Jurisprudentiol– Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Income Tax

Laptops of Auditors seized during search of an assessee – Income Tax Department cannot force auditors to part with information of other parties stored in computers: Delhi HC

THE present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, S.R. Batliboi & Co., reputed Auditors and Accountants against the Department of Income Tax entreating the issuance of an appropriate writ to prevent the Respondents from forcibly gaining or securing access to the data contained in two laptops belonging to them.

Service Tax

CESTAT – reference to Third Member or Larger Bench – exclusive prerogative of President – can Service tax be recovered from GTA for the period November 1997 to June 1998 by notices issued after three years? Issue referred to Larger Bench – CESTAT President.

It is obvious that it is the prerogative of the President either to refer the matter to third Member or constitute a larger Bench in case of such difference of opinion or hear the matter himself and thereafter the majority of the opinion to form the decision.

Customs

Advance licence obtained by false statement that the importer had a factory when he had none – confiscation and penalty upheld: Madras HC

The importer made a false statement for the purpose of securing an advance license with Actual User Condition. The fact that the time within which he had to discharge his obligation has not come to an end, does not advance the case of the importer. The basis for his discharge of the export obligation is existence of a factory. The basis does not exist, the address given is a false address, so the whole edifice falls. The fact that the importer could affect his export obligation through job workers and the existence of a factory is not a sine quo non , does not advance his case either. The importer claimed he had a factory when he had none. So, whether he could have completed the manufacture otherwise hardly matters. Having made such a false declaration and obtained a license, the importer cannot be permitted to now say that the imported material is freely importable under OGL and therefore should be allowed to be cleared on merit rate. The license having been secured by adopting fraudulent method would not confer any right on the importer and as such he cannot be allowed to plead any equity.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements