Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (8) TMI 36 - HC - GST


Issues Involved:
1. Exemption from filing duly affirmed affidavit and payment of court fee.
2. Implementation of CESTAT orders for exemption from IGST on re-imported repaired goods.
3. Compliance with judicial discipline and National Litigation Policy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption from Filing Duly Affirmed Affidavit and Payment of Court Fee:
The court allowed the application for exemption from filing a duly affirmed affidavit and payment of court fee due to the prevailing situation. The petitioner was directed to file the signed and affirmed affidavits within one week and pay the requisite court fee within 72 hours from the resumption of regular court functioning.

2. Implementation of CESTAT Orders for Exemption from IGST on Re-Imported Repaired Goods:
The petitioner, a scheduled airline operator, sought the implementation of CESTAT's orders dated 02.11.2020 and 15.01.2021, which exempted IGST on re-imported repaired goods under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. The petitioner argued that despite these orders, the authorities continued to levy IGST, causing financial losses. The petitioner had cleared goods by paying IGST under protest and filed numerous Bills of Entry, which were repeatedly assessed with IGST by different officers interpreting the notifications differently.

The court found merit in the petitioner's contention, noting that CESTAT had clearly ruled in favor of the petitioner, exempting IGST on re-imported goods. The court observed that the respondents' failure to implement these orders and the continued imposition of IGST constituted harassment and financial strain on the petitioner.

3. Compliance with Judicial Discipline and National Litigation Policy:
The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, stating that lower authorities must comply with orders from higher tribunals. The court criticized the respondents for not adhering to CESTAT's decisions and for compelling the petitioner to repeatedly seek legal remedies. The court referenced the National Litigation Policy, which aims to reduce government litigation and ensure that the government acts as an efficient and responsible litigant. The policy discourages unnecessary litigation and emphasizes the need for government departments to settle disputes amicably rather than resorting to prolonged legal battles.

The court highlighted various judgments and policies underscoring the government's responsibility to avoid wasteful litigation and to follow binding judicial decisions. The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representations in accordance with the law, regulations, and CESTAT's decisions, and to dispose of them expeditiously.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to comply with CESTAT's orders and the National Litigation Policy, ensuring that the petitioner is not subjected to unnecessary litigation and financial strain due to non-compliance with binding judicial decisions.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates