Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Gujarat High Court reiterates that it is statutory obligation on part of Adjudicating authority to mention about option of availing reduced penalty under Section 11 AC in adjudication orders

PENALTY equal to the duty demanded was imposed on the assessee under Sec 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal to Commissioner (A), the penalty was reduced from Rs.2,53,856/- to Rs.50,000/-. The Department preferred Appeal against the order of the Appellate Commissioner on reduction of penalty and the Appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. Against this order of the CESTAT, the revenue is in appeal before the High Court.

Income Tax

Income tax - sale consideration computed on profit capitalization method, taking last three years profit – Slump Sale – not taxable - ITAT by majority (TM)

ON a difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Division Bench when this appeal originally came up for hearing, following point of difference has been referred to me by Hon'ble President under section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Whether or not, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned transaction was a 'slump sale' or an 'itemized sale'?

Sales Tax

Sales Tax - not giving material particulars in Form ST 18-A would by itself be mens rea. High Court required to give reasoned order: Supreme Court

THE competent authority during the course of the enquiry found that the nerolac paint buckets were transferred by stock transfer but the declaration form ST 18A was completely blank. Treating the consignment under the category of incomplete documents in terms of Section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and forming an opinion that there was an intention to commit evasion of tax, a notice to show cause was issued that why penalty be not imposed. Reply thereto was filed by the owner of goods. The competent authority vide its order dated 23.06.1997 imposed a penalty of Rs.1,24,920/- in terms of Section 78(5) of the Act.

See our columns Monday for the judgements