Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Central Excise – Demand – Limitation - there has to be a willful misstatement or suppression of facts or fraud or contravention: High Court

FOR the Department to have benefit of extended period of limitation, the requirements of Section 11A of the CESA Act have to be satisfied inasmuch as there has to be a willful misstatement or suppression of facts or fraud or contravention of any of the provisions of CESA Act, 1944 or of the rules made thereunder. It would therefore have to be seen whether in the instant case the requirements for availing of the benefit of the extended period five years is available to the Respondents. In the instant case, on the basis of the material on record, it cannot be said that there was any misstatement of facts by the Petitioners as the Department was fully aware of the activities of the Petitioners.

Income Tax

Sec 36(1)(iv) - Assessee deposits employer's contribution to own PF - Can such contribution be disallowed merely because PF Trust fails to make investments as per rules - NO, says ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether Employer's contribution deposited during the year to its own provident fund trust is not allowable on the fact that the trust had not invested funds as per prescribed rules of ITR and hence not entitled to be considered as a recognized trust.

Service Tax

Service Tax – While ignorance of Law is no excuse, for penalty, presence of reasonable cause would be germane - High Court

THOUGH ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for payment of service tax, when it comes to the question of imposition of penalty the statute specifically stipulates the circumstances under which such penalty and interest thereon can be levied.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements