TIOL-DDT 1961 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> </head> <body> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=14276"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/ddt_1794.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1961</font><br> 12.10.2012 <br> Friday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only Income Tax Assessee to Contest Elections - Karnataka High Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> question before the High Court was something else, but the High Court was so concerned about evasion and disputes that it made certain suggestions to the Union Government. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a recent judgement, the Karnataka High Court suggested:- </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) That all Government servants, under the State/Centre (who are not assessees under the Income Tax), shall be made liable to pay Income Tax of at least Rs. 1,000/- per annum; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) That all male graduates, who are mentally and physically sound, aged between 31 years to 60 years (who are not assessees under the Income Tax), shall be made liable to pay Income Tax at least Rs. 1000/- per annum and protect their interest on attaining age of 61 years by providing pension; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) That Election law may be amended prescribing a condition that every male person contesting election to the State assembly/Parliament shall be an income tax assessee; </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court directed the Registry to send a copy of its order to the Finance Secretary and the Law Commission. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court did not explain as to why the law should be applicable only to males. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are these suggestions practically feasible and physically possible? </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=38&filename=legal/hc/2012/2012-TIOL-825-HC-KAR-IT.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Click Here for the High Court Order. </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Monetary Limit for Filing Appeals before High Court - Karnataka High Court Does Not Follow its Own Order </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09-02-2011, the CBDT directed that no appeal should be filed in the High Court if the Revenue involved is not more than Rs. 10 Lakhs. Now, there was a question as to whether these instructions were applicable prospectively or retrospectively. The Karnataka High Court itself in <em>CIT vs Ranka & Ranka</em> - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=38&filename=legal/hc/2012/2012-TIOL-178-HC-KAR-IT.htm"><strong><font size="1">2012-TIOL-178-HC-KAR-IT</font></strong></a>, held that the Instruction No. 3/11 is applicable to the pending appeals also. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, in the case referred above, the Karnataka High Court held that the decision of the same High Court in the <em>Ranka & Ranka</em> case is <strong>against the provision under Section 268A of the Act, Public Interest and the Public Policy</strong>. The Bench virtually overruled the same High Court judgement delivered 11 months ago. Both the judgements are by Division Benches of two judges. Is the latest Bench not bound by the decision of the earlier Bench and in case of disagreement, shouldn't the matter be referred to a Larger Bench? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Incidentally, the decision in the <em>Ranka & Ranka </em>case is in appeal before the Supreme Court and what will happen if it is upheld by the Apex Court? </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=38&filename=legal/hc/2012/2012-TIOL-825-HC-KAR-IT.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Click Here for the High Court Order. </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fast Track Legislation - DGFT Thinks Finance Bill 2012 was Passed on 17.03.2012, a day after it was introduced!</font></strong></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> DGFT Notification informs:</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Notification No. 7 (RE - 2012)/2009-2014 issued on 23.7.2012 incorporated the changes in the descriptions of tariff lines in Chapters 24,26,74,75,76,78 and 79 in accordance with the changes in the Finance Bill 2012-13. This notification was silent on the date on which these changes were to take effect. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Accordingly, some interpreted the changes to take effect from the date of notification i.e., 23/07/2012 and some others from the date on which the Finance Bill 2012 was passed i.e., 17/03/2012. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Therefore, Government has amended the Schedule 1 - Import Policy of the ITC (HS), 2012 to impart greater clarity. The amendment reads as:- </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Amendments carried out in the Budget have been incorporated in the ITC(HS) 2012 and will take effect from 17.03.2012(the date on which the Finance Bill was passed)". </font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is unfortunate that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) of this country believes that the <strong>Finance Bill 2012</strong> was passed on 17.03.2012. Respected Sir, it was introduced in Parliament on 16-03-2012 and was enacted on 28-05-2012. The Finance Bill was passed on two different dates by the two houses of Parliament. By no stretch of imagination, can a Finance Bill introduced on 16-03-2012 be passed on 17-03-2012. What a fall!!! </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12not021.