Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Service Tax
Since sugar is manufactured product it cannot be said that service rendered to sugar factory is in relation to agriculture - so also, as activity involved is harvesting of sugarcane and transportation of sugarcane from fields to sugar factory, it cannot be said to be in relation to sale or procurement of sugarcane - pre-deposit ordered of 50% of ST dues: CESTAT
THE Revenue representative submitted that the contract entered into by the appellants is not for sale or purchase of agricultural produce but for harvesting and transport of sugarcane and, therefore, same would not qualify for benefit under Notification No. 13/2003-ST. Similarly, the benefit under Notification No. 14/2004-ST will be available only if the procurement of goods and services are provided in relation to agriculture. In the instant case the service has been rendered to the sugar factory and sugar being a manufactured product, it cannot be considered as an agricultural produce and consequently the service cannot be said to have been rendered in relation to agriculture.
Income Tax
Whether when very foundation of reopening is knocked out, any further proceeding in respect to such assessment can still survive - NO: HC
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether if the reason for which the assessment is reopened u/s 147 fails, the AO can still proceed to assess other income, which had escaped assessment; Whether when the very foundation of the reopening is knocked out, any further proceeding in respect to such assessment can still survive and Whether where notice for reopening has been issued beyond a period of four years, the assessment would continue, even though on all the grounds on which the additions are being made, there was no failure on part of the assessee to disclose true and full material facts. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.
Central Excise
Respondent assessee is not successor of business and, therefore, is not liable to pay arrears of Central Excise dues incurred by registered unit whose factory was taken over by Financial institution and auctioned and which premises was purchased on lease from successful bidder by them - Registration certificate cannot be revoked by lower authorities: CESTAT
IN the case of Krishna Lifestyle Technologies Pvt. Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble High Court Bombay has held that "purchase of immovable/movable assets of a tax defaulter, though assets were sold, sale of assets by itself would not be transfer of business in whole or in part, there must be material on record to show that business has been transferred to Petitioner and consequent thereto petitioner has succeeded in business. In absence of petitioner succeeding in business or part of business, issue of petitioner being liable for arrears of Central Excise dues will not arise.
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a Nice Weekend
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com
24 February