Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Hazardous Waste - Import of Waste Pneumatic tyres require permission from Ministry of Environment and Forests – WP seeking directions to department not to insist on such permission is devoid of merit: HC

THE High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by holding that the Rules have been made in the public interest and with a view to ensure that the import, management and handling of hazardous wastes do not result in a deleterious effect on public health and the environment. The provisions contained in the Rules must be scrupulously enforced.

Income Tax

When purchase of raw materials were not adequately accounted and evidenced by assessee and suppression in sales was also admitted, non-acceptance of book results qua trading profit upheld: ITAT

THE assessee is an individual running a non-vegetarian restaurant in Trivandrum. On examination of their books of accounts and other details in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed several discrepancies. The books of accounts disclosed a gross profit of 24%, which is lower than that of assessees similarly placed in that trade, based on a comparison of gross profit declared by another restaurant in that locality. The AO inferred suppression in gross profit in the range of 15% to 20% and accordingly, the differential amount of Rs. 12.50 lakhs on a total declared sale of Rs. 85 lakhs was held as undisclosed income by way of suppressed trading profit.

Service Tax

If an official of CBEC was not aware of correct legal position in matter, then members of public cannot be faulted for having acted in good faith by relying on clarification by said official – Extended period cannot be invoked: CESTAT.

IF an official of CBEC was not aware of the correct legal position in the matter then the members of the public cannot be faulted for having acted in good faith relying on the said clarification dated 07-04-2004 issued by an official of CBEC. Further, the Tribunal also took cognizance of the letter and interpreted law in a manner different from the previous legal position and one such decision was upheld by the Supreme Court and another by the Karnataka High Court. In such a situation, can an assessee be accused of suppressing information with intention to evade payment of duty?

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements