Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Over 1 Crore Service Tax Demand on Cricketer Rahul Dravid - Principles of Natural Justice not followed- Matter Remanded: CESTAT

IT is evident from the records of the case, the contentions raised by the assessee were not heeded by the adjudicating authority, which chose to rely on Wikipedia and other materials - It appears, Wikipedia was elaborately referred to in the impugned order without putting the assessee on notice, which, by all means, amounts to violation of natural justice - no copy of MOU was supplied to the assessee, nor even mentioned in the list of relied-upon documents attached to the SCNs - This is yet another instance of denial of natural justice.

Income Tax

Whether, for purpose of availing Sec 80IA(4) benefits, it is necessary for assessee to own infrastructure facility - NO, rules ITAT

ASSESSEE Company is engaged in the development of irrigation canals and Railways tracks including conversion of gauge. It filed its ROI claiming deduction 80IA(4) on the ground that it was a developer and had developed and maintained infrastructure facility. AO denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that assessee was not developer rather a work contractor. The main plank of the AO's view was that for claiming deduction under Sec 80IA(4), the assessee should have owned the infrastructure facility. The CIT(A) affirmed the view of the AO.

Customs

Even if appellant would have received lesser quantity of goods in shore tanks, invoice value charged and paid would be correct value unless there is a clear evidence that they have paid value/price for quantity received in shore tanks - Appeal rejected: CESTAT

THE appellant is a regular importer of motor spirit and high speed diesel through the port of Kandla. They filed Bills of Entry for clearance of MS/HSD which were provisionally assessed for want of production of final invoices as well as out-of-turn report of port authority. Subsequently after the issuance of CBEC circular dated 12.01.06, the Bills of Entry were taken for final assessment and notice was issued to the appellant for the same. The adjudicating authority recorded in his order that the appellant during the personal hearing on 29.5.06 agreed to pay the deficient duties but requested the authorities to first finalise the provisional assessment. The adjudicating authority noted that two issues that needs to be decided, one is valuation of the bulk cargo and second, quantum of the CVD to be imposed on imported goods. On both the issues, he held against the appellant.

Tomorrow is a holiday

See our columns Mondayfor the judgements