Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Criteria for Pre-Deposit: whether pre-deposit would create undue hardship, and safeguarding interest of Revenue. At least four judgments in favour of assessee - Attached property valued at Rs. 27 Crores secures Revenue interest - Further deposit waived - CESTAT

THE law which has evolved regarding the granting of interim stay to the assessee in tax matters can be basically put into in the category of whether the said pre-deposit would create undue hardship, and safeguarding the interest of the Revenue. During the relevant period, there were at least four judgments and orders of this Tribunal which indicated that the institutions which were of not commercial nature or were of charitable nature, were not covered under the definition of "Commercial training or coaching centre". It is seen that this view could be entertained by the appellant before due to factual matrix as well as the decided case laws on the issue.

Income Tax

Whether recording of satisfaction of AO of searched person is a condition precedent for AO of third person to initiate block assessment if any part of undisclosed income was said to have belonged to third person - YES: Delhi HC

THE issues before the High Court are - Whether recording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person is a condition precedent for the AO of third person to initiate block assessment u/s 158BC if any part of undisclosed income of the assessee was said to have belonged to the third party - Whether mere use or mention of the word 'satisfaction' in the order/note of the AO of the searched person can be said to meet the requirement of concept of satisfaction as used in Section 158BD. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

Suppression - Classification List approved - No suppression: SC

IN taxation, it ('suppression of facts') can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements