TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SEZ units cannot claim GST compensation cess exemption under Section 26 of SEZ Act, only customs duty covered</h1> <h3>Maithan Alloys Limited Versus Union of India, Office of the Development Commissioner APSEZ, The Development Commissioner, Commissioner of Customs</h3> Maithan Alloys Limited Versus Union of India, Office of the Development Commissioner APSEZ, The Development Commissioner, Commissioner of Customs - TMI Issues Involved:1. Exemption from GST Compensation Cess for SEZ Units.2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions due to availability of alternative remedies.3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 and GST Compensation Act, 2017.Summary:1. Exemption from GST Compensation Cess for SEZ Units:The petitioners, SEZ units, claimed exemption from GST compensation cess on coal imports under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005. They argued that Section 26(1)(a) of the SEZ Act exempts them from any duty of customs under the Customs Act, 1962 or Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The respondents contended that the exemption does not extend to compensation cess under the GST Compensation Act, 2017, as it is not included in the First Schedule of the SEZ Act. The court upheld the respondents' view, stating that the term 'duty' in Section 26(1)(a) does not encompass 'cess,' and the GST Compensation Act is not listed in the First Schedule of the SEZ Act.2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions due to availability of alternative remedies:The respondents argued that the impugned letters were appealable orders under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and hence, the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The court noted that while alternative remedies were available, writ petitions could still be entertained if the impugned orders were issued without jurisdiction, as claimed by the petitioners.3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 and GST Compensation Act, 2017:The court examined the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, particularly Sections 7, 26, and 50, which provide exemptions on taxes, duties, and cess for SEZ units. The court also analyzed the GST Compensation Act, 2017, and relevant constitutional amendments. The court concluded that the term 'duty' in Section 26(1)(a) of the SEZ Act refers to customs duties under the Customs Act, 1962, and Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but does not include compensation cess under the GST Compensation Act, 2017. The court emphasized that the SEZ Act is a self-contained code, and exemptions must be derived from its provisions.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that SEZ units are not exempt from paying GST compensation cess on coal imports under the current legal framework. The court also highlighted the distinction between 'duty' and 'cess' and the specific requirements for exemptions under the SEZ Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
