Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Prior to 01.06.2007 specific service mainly Works Contract was not available in statute and, therefore, applying principles of classification as enumerated in Section 65A of Finance Act, 1994, claim of appellant that prior to 01.06.2007 service itself was not liable to tax cannot be upheld - Benefit of notfn. 1/2006-ST is not available as appellant was availing CENVAT credit on inputs/input services - Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.4.5 Crores: CESTA T

DEMAND for differential Service Tax amounting to Rs.31,44,92,629/- has been confirmed by the CCE, Vapi on the ground that the appellants did not include the value of site material used in providing erection, installation & commissioning services/commercial or industrial construction services and works contract services. Further, Service Tax of Rs.13,58,74,780/- has been demanded on the ground that the appellant is not entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST

Income Tax

Income tax - Whether refund can be granted even without processing return of income either under Ss 143(1) or 143(3) - NO: Delhi HC

KIWANICLUB of New Delhi was registered as a charitable organisation u/s 12A. It was established for the benefit of providing artificial limbs and therapy and for ensuring economic empowerment of women. During the year under consideration, the petitioner received rents from its properties. At the time of remitting the rent, the tenants had deducted and deposited the tax with the banks. In the ROI filed, the petitioner claimed the refund of tax deducted at source.

Customs

Exemption under Notfn. 32/97-Cus - there is no definition of term job work' in notification - it would, therefore, be inappropriate to import definition of ‘job work' given in excise notification No.119/75 - ground taken by Revenue to deny benefit requires one to add words to notification and which is clearly not permissible - substantial quest ion of law as framed in favour of respondent-assessee and against appellant-revenue: HC

ON import of the raw material supplied free of charge by M/s. Agriguard Limited, Ireland for the purposes of jobbing, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs denied the benefit of exemption on the ground that where substantial inputs/raw materials are procured locally by the importer in execution of the export order, the activity would not amount to jobbing under Notification No.32/97-Cus. dated 1/4/1997

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements