Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday' s cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Director, STPI, not an officer of the Government of India, not eligible to be appointed as Development Commissioner of SEZ – appointment quashed – High Court

30 SEZs in Andhra Pradesh are now without a Development Commissioner as the AP High Court has quashed the appointment of the Director, STPI as the Development Commissioner for these SEZs .

What is the scope of Quo warranto ?

Who is a Government Officer?

Please wait till tomorrow for this interesting judgement.

Income Tax

Deletion of Sec 10A (9) vide Finance Act 2003 - benefits of deletion not available in AYs prior to 2004-05 - BPO -assessee not eligible for Sec 10A benefits as its ownership changed hands when relevant Section was on statute book : ITAT

SECTION 10A (9) comes into play when there is a change in the ownership of the assessee company with more than 50% voting rights transferred. The Finance Minister while presenting a Budget terms it as illogical and deletes this Section. But the moot question before the Tribunal is - whether it being clarificatory in nature, will also apply to cases of previous years? And the verdict has gone against the assessee as when the Sec 10A benefits were claimed by the assessee, Sec 10A (9) was very much on the statute book, and the AO has failed to apply his mind to the issue. While upholding the invocation of CIT's powers u/s 263, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to also examine whether the alternate plea of the issue can be accepted.

Service Tax

Lowering, laying, jointing and testing GRP pipes for Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ( GIDC ) is taxable service as GIDC is a corporation primarily undertaking development of infrastructure for industries – CESTAT orders pre-deposit of Rs.50 lakhs .

THE appellants were engaged in the activity of lowering, laying, jointing and testing GRP pipes (manufactured by the appellant) at the customers' site during the material period. They undertook such activity for the benefit of numerous customers namely M/s Videocon Narmada, Birla Copper, IVRCL Infrastructure, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ( GIDC ), Surat Municipal Corporation and Vizag Municipal Corporation.

In respect of the aforesaid service rendered to the first three parties, the appellants paid service tax. In respect of the other customers, they did not pay service tax.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements