- Seizure/detention of goods and vehicle in transit merely in absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) not sustainable (2)โPenalty proceedings without evidence of intention to evade GST, not sustainable.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ramdev Trading Company
(2019) 22 GSTL J165 (SC) - Demand threatening for proceedings for recovery unless evidence of deposit produced – If order of assessment passed against assessee, only remedy is to prefer appeal/revision – Assessee aggrieved person, having locus standi to file writ – Section 226 of Constitution of India.
BOC INDIA LTD. vs State of Jharkhand
(2009) 237 ELT 7 (SC) - Burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in assessment proceeding – Finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though they constitute good evidence in penalty proceeding – In penalty proceedings, thus, authorities must consider matter afresh as question has to be considered from a different angle – Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
DILIP N. SHROFF vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI
(2007) 219 ELT 15 (SC)- Note: This case is overruled in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA vs PRAXAIR INDIA PVT. LTD. [(2012) 278 ELT 579 (SC)] where it was held that Penalty and interest whether imposable when duty paid before issue of show cause notice –
- Tribunals decision that no penalty/interest chargeable when duty paid before issue of show cause notice set aside in view of Supreme Court decision in Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)].
- Fresh evidence – Assessee not availing of opportunity before adjudicating authority and adducing evidence to challenge confiscation and penalty only before Tribunal – Course adopted by the Tribunal of admitting fresh evidence and then proceeding to decide the case on merits on that basis not correct – Appropriate course was to remit the matter to the adjudicating authority if the Tribunal felt that a fresh opportunity was required to be given to assessee –
Matter remanded to Commissioner to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides – Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA vs HANUMAN TRADING CORP.
(1997) 95 ELT 8 (SC) - Evidence – Pleading of bona fide by assessee not believable in view of his repeated failure to produce material evidence before Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court – Belated and vague promise before Supreme Court to produce evidence not acceptable.
JAIN EXPORTS PVT. LTD. vs Union of India
(1993) 66 ELT 537 (SC)
