Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

There is no requirement in rules that invoice number should be printed on invoice – only requirement is that invoice should be serially numbered - denial of CENVAT credit on ground that invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped is not proper: CESTAT

THE appellants were denied CENVAT Credit on the ground the invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed.

One may think that such issues are passé in Central Excise but that is not the ground reality. Even the Commissioner(A) who is supposed to dispense justice found it convenient to go with the department stand.

In the result, the appellant is before the CESTAT.

Income Tax

Whether an allowance, which has been decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision can still be rectified u/s 154 - NO: Bombay HC

THE CIT commenced proceedings u/s 263 seeking to revise the assessment on the ground that the Respondent was allowed a deduction u/s 35D and the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This was on the basis that the aforesaid expenses were incurred in connection with private placement of equity shares, while the deduction u/s35D(2)(c)(iv) was available only in respect of public issue of shares. The CIT dropped the proceeding u/s 263. The Order dropping the Section 263 proceedings did record that the same was without prejudice to any action that may be taken by the department u/s 147. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 was issued. The AO confirmed the reopening of the assessment and disallowed the claim for deduction on account of amortisation u/s 35D. The CIT (A) held that reopening of assessment u/s 147 was not sustainable in as much as the AO could have no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

Service Tax

Services provided by Canara Bank in relation to payment of pension, transactions of various departments, public deposit, RBI Bonds, EPF, special deposit scheme, senior citizens saving scheme, compulsory deposit scheme are NOT taxable services: CESTAT

PURSUANT to investigation and issuance of a show-cause notice, it was held that services provided by Canara Bank in relation to payment of pension, transactions of various departments, public deposit, RBI Bonds, EPF, special deposit scheme, senior citizens saving scheme, compulsory deposit scheme are to be treated as taxable service. So also, the services of treasury service where the government does not have its own treasury and Canara Bank maintains currency chests on behalf of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) were also treated as taxable services. In sum, the adjudicating authority viz. Commissioner of Service Tax (LTU), Bangalore confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.5,97,47,205/- with interest and also imposed penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements