Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Refunds - Merely because the assessee has sustained loss, cannot be a ground to hold it is not a case of any unjust enrichment: High Court

THE burden was heavy on the assessee to show that while computing the cost of the material it had not included the duty paid by it. By looking into the certificate, we are of the opinion while computing the cost of the product, the assessee has calculated the duty. It is no doubt true that the assessee has sustained loss during relevant assessment year. Merely because the assessee has sustained the loss, cannot be a ground to hold it is not a case of any unjust enrichment as long as the assessee proved before the authorities that assessee has sustained loss on account of non inclusive of the duty. The Chartered Accountant certificate does not depict how the cost of the material is computed. But the document clearly shows that the cost of the duty is also included while computing the cost of production of the material.

Income Tax

Advance tax - Is interest chargeable even in a case where tax liability arises only by applicability of provisions of Sec 115JA and not otherwise? - NO, says High Court

THERE are two issues before the High Court. First is - Whether ITAT was right in holding that interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is chargeable even in a case where tax liability arises only by applicability of the provisions of section 115JA of the I.T. Act, 1961 and not otherwise. And the answer is NO.

Service Tax

Foreign Consulting Engineer providing service to Indian recipient - Not taxable prior to 18.4.2006

ADMITTEDLY, assessee is a foreign company. Even if the arguments advanced by Revenue is accepted, sub-section (31) of Sec.65 of the Act would apply to the services rendered by an Indian as a consulting engineer. In the present case, the dispute is in regard to November, 1998 to December, 2000. As on November, 1998, the word 'company' or 'Firm' was not included under the definition of sub-section(31) of Sec.65 of the Act.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements