9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 177 - HC - GSTRecovery of IGST with interest and penalty - Import of major input (vegetable oils) from overseas involving payment of ocean freight - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court has now rendered the decision in case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. VERSUS M/S MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR 2021 (1) TMI 647 - SC ORDER and upheld the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in MOHIT MINERALS PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1 OTHER 2020 (1) TMI 974 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that the legal competency or otherwise, as contended by the Petitioner, for levy of tax on the said subject matter in terms of IGST Notification No 8/2017 dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No.10/2017 as amended has not attained finality. Since the matter is still subjudiced, the Petitioners contention that the demand is unsustainable is pre-emptive and not legally correct. There is no purpose in the case, either for the Petitioner or the Commissioner to invest their time and energy on the issue, if the position on which the show cause notice is founded, already stands concluded in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice issued by Commissioner of CGST regarding IGST liability. Analysis: The Petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of vegetable edible oil, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of CGST regarding the recovery of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) amounting to Rs.4,13,47,167. The notice alleged non-discharge of IGST liability under reverse charge for importing major inputs from overseas involving payment of ocean freight. The Petitioner relied on a Gujarat High Court decision in a similar case. The Respondents argued that the issue was not settled as the matter was subjudiced in the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court later upheld the Gujarat High Court decision in a related case. The High Court, considering the settled position post the Supreme Court judgment, found no purpose in continuing the matter. The Court noted that investing time and energy in the issue when it had already been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice dated 31 March 2019, relieving the Petitioner from the IGST liability and penalties specified in the notice.
|