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Notification No.21/(RE-2012)/2009-2014, Dated: October 11, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FTP - Amendment in ITC (HS) 2012 Schedule 1 - Import Policy with Customs Tariff Schedule-2012 </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has amended the Schedule 1 - Import Policy of the ITC (HS), 2012 in line with Customs Tariff schedule-2012. Certain items with their attendant ITC (HS) codes were omitted in the ITC(HS) published vide Notification No. 111 dated 18.4.2012. These have been incorporated with a view to align with Customs Tariff Schedule 2012. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12not022.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Notification No.22/(RE-2012)/2009-2014, Dated: October 11, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FTP - Certificate from Cost Accountant - Acceptable </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has amended the <em>Handbook of Procedure Vol.I and Appendices 2009-2014 to stipulate that wherever the term "Chartered Accountant" appears, it would deem to mean and include "Cost Accountant" also</em>. Under the Foreign Trade Policy and Procedure, wherever certification by a Chartered Accountant was required, the exporters would now be able to get certification done by a Cost Accountant also. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12pn022.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Public Notice No.22/(RE-2012)/2009-2014, Dated: October 11, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Transferred Officers Stand Relieved Today - CBEC is Serious </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT </strong>is a major problem for both the Revenue Boards that the officers who are transferred by the Board have scant respect for the Board and many of them stay put and use all their resources for retention or a better posting. And the Boards are usually indulgent, though some periodical noises are made. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=16004" target="_blank">DDT 1954 03.10.2012</a></strong> questioned, <strong>"What is the Sanctity of CBEC Transfer orders?" </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, the CBEC clarifies that all transferred officers stand relieved with effect from 12th October 2012. Of course there are certain exceptions:- </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Cases where the transfer orders are stayed/set aside by Tribunals/courts. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Cases where the transfer orders are stayed or cancelled by the CBEC. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC had by its letter dated 8th September 2012, warned that disciplinary action would be initiated against defaulting officers/controlling officers if the transfer orders were not implemented by 14th September 2012. Why didn't the Board do that? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what is the guarantee that the fresh instructions would be respected? </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=70&filename=pitara/sernews/order/cbec_letter_50.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC F.No. C-50/65/2012-Ad.II, Dated: October 10, 2012</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DDT Cartoon </font></strong></p> <p align="center"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/DDT1961.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="461" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> – Monday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left">Service Tax </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Club or Association Services - Common Effluent Treatment Plant set up and charges collected from members in relation to common facilities set up for treatment and recycling effluent and solid waste - in view of retrospective exemption granted by Finance Act, 2012, pre-deposit of Rs.2.76 Crores demand waived and stay granted: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A </strong>Service Tax demand of more than Rs.2.76 Crores (the CESTAT order mentions it as Rs.2,76,74,8767/- - now how much is that? ) was confirmed against the appellant "Common Effluent Treatment Plant" [CETP] by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II along with the usual penalty and interest. The demand was confirmed on the ground that the appellant provided Club or Association services to their members and which is a taxable service. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether when assessee has applied for lower TDS rate u/s 197, it can be held to be in default for deducting TDS at lower rate from advance rental payment made before issue of TDS Certificate - NO: ITAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee has applied for lower TDS rate u/s 197, it can be held to be in default for deducting TDS at lower rate from advance rental payment made before issue of the TDS Certificate and whether when the certificate issued u/s 197 is valid for the entire year, deduction of TDS at lower rate cannot be construed as default on behalf of the assessee. And the verdict goes against the Revenue. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No decision given on Interest liability in final order - ROM application filed by appellant allowed and benefit granted: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> is a ROM application filed by the appellant against the final order passed by the CESTAT.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is the submission of the appellant that there is an inherent error in the final order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Bench had held that the amount paid before issuance of Show Cause Notice being eligible to be availed as a CENVAT Credit by their sister unit, there is no revenue loss and being a revenue neutral situation, no penalty is imposable, but had not given any decision on the interest liability, which had been confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by first appellate authority. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Monday for the judgements </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Monday with more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a Nice Weekend. </font></p> <p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p> </body> </html>