Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

When tax with interest is paid under Section 73(3), no notice to be issued. If notice is issued, person to be punished is the officer issuing notice, not assesse - Department harassing assesses and wasting Court's time due to ignorance of law - officers are paid salaries to initiate action against defaulters, not against those who pay taxes: HC

THOUGH the law does not say so, authorities working under the law seem to think otherwise and thus they are wasting that valuable time in proceeding against persons who are paying service tax with interest promptly. They are paid salary to act in accordance with law and to initiate proceedings against defaulters who have not paid service tax and interest in spite of service of notice calling upon them to make payment and certainly not to harass and initiate proceedings against persons who are paying tax with interest for delay.

Income Tax

Whether settlement applications are maintainable even if no return of income is filed nor any proceedings pending with Revenue - NO, rules Calcutta HC

THE issues before the High Court are - Whether, even if there are no pending proceedings with the Revenue, settlement applications filed before Settlement Commission are maintainable; Whether furnishing of a return of income is mandatory for making an application for settlement - Whether no income tax proceedings can be said to exist where no return has been filed by the assessee; Whether a case would be deemed to be pending until an order of assessment is actually made, even though the time for making an order of assessment might long have expired and whether the assessee would be entitled to apply for settlement before the Settlement Commission, even though no returns had been filed and the time for making assessment u/s 143 had expired. And the verdict goes in favour of Revenue.

Central Excise

Advance Ruling - Battery Cells inserted in a battery bank, not excisable: AAR

THERE is no transformation that brings about a fundamental change in the character and use of the goods. The name remains the same (i.e. accumulator, although an assembly of batteries is called a battery bank), the character and usage remain the same (i.e. provide direct current to an appliance though of differing magnitude etc.) Applying the tests specified by the Apex Court, it cannot be said that a new article has emerged having a different name, character or usage. The activities undertaken do not amount to manufacture for the purpose of levy of excise duty.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements