others Vs State of Bihar & Others |
Cus(P) Divn., Motihari |
Case filed for bail. No new ground except for custody is raised in the application of the petitioner. hence petitioner is not granted bail in judgement.. |
click here
|
| 6 |
CWJC NO. 5441/2021 |
26/08/2021 |
M/S Assam Trade & Transport through its prop.Jai Kishan Sarda Vs. UOI & others |
Cus(P) Divn., Muzaffarpur |
Case was filed for discharge of the two bank guarantee and discharge of indemnity bond in pursuant to the judgement and order dated 28.09.2020 passed by a division Bench of Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 141 of 2012. Since the Bank guarantees were discharged , the case become infructuous hence disposed. |
click here
|
| 5 |
Cr. Misc No. 14758 of 2021 |
04/08/2021 |
Rambabu Kesharwani |
Cus(P) Divn., Motihari |
Petition was filed for getting bail in a Fake currency case. In judgement the hon’ble High Court rejected the bail petition of the petitioner. |
click here
|
| 4 |
WP No. 4643/2020 |
24/12/2021 |
Lifecare Pharma and 03 others of Medchal GST Comm'te |
Medchal GST Commissionerate,Hyderabad Zone |
The Writ Petitions are allowed vide Common order dated 24.12.2021. The Hon'ble High Court held that "having regard to the amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021, all the writ petitions are allowed with the further direction that respondents shall issue and hear the petitioners before quantifying the interest to be paid by the petitioners asper the amended provision of Section of CGST Act". |
|
| 3 |
CEA No. 06/2021 |
27/04/2021 |
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited |
Medchal GST Commissionerate,Hyderabad Zone |
The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Departmental Appeal. A proposal was sent to Directorate of Legal Affairs for filing appeal against the said order. |
|
| 2 |
WP No. 2588/2020 & WP No. 3087/2020 |
03/06/2021 |
Asian GPR Multiplex & Mallikarjun Traders (Common order) |
Medchal GST Commissionerate,Hyderabad Zone |
Directed the party to provide the information sought by the National Ant-Profiteerin Authority and Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering. |
|
| 1 |
WP No. 44517/2018 |
22/12/2021 |
Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Limited with 13 others of Medchal GST Comm'te |
Medchal GST Commissionerate,Hyderabad Zone |
The Writ Petitions are allowed vide Common order dated 22.12.2021. The Hon'ble High Court held that "having regard to the amendments carried out by the Finance Act, 2021, all the writ petitions are allowed". The amendment in the provisions of Section 50 makes liability of paying of interest on delayed payment of GST on the tax paid by debiting the electronic cash ledger only. |
|
| 0 |
WP-96 of 2022 |
21/01/2022 |
Nabeel Construction Pvt. Ltd. |
Thane CGST &CX |
SVLDRS case. The petitioner had filed SVLDRS-1 under the category ‘Investigation, Enquiry & Audit’ as their case was under investigation by the DGGI, Mumbai. The Partner of the petitioner firm, in his statement recorded before the DGGI on 28.02.2019, has admitted the tax liability tax liability of Rs. Rs.1,28,88,541/-.The Designated Committee held that the investigation was not complete as on 30.06.20219 and hence it was held that the quantification of dues was finalized even at the time of filing of SVLDRS-1 & accordingly application was rejected. Upon hearing the petition , the Hon’ble HC has set aside the order passed by the Designated Committee with directions to consider the application of the petitioner as valid declaration under the category ‘Investigation, Enquiry & Audit’ & to grant him the consequential relief by passing a speaking order. |
|
| -1 |
WP-137/2022 |
13/01/2022 |
Ashok P. Bagh |
Customs |
Copy of the order attached |
|
