Page 116 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

338 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

the CBI and other facts reveal that the CHA acted bona fide and merely facilitated
the imports on the strength of the documents which were handed over to him by
the importer. There is no sufficient material on record to show that the CHA was
actively involved in the fraudulent availment of the exemption by the importer,
warranting levy of personal penalty. Therefore, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the findings of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the respondent.
13. Since, the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of
law that requires any adjudication by this Court under Section 130 of the Cus-
toms Act, the appeal is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 338 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, J.
SHIR VARALAKSHMI COMPANY
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
W.P. No. 15233 of 2019 and W.M.P. No. 15213 of 2019, decided on 4-6-2019
High Speed Diesel Oil - Inter-State purchases of High Speed Diesel
Oil on concessional rate of tax of 2% - ‘C’ forms - Introduction of GST regime
w.e.f. 1-7-2017 - Department’s site blocked to deny access to petitioner and
other similarly placed persons from downloading ‘C’ forms - High Court in
similar matter directed the Revenue to permit the petitioner-assessee to down-
load ‘C’ forms - Instant writ petition falls clearly within four corners of Ramco
Cements Ltd. case as well as ‘Southern Cotspinners Coimbatore Private Ltd.’
case. [paras 9, 10, 11]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax
— 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 3 (Mad.) — Followed .................................................................................. [Para 6]
Southern Cotspinners Coimabatore Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu —
2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 42 (Mad.) — Followed .......................................................................... [Paras 8, 9, 10]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri P. Rajkumar, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Dhanamadhri, Government Advocate (Tax), for
the Respondent.
[Order]. - Mr. P. Rajkumar, Learned Counsels on record for the sole
petitioner is before this Court. Ms. Dhanamadhri, Learned Government Advo-
cate (Tax) accepts notice on behalf of all the five respondents.
2. With the consent of both the Learned Counsels, i.e., Counsel for writ
petitioner as well as the Revenue Counsel, the main writ petition itself is taken
up for disposal, though this writ petition is listed before this Court today under
the caption ‘FOR ADMISSION’ in the motion list.
3. Both the Learned Counsels submitted, without any dispute or disa-
greement, that the entire matter turns on a very narrow compass and therefore,
the main writ petition itself can be disposed of.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  116