Jurisprudentiol –Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Re-export allowed after more than three years and drawback rejected on ground of delay (by the officers) - The facts speak for themselves and elucidate harassment suffered by petitioner. Refund Ordered with interest and costs: HC

THE respondents have been taking different stands. It is rightly pointed out by the petitioner that in case goods had not been imported into the country then there is no question of assessment, demand and payment customs duty. Thus, Rs.1,52,251/- deposited by the petitioner with the respondents should be refunded. The administration should not be put to inconvenience. In the present case, the lapses and default have been on the part of the Respondents. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, is quashed. The penalty imposed of Rs.10,000/- is also quashed. The respondents will refund Rs.1,49,207/- along with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 1st January 2008 till payment is made.

Income Tax

Whether when assessment is made u/s 143(1), mere production of books of account would not amount to full and true disclosure within meaning of sec 147 - NO, says HC

RETURN was filed alongwith the balance sheet and profit and loss account. A revised computation chart was filed claiming investment allowance. Assessment was completed u/s 143(1). Similar claim was made for the earlier assessment year, which was disallowed by AO and in the CIT (A) allowed the claim. ITAT upheld the order of AO and disallowed this claim. A raid was conducted. Assessee alleged that the raid was conducted with a mala fide intention. After raid AO assessed the income for the subsequent years after clubbing the income of the assessee with that of the lessee firm. Appeal against the said order was dismissed. Notice u/s 148 was issued for re-opening of the assessment already done.

Service Tax

"Banking and Other Financial Services" - A bank run by Co-operative Society liable to pay tax: CESTAT

THE Short point for decision in these appeals is whether a co-operative society is covered by the expression "or any other body corporate, or any other person" used in sub-section 65 (105) (zm) and sub-section 65 (12). Tribunal did not agree that the expression is used in Finance Act 1994 for giving exemption to co-operative societies. By borrowing this expression from Companies Act, it brings in all the entities covered by Finance Act, 1994 section 2 (7) of the Companies Act, into the ambit of Finance Act, 1994 and if there was no other expression which could have brought co-operative societies into the scope of the entry it would have remained outside the scope of section 65 (105) (zm). If there is an expression, which can otherwise cover co-operative societies, it would get covered. So, the real point to be examined is whether the expression "any other person" can bring in co-operative society; The very fact that section 2 (7) of the Companies Act specifically excluded co-operative society shows that in many respects co-operative society is of the same genus as a company.

Monday is a Holiday

See our columns Tuesday for the judgements