Restriction On Levy Of Differential Rates Under Article 304 Of Constitution Doesn't Apply To Goods Imported From Outside India: Madras HC

The Madras High Court stated that Article 304 of the Constitution applies only to goods imported from other states or union territories and not to goods imported from outside India.The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq looked into the case of State of Kerala and others v. Fr. William Fernandez and other, (2021) 11 SCC 705 and observed that the goods imported after having been released from customs barriers are not immune from any kind of State...

Send RPAD Reminders If No Reply Received After Repeated Uploading Of Notices In GST Portal: Madras High Court Tells Revenue

The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved. The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal...

Service Of Notices & Orders Through Common Portal Is A Valid Mode Of Service U/S 169 Of GST Act: Madras High Court

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that service of notices and orders through Common portal is a valid mode of service in terms of Section 149 of the GST Act. The bench rejected the argument that the GST portal is not a “designated computer resource of the assessee” and hence as per Sec. 13 (2) (a) (ii) of the Information Technology Act, receipt occurs only when the communication is retrieved. “Service by making it available in the common portal is a valid mode of...

S.17 PMLA | Can't Direct ED To Serve 'Reasons To Believe' Before Conducting Search, May Lead To Concealment Of Evidence: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that it cannot issue an omnibus direction mandating the Enforcement Directorate to serve 'reason to believe' the commission of money laundering offence before conducting a search in terms of Section 17 PMLA, as the same may alert the suspect to conceal evidence."Section 17 is a preliminary stage where based on some information in possession the ED search is conducted and if no prima facie case is made out, automatically all action is dropped, but if any...

"Further Incarceration Would Violate Rights Under Article 21": Madras HC Grants Bail To Former DMK Functionary Jaffer Sadiq Arrested By ED

The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case. Considering that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future, Justice Sunder Mohan opined that further incarceration would violate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the court was inclined to grant bail on certain conditions to ensure that the duo would be...

Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Pleas Challenging ED Search At TASMAC Headquarters, Verdict Likely On April 23

The Madras High Court has reserved orders on pleas filed by the State Government and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation challenging the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and March 8. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar reserved the orders today after hearing Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for TASMAC. In the previous hearing itself the court had said that it would reserve the orders but gave a special...

Goods Exempted From Customs Duty, May Still Be Subject To Levy Of Additional Duty Under Respective Enactments: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that goods imported exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under respective enactments. “The goods imported, even though exempted from basic customs duty, may still be subject to levy of additional duty under the respective enactments and they would be so subject unless and until they are specifically exempted by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested under those respective enactments from such...

CENVAT Credit Can't Be Denied Merely On Non-Submission Of User Test Certificate: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that user test certificate is not mandatory before adjudicating show cause notice. The Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and G. Arul Murugan opined that show cause notices cannot be adjudicated merely on the ground that the User Test Certificate has not been produced by the assessee. In this case, the respondent/assessee is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The assessee has availed CENVAT Credit for the capital goods used in establishing a ...

Works Contract For Track Doubling & Infrastructure Under RVNL Is Liable To 12% GST: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that the works contract for track doubling and infrastructure under RVNL is liable to 12% GST. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq stated that “it may be relevant to keep in mind that while exemption notifications must be strictly construed, it certainly would not mean that the scope of the exemption notification can be curtailed by importing conditions or giving an artificially restrictive meaning to the words in an exemption notification.” In this case, the...

Sections 43B & 40A Income Tax Act | Which Provision Prevails When Both Commence With Non-Obstante Clause? Madras High Court Clarifies

The Madras High Court while referring sections 43B and 40A Income Tax Act explained which provision prevails when both commence with a non-obstante clause. The Division Bench of Justices Dr. Anita Sumanth and G. Arul Murugan stated that “the Rule that a general provision should yield to specific provision springs from the common understanding that when two directions are given one encompassing a large number of matters in general and another to only some, the latter directions should...

Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred. Brief Facts: The petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. A dispute has ...

Notification Cannot Be Given Retrospective Effect To Deny Refund On Unutilised ITC Claimed Within Limitation Period: Madras HC Allows Gillette's Plea

Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made...