Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Activity of receipt, storage and sale of goods on commission is not covered by definition of C&F Agent's service. - CESTAT

In this interesting case, the Member (J), allowed the appeal observing, “We are unable to understand how the authorities without identifying the documents on which they rely, have proceeded against the appellant to issue SCN and made adjudication. When we find that entire proceedings have suffered from above legal infirmity, the appellant should succeed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal.”

While agreeing with the learned brother's finding that the authorities have not examined the invoices issued by the Appellants for ascertaining the nature of their service as discussed below, the Member (T) was of the view that it is clear that the Appellant's activity is not covered by the definition of C&F Agent's service.

Income Tax

Income Tax – Settlement Commission passed orders without hearing and examination of records to meet deadline of 31/3/2008 – cases to go back to Settlement Commission and not Assessing Officers – amounts already deposited not to be refunded - High Court

Primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by Revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of Settlement Commission, on the premise that if impugned order of Settlement commission, is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under Chapter-XIX-A on being held to be abated in terms of S.245 - HA of the Act ?

COFEPOSA

Preventive detention is not punishment for a past wrong; only a means to detain a person from continuing with his prejudicial activities in future; Detention order passed in 2001, not yet executed, lost its relevance; High Court can entertain writ at pre-detention stage; Government cannot be penalised for folly of their counsel – High Court

What the proposed detenu has done in the past cannot be washed away and if the allegations against him are established in the judicial / quasi-judicial proceedings, he shall have to suffer the consequences thereof. The fact that he has been declared a proclaimed offender also does not get washed away. He has tried to avoid the due process of law and that is something for which he will have to suffer the consequences. But, this does not mean that he has to be detained so as to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities when there is no evidence of his having indulged in any such activity for over seven years.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements