Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Activity undertaken by appellant of beneficiation/washing of raw coal at its coal washery is activity of mining which was introduced for purpose of Service Tax with effect from 1.6.07 and hence prior to said date no Service Tax was leviable on beneficiation under BAS - ST Demand of Rs.17.39 Crores set aside - appeals allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT

ACTIVITY of bringing coal to washery for undertaking the job of beneficiation is for oneself and not for any other person - said activity is so integrally connected with the activity of beneficiation of coal that the same cannot be segregated and it cannot be held that the same was a different and separate activity falling under the definition of cargo handling services.

Income Tax

Whether when comparable sale instances as on 01-04-1981 are available, same should be given priority for computing fair market value of a property as on that date - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when comparable sale instances as on 01-04-1981 are available, the same should be given a priority for computing fair market value of a property as on that date; Whether in such a case recourse to reverse indexation method can be allowed ; Whether there is always an element of estimation and guess work involved in arriving at fair market value of properties as on 01-04-1981 - Whether AO can reject the valid sale instances available for computing fair market value, merely because it can have an effect of reducing the amount of capital gains tax. And the verdict partly goes in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Pre-deposit Vs Attachment of Property - Whether attachment of property should be lifted to facilitate payment of pre-deposit - Matter goes to Third Member - CESTAT

MEMBER (T) held that there is a danger that the order recorded by Member (Judicial) will only help the applicants to get the attached properties released and thereafter make no deposit at all and vanish. There was no undertaking during hearing that if attachment is lifted Rs.6 crores will be deposited. The order recorded by Member (Judicial) also does not put adequate conditions to ensure that on lifting of the attachment of all the four properties, Rs. 6 crores will be deposited. The sequence of events consequent to the order as recorded by Member (J) is likely to be release of properties, its alienation, no pre-deposit and then dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit. There should be safeguard against such a probable sequence of events detrimental to the interest of Revenue.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements