Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

SIM cards, recharge coupon vouchers, mobile telephone rentals on post paid connections, value added services such as ring tones, music down loads, wall papers etc., and proceeds received on sharing of infrastructure – not taxable under VAT: HC

DECLARATION of the law by the Supreme Court, in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Union of India - 2006-TIOL-15-SC-CT-LB, notwithstanding, the High Court was to adjudicate on the jurisdiction of the revisional/appellate/assessing authorities to levy tax under Section 4(1) and (8) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 on SIM cards - pre-paid and post-paid; recharge coupons; value added services; telephone instruments, mobile handsets, modems and caller ID instruments; mobile telephone rentals; sharing of infrastructure; non-refundable deposits; refundable deposits etc.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee gives revocable power of attorney, and provisions of Transfer of Property Act are not complied with, it can be said that no transfer has taken place - ruled in favour of assessee: ITAT

ASSESSEE Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel, sold out certain land to one builder, received certain amount on the date of singing of Agreement to sell, and the balance was to be received when the builder would be able to receive the money from its members. Assessee had given the possession and had also executed one revocable POA in favour of builder - however the POA was modified upon culmination of dispute - In view of these facts Assessee claimed to have earned gains in the year when the possession was given - It was the case of the AO that the gain was earned when the full and final payment was received by the assessee after the settlement of the dispute - CIT(A) partly affirmed the order of the AO in as much as he held that capital gain was rightly taxed in the year under consideration however the cost of improvement would be allowed to be reduced from the consideration.

Central Excise

In respect of waste and scrap generated during course of job work, liability to pay duty is on job worker as he is manufacturer - a trade notice which is contrary to statutory provision has no existence in law: CESTAT

THE appellant sent out various types of cast articles for job work to various job workers for the purposes of machining/fettling, bending or carrying out any other operation necessary for the manufacture of final product. The finished goods were removed from the premises of the job workers and directly sent to the customers in terms of the permission granted to them under rule 4(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The aforesaid permission was granted subject to undertaking given by the appellant that the waste and scrap if generated at the job workers end would either be brought back or removed on payment of Central Excise duty from the premises of the job workers.

During the scrutiny of records of the appellant's factory, it was noticed that they had failed to pay excise duty on waste and scrap generated at the job worker's end.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements