Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Budgetary Proposals and speech of Finance Minister in Parliament introducing them are, not enacted law. Parliament may or may not accept proposal. Law as enacted is what is contained in Finance Act after it is legislated upon by Parliament - Court cannot interfere in Government's power to issue notifications: HC

THE power to issue a notification under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been conferred upon the Central Government where it is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be justified in usurping the jurisdiction, which is vested in the Central Government. Parliament has conferred that power on the Central Government on specific grounds of public interest.

Income Tax

Whether payments made towards maintenance contracts are to be treated as fees for technical services u/s 194J - NO, rules ITAT

THE assessee is a public sector enterprise under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, engaged in the operation of atomic power stations and implementation of atomic power projects for electricity generation. The two questions before the Tribunal are - Whether lumpsum food allowance provided by the assessee company to its employees working in a remotely located plant amounts to perquisite, liable to tax and Whether payments made by the assessee towards maintenance contracts amount to fees for technical services u/s 194J. The ruling partly goes in favour of assessee.

Service Tax

Security service - Security Guards Board is a statutory Authority. Whether service itself is taxable, is a triable question - Pre-deposit order of Tribunal set aside: HC

THE Appellant is a statutory body. But apart from that, the question as to whether the Appellant carries on the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property including the business of providing security personnel is a serious triable question. Consequently an order for pre-deposit was not warranted in the circumstances of the case.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements