Patna High Court
Finance Act, 1994 | Mere Non-Registration Under Service Tax Isn't Fraud Or Suppression To Justify 5 Year Limitation: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has recently quashed a service tax demand raised against a government contractor, ruling that merely not registering for service tax could not be equated with fraud or suppression of facts warranting the application of the five-year extended limitation period under the Finance Act, 1994.The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, observed, “the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had not taken registration of the service...
Transitional Credit Under GST Not Allowable For Capital Goods Received After 1 July 2017: Patna HC Upholds Recovery Of Ineligible CENVAT Credit
The Patna High Court, while upholding the recovery of ₹8,62,566 as ineligible CENVAT credit, held that transitional credit under the GST regime cannot be availed for capital goods received after 1st July 2017. The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh Chand Malviya held, “The distinction in the matter of giving benefit of CENVAT credit on capital goods during the transitional period may be found in Section 140 of the CGST Act. While this provision...
In Absence Of Separate 'Seat' Clause In Arbitral Agreement, Court Mentioned In 'Venue' Clause Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Patna HC
The Patna High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar has held that in the absence of any clause in the agreement apart from Clause 36.3, which speaks of the “venue” being Delhi, there cannot be any other inference or intention of the parties for the “venue” and the “seat” being different. Additionally, the court noted that the agreement in question does not mention the “seat” of arbitration but only mentions the “venue” for arbitration, which shall be at New Delhi....
Procedural Impediments In Govt Machinery Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya has held that procedural impediments in the government machinery are not a 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Additionally, the court held that the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors in condoning delay. Brief Facts: The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
Unilateral Appointment Clause Of Arbitrator Hinders Equal Participation Of Parties In Appointment Process: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process of arbitrators. Brief Facts: The parties entered into an agreement pursuant to the tender process initiated by the respondent....
S.12(5) Of A&C Act Provides For Agreement In Writing, Novation Can't Be Allowed Only Because Of Appointment Of Arbitrator At First Instance: Patna HC
The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran has held that the proviso to Section 12(5) specifically provided for a waiver by an express agreement in writing. When the statute provides for an express agreement in writing there can be no novation of the agreement found, by reason only of the appointment of an Arbitrator at the first instance. Brief Facts: The present dispute arose with respect to an agreement entered by the petitioner pursuant to a successful bid...
Once Person Empowered To Nominate Arbitrator Becomes Ineligible U/S 12(5), Matter Shall Not Be Referred To Arbitration: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran has held that once the person empowered to nominate an arbitrator under an arbitration clause becomes ineligible to nominate the arbitrator, the matter shall not referred to the Arbitration. Brief Facts An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent in pursuance of a tender floated by the respondent. The agreement also contained clause 25 for dispute resolution. The petitioner is seeking appointment of...
Findings Of Calcutta HC Cannot Be Challenged Before Courts At Patna After Objections Over Jurisdiction Were Dismissed: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar has held that the findings of the Calcutta High Court cannot be challenged in the Courts at Patna. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent had first approached the Calcutta High Court by preferring an application under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act would be attracted, and subsequent applications would not be maintainable before the Courts at Patna. Also, the court held that on the...
Appellate Authority Has To Consider Grounds Raised In Appeal And Decide On Merits, Even If Appeal Is Heard Ex Parte: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court stated that the Appellate Authority has a duty and an obligation to examine grounds raised by assessee in memorandum of appeal and decide issue on merits even if appeal is filed ex parte. The Bench consisting of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, stated that “the Appellate Authority even while considering the appeal ex parte will have to consider the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, deciding the appeal on merits……” The ...
Patna High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Notifications Extending Timeline For Issuance Of Orders U/S 73(10) Of CGST Act
The Patna High Court has rejected a petition challenging Notifications extending timeline for issuance of Orders under Section 73(10) of the GST Act.The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy was dealing with the case where the assessees/petitioners filed writ petition against Notification Nos. 13/2022-Central Tax, 9/2023-Central Tax & 56/2023-Central Tax which extended the dates for issuing orders under Section 73(10) of the GST Act.In this...
In Absence Of An Express Agreement Waiving Applicability Of S.12(5) Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Arbitration Clause Becomes Otiose: Patna HC
The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran has held that the arbitration clause became otiose by reason of the substitution of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Act 3 of 2016, which made the Engineer-in-Chief or the administrative head of the Public Works Division ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator and disentitled from appointing an arbitrator. The court observed that in the absence of any express agreement waiving the applicability of...
S.129(3) CGST Act- 7 Days Limitation Period For Passing Penalty Order After Notice To Goods Owner/ Transporter Mandatory: Patna HC
The Patna High Court has made it clear that the seven days limitation period prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for passing an order of penalty, after notice has been issued to the goods owner/ transporter for violation of the CGST Act- is mandatory in nature. Stipulation in Section 129(3) CGST Act is that the proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a notice in 'FORM GST MOV-07' within seven days of such detention or...