Jurisprudentiol– Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise

Amendment to Section 11A of Central Excise Act in 2001 causes havoc - Tribunal rules no interest is payable for period prior to 11.05.2001 for duty paid under Section 11 A(2B)

SECTION 11 AA and Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deal with payment of interest on duties short paid/not paid or not levied/short levied or erroneously refunded. Prior to 11.5.2001, Section 11 AA dealt with payment of interest in non-suppression cases and it stipulated that the interest liability under this Section starts after the expiry of three months from the adjudication order. Section 11 AB stipulated that the in cases of suppression of facts etc the interest liability starts from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid.

Income Tax

Non-resident Co deals in shares through four cells - Four returns filed within time-limit - revised return filed after consolidating figures - Revenue goes by revised return - declares earlier returns invalid and disallows carry forward of losses - Filing four returns is technical mistake curable u/s 292B - substance should prevail over procedure: ITAT by majority

MAKING mistakes is an integral part of life. There are no human activities which are devoid of their own share of mistakes. There is a French saying which states - ''Only he who does nothing makes a mistake''. The famous quote of Robert Fripp on this subject is that ''there are no mistakes, save one: the failure to learn from a mistake''. And 'mistake' is the central theme of the latest decision of the Tribunal decided by the Third Member. The issue is that can a mistake either procedural or technical in nature result in denial of a substantive benefit a taxpayer is otherwise entitled to? When does Sec 292B of the I-T Act come into play in such cases? If a mistake is made in filing one's income tax return while complying with Sec 139(1), is there any machinery provision that may come to the taxpayer's rescue?

Service Tax

State transport undertaking engaged in conduct of tours for sightseeing and religious purpose – Prima facie, engaged in activity of tour operator service – Pre-deposit of Rs 50 lakhs ordered: CESTAT

THE Appellant, Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation is a State Transport Undertaking carrying on the activity of transport operations. The Revenue proceeded against the appellant to bring their activity under the category of “Tour Operator”. They were issued a demand notice for more than Rs. 10 Crores but finally an amount of Rs.3,97,24,300 /- was confirmed by the Commissioner besides imposition of penalties of Rs.100 /- per day under Section 76, Rs.2000 /- under Section 77 and Rs.4,01,10,786 /- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

See our columns on Monday for the judgements