TIOL-DDT 2048 · 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 align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2048 </font><br>
</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>19.02.2013 <br>
Tuesday </strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ST
3 Return for period from 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2012 - Still Work in Progress? </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BOARD </STRONG>vide F. No. 137/22/2012-Service Tax dated 28.09.2012 had instructed that the ST3 to be filed by 25<sup>th</sup> October 2012 should contain data only for the three-month period from April 2012 to June 2012. Board had also said that data for the period 1.7.2012 to 30.9.2012 would have to be furnished in a return in a revised format;the revised format of the return and the last date for filing it will be indicated separately. <font color="#FF0000">[Vide order 3/2012 dated 15.10.2012 this date was also extended to 25.11.2012.] </font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are now in the month of February 2013 and the Financial Year is also closing in a month. The revised format is not yet notified for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2012 and many assessees are calling up to know the status and some are even worried that a format must have already been notified, but has not been given publicity. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has the Board forgotten that a return is pending for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2012? Are they going to notify a single return for the entire 9 months period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, ST3 return is a combined return under Rule 9 (9) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Though Rule 7 was amended vide Notification No 47/2012 - Service Tax, Dated: September 28, 2012 to incorporate above changes, Rule 9(9) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, still reads: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(9) The provider of output service availing CENVAT credit, shall submit a half yearly return in form specified, by notification, by the Board to the Superintendent of Central Excise, by the end of the month following the particular quarter or half year. </em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why does it take the Board five months and more to prescribe a return and if they cannot prescribe a return, what is their machinery to collect the taxes? </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Service
Tax - Pre-deposit by even a Govt Department? </font></strong></font><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHEN </strong>an appeal is made to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal, pre-deposit of the duty, penalty and interest is insisted mainly to safeguard the interest of Revenue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is the position if the appellant is a Government Ministry/Department? Isn't the interest of Revenue amply safeguarded? Not in the quagmire of Indian litigation. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Central Railway was the appellant before CESTAT, which ordered a pre-deposit of Rs 1.62 Crore. Aggrieved Central Railway took the matter to the High Court with the plea that the dues of the Union Government are secure since, after all, it is the Union Ministry of Railways, which has to pay the demand if it is found to be due and payable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even the High Court did not find it a fit case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and ordered a deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is simply transferring money from one department of the Government to another and do we need litigation for this. Who benefits from this litigation? Even the Railways could have paid the amount without going to the High Court. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Please see
</strong></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2013/2013-TIOL-125-HC-MUM-ST.htm">2013-TIOL-125-HC-MUM-ST </a></strong></font> </p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Addl
Commissioner passes Order on 31.1.2011 relying on SC decision dated 10.2.2011!!!
- HC remands </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> brilliance in fraud by Revenue officers knows no limits. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An Additional Commissioner passed an order on 31.1.2011. In this he referred to an order of the Supreme Court in<font size="1"> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2011/2011-TIOL-17-SC-CX.htm"><strong>2011-TIOL-17-SC-CX</strong></a></font><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2011/2011-TIOL-17-SC-CX.htm"><strong> </strong></a> delivered on 10.2.2011 - that is ten whole days after he delivered his order! How did the Additional Commissioner know on 31.1.2011 about an order that would be delivered by the Supreme Court ten days later? No marks for guessing! This is a regular practice with revenue officers. An order dated 31st of the month means that the order was dated that day to include that order in that month's quota - the actual order could be delivered any time after that. In this case, the only slip was that the learned Adjudicating Authority did not bother to check the date of the Supreme Court Order. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this case, the assessee approached the High Court which observed, "<em>there appears to be an error apparent on the face of the records, as the authority could not have relied upon a Supreme Court decision which has not been pronounced on the date when the impugned order was passed by the authority</em>."
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded it for fresh adjudication. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know the result of the re-adjudication! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commissioner, Chief Commissioner and the Board should find out from the Additional Commissioner as to how he could rely on a Supreme Court judgement delivered after his order and if there is any secret way of knowing the future orders of the Supreme Court, this should be circulated among all the adjudicating authorities. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2013/2013-TIOL-129-HC-MAD-ST.htm"><font size="1">2013-TIOL-129-HC-MAD-ST </font></a> </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Appeal
dismissed for non-prosecution recalled as appellant was stuck in traffic
jam due to Presidential visit </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ON</strong> the date fixed for final hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor was any request made for adjournment. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the Bench dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellants are before the CESTAT with applications for restoration of appeal and submit that they were stuck in a traffic jam on the day of the hearing and reached the office of the CESTAT late but by that time, their appeal was dismissed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the traffic jam was on account of the visit to Mumbai of the Hon'ble President of India. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench was satisfied and recalled its order. The date of the visit is mentioned as <strong>20.12.2012. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2013/2013-TIOL-322-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2013-TIOL-322-CESTAT-MUM</font></a></strong></font></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"> - Wednesday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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"></font><font color="#663399">Central Excise </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">CE - Appellant not able to produce Notification under which they cleared goods without payment of duty - Pre-deposit ordered of duty amount - in interest of justice more time granted for payment - Modification application dismissed: CESTAT </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHILE </strong>every other day, the Revenue is blamed for clogging the Tribunals by filing frivolous appeals and applications, the present case is an indicator that assessees too are partly responsible for the same. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Whether commission paid by company to an HUF consisting of Directors of company can be construed as perquisites in hands of Directors u/s 2(24)(iv) - NO: Madras High Court </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issues before the Bench are - Whether commission paid by the company to an HUF consisting of the Directors of the company can be construed as perquisites in the hands of Directors u/s 2(24)(iv); Whether it is irrelevant through whom the amount was paid/routed, when once it is established that amount received from the company is used for meeting personal expenses of the directors; Whether admission made during survey proceedings u/s 133-A can be made basis for making any addition of amount, which is liable to be taxed and Whether when there is contradiction on the factual aspects of modus operandi of payment of commission arising out of complex group of transactions, the matter can be remanded for fresh consideration. And the ruling goes in favour of the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Customs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Departmental officers have no respect to orders of Tribunal as well as orders of High Court - 'Concerned' officer is directed to comply with order of High Court within two days failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> revenue is bound by the undertaking given by the Counsel for the Revenue to comply the order of this Tribunal within six weeks of the communications of the order which was pronounced on 09.10.2012, this act of the revenue clearly shows that the departmental officers have no respect to the orders of this Tribunal as well as the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrowwith more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Have a Nice Day </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><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>