Excise Act | Meghalaya High Court Upholds Order Granting Interest To Assessee On Refund Of Deposit Made 'Under Protest' During Investigation

The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday upheld the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting interest on the delayed refund of a deposit made by the assessee under protest, during investigation for allegedly claiming excess cenvat credit.Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which bars payment of interest for refund of duty or interest will not be attracted to this case...

Order Of Executing Court Staying Execution Of Award Under O 21, R 26 CPC Is Within Jurisdiction: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that there is no specific provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as regard execution or stay of an arbitral award. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court who stayed the execution of the award by resorting to Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was within its jurisdiction, the court held. The bench of Justice W. Diengdoh observed that the Executing Court had passed the order to enable...

Meghalaya High Court Imposes ₹10L Cost On PWD For Unnecessary Litigation, Says "Voluminous Tomes" Won't Dissuade Judges From Looking Deep

The Meghalaya High Court while upholding an arbitral award has ordered the Public Works Department (National Highway) to pay a contractor Rs. 10 lakh over and above the award amount, saying that PWD put the contractor through unnecessary litigation."This is a complete waste of time and a reckless exercise undertaken by an irresponsible appellant...It has become fashionable, particularly for public sector undertakings and government litigants, to throw sheafs of paper at the court and believe...

If The Issue Of Limitation Calls For An Enquiry, The Court Should Yield To The Authority Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that in a case where the issue of whether the claim raised by a party is barred by limitation or not calls for an inquiry, the Chief Justice or his designate should allow the objection to be decided by the arbitral tribunal in accordance with law. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee held that though in an open and shut case where it is apparent that the claim can no longer be pursued, or where the request for setting up an arbitral...

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Cannot Add Conditions To An Unconditional Bank Guarantee: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has held that a court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot add conditions to an unconditional bank guarantee. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W.Diengdoh held that mere plea of fraud would not be a ground for the court to stay invocation of an unconditional bank guarantee unless a strong prima facie case is made out on such a ground. The Court further held that merely because no attempt has been made at...

Assessee To Be Given Minimum 7 Days Time To Respond To The Reassessment Notice: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has held that the assessee should be given a minimum of 7 days' time to respond to the reassessment notice.The petitioner/assessee has challenged the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the grounds that it has been issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner submitted that the AO ought to have afforded the assessee seven...

Justifiable Doubts Regarding The Independence Of Empanelled Arbitrators Would Always Exist: Meghalaya High Court

The High Court of Meghalaya has held that if a contractor/ tenderer does not accept the names of the possible arbitrators that are listed on the panel prepared by the tenderee, the panel cannot be enforced since there would always be justifiable doubts regarding the independence or impartiality of the empanelled arbitrators. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee held that even if a person is named as an arbitrator in the arbitration agreement entered into before the...

Income Tax Act | No Order Can Be Passed U/S 148A(d) Without Taking Into Consideration Reply Filed By Assessee To Notice U/S 148A(b): Meghalaya HC

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh of Meghalaya High Court has held that no order can be passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without taking into consideration reply filed by an assessee to the initial notice issued under Section 148A(b).Section 148A provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified...

Applicability Of GST On Royalty Paid For Mining Limestone: Meghalaya High Court Stays GST Recovery

The Meghalaya High Court bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has stayed the recovery of GST on royalty paid for mining limestone. The issue raised was in respect of the applicability of goods and services tax on royalty paid for mining limestone in the State. The petitioner/assessee agreed that the larger issue as to whether tax had to be paid on mining royalty was pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner has relied on an order dated...

Arbitral Tribunal Framing An Issue Which Was Already Decided During Interim Award, Writ Maintainable :Meghalaya High Court

The High Court of Meghalaya has held that a writ petition is maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal framing issue in respect of a claim that has finally been decided in the interim award. The Single Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew has held that an arbitrator would be acting without jurisdiction if it frames an issue qua a claim that has already been decided in the interim award. The Court observed that the arbitral tribunal becomes functus officio in respect of a...

Rusk Is Different From Bread, VAT Exemption Available To Bread Can't Be Extended To Rusk: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh has ruled that rusk is not bread and the Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption available to bread in the state of Meghalaya must be extended to rusk.The petitioner/assessee is in the business of manufacturing a product that is generically known as rusk. Rusk is a form of toasted bread that, unlike untoasted bread, which is soft, is crunchy and is consumed more as a biscuit than as bread or even...