Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Section 66A inserted in Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.2006 laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax cannot be made applicable retrospectively: CESTAT

REVENUE in their memo of appeal have sought to distinguish the Bombay High Court judgment in the case Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI, on the ground that in that decision the services were received outside the India, whereas in the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. No merit in the above distinction being made by the Revenue. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable retrospectively.

Income Tax

Sec 115JB - Whether profits earned by assessee during period of sickness are to be excluded from ambit of book profit of non-sick years - NO, rules ITAT

ASSESSEE Company is a public sector undertaking jointly owned by the AP State Govt. and the Central Govt. The company suffered losses for a number of years in the past and was declared a sick industrial company. While computing the book profits as defined in Explanation to section 115JA(2) of the IT Act 1961, the company reduced the profits earned by the company during the period of sickness. The only issue before the Tribunal is - Whether profits earned during the period of sickness are to be excluded from the ambit of book profit of non-sick years. NO is the Tribunal's answer.

Central Excise

Appellant not giving any reason for their absence when their case was listed for hearing for fourth time: Application for restoration of appeal dismissed since devoid of merits: CESTAT

THE law makes it very clear that for seeking adjournment of hearing, sufficient cause has to be shown and even when sufficient cause is shown, the adjournment has to be given only three times and not more than that. In the instant case when the case was posted for hearing on 16.09.10, it was the fourth occasion and the appellant had already been given adjournment three times previously and, therefore, the request for further adjournment was denied.

See our columns Monday for the judgements