Suppression - GST Ready Reckoner - GST

For the purpose of CGST Act, 2017 For the purposes of this Act (i.e. CGST Act, 2017) , Suppression shall mean- non-declaration of facts or information which a taxable person is required to declare in the return, statement, report or any other document furnished under this Act or the rules made thereunder, or failure to furnish any information on being asked for, in writing, by the proper officer. [ Define in explanation 2 to section 74A of CGST Act, 2017 ] Important Cases Laws Suppression should be wilful - A s per para 4 Since the appellant did not dispute that the method of calculation of the duty by the Department was correct, the submission of the learned counsel on lack of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings is not necessary to be decided as the power to issue show-cause notice vests even if the duty was short-levied as a result of erroneous application of law. However, once the Department accepted the price list, acted upon it and the goods were cleared with the knowledge of the Department, then in absence of any amendment in law or judicial pronouncement, the reclassification should be effective from the date the Department issued the show-cause notice. The reason for it is clearance with the knowledge of the Department and no intention to evade payment of duty. [ Rainbow Industries (P) Ltd. Versus Collector of Central Ex., Vadodara - 1994 (10) TMI 59 - SC ] Intention to evade duty - As per para 3 When the law requires an intention to evade payment of duty then it is not mere failure to pay duty. It must be something more. That is, the assessee must be aware that the duty was leviable and it must deliberately avoid paying it. The word `evade' in the context means defeating the provision of law of paying duty. It is made more stringent by use of the word `intent'. In other words the assessee must deliberately avoid payment of duty which is payable in accordance with law. [ Tamil Nadu Housing Board Versus Collector of Central Excise, Madras - 1994 (9) TMI 69 - SC ] Mere inaction or failure is not Suppression of facts - As per para 8 Something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required before it is saddled with any liability, before the period of six months. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. [ Collector of Central Excise Versus Chemphar Drugs Liniments - 1989 (2) TMI 116 - SC ] Mere Omission to give correct information is not constitute suppression - As per para 10 Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. Suppression means failure to disclose full information with the intent to evade payment of duty. When the facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party to do what he might have done would not render it suppression. [ M/S Continental Foundation Joint Venture Sholding, Nathpa HP Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I - 2007 (8) TMI 11 - SC ] No suppression if department aware of facts - As per para 8 the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the respondent. [ Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs Liniments - 1989 (2) TMI 116 - SC ] No suppression if facts not required to be disclosed are not disclosed - As per para 21 Silence or non-disclosure of facts not required by law to be disclosed does not amount to misrepresentation. [ Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Versus M/S. Shaw Brothers - 1991 (12) TMI 271 - SC ]