Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

It is well settled that onus to prove under-valuation is on revenue but once revenue discharges burden of proof by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, onus shifts to importer to establish that price indicated in invoice relied upon by him is correct: SC

‘REASON to doubt' does not mean `reason to suspect'. A mere suspicion upon the correctness of the invoice produced by an importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of the value of imported goods. The doubt held by the officer concerned has to be based on some material evidence and is not to be formed on a mere suspicion or speculation. Although strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings under the Act, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the revenue.

Income Tax

Whether mere omission to include certain income in return of income warrants penalty - NO, says ITAT

BOTH the assessees are individuals and assessed by the Income Tax Authorities as per the new provision of search and seizure u/s 153 A (a). In response to the notices of 153 A, both the assessees includes certain incomes which they have not disclosed in their original returns. Observing this anomaly, the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The issues before the Tribunal are - Whether there is a difference between furnishing of inaccurate particular and making a wrong claim under some bonafide belief and Whether mere omission to include certain Income in the ROI would attract penalty. And the Tribunal's answer is NO.

Service Tax

Leviability of tax on outbound tours - When planning, organizing, scheduling are done in India, it would mean that service is partly performed in India and partly outside India, covered by Board Circular No. 117 dated 31.10.2009 - Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit – CESTAT

EVEN if a view is taken that planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging etc are done in India, it would mean that the service is partly performed in India and partly performed outside India. In such circumstances, the services provided by the appellant are prima facie covered by the Circular issued by the Board and therefore, a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements