Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Service charges paid to foreign lessor for procuring aircrafts - appellant is liable to pay service tax as service recipient u/s 66A of FA, 1994 - Pre-deposit Ordered: CESTAT

THE appellant procured aircrafts for which they got equipment lease financing and for which payment was made by the appellant to various entities abroad, connected with lease finance. They also kept a deposit with the International Finance Corporation, lessor towards maintenance reserve. The department was of the view that the appellant is liable to discharge Service Tax in respect of the above activities undertaken under the category of ‘Banking and Financial Services" namely, finance leasing. As regards the maintenance reserve, the department was of the view that they are liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "Management, Maintenance and Repairs".

Income Tax

Whether TDS benefit can be denied to deductee for fault of deductor - NO: HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when it is admitted by the CBDT that the data uploaded in the CPC database by the Department has serious errors, it is necessary for the assessees to file applications for correction of such errors; Whether AOs are required by law to suomoto carry out corrections and upload the data again so that refunds could be issued in genuine cases; Whether before making adjustment of refunds the onus is on the AO to issue an intimation to the assessee; Whether interest can be disallowed to the assessee even though the Revenue admits that it made wrong uploading of data at CPC; Whether when AO makes adjustment in the returned income, it is necessary to issue intimation u/s 143(1); Whether the onus to show that intimation was communicated, is on the Revenue and Whether TDS benefit can be denied to the deductee for the fault of deductor. And the HC lambasts the Revenue.

Customs

Notfn. 21/2002-Cus - contract did not mention M/s Gammon as sub-contractor - there is no logic and reason for deeming appellant as sub-contractor of M/s GICL - notification refers to pave width of equipment and not of extensions that can be attached to equipment to increase same - there is no room for any intendment or presumption: CESTAT

THE appellant imported a consignment of "Electronic Sensor Paver Vogetel model super 1800-2 with AB 600-2 TC screed" for laying bituminous pavement upto 9 M width along with accessories and claimed duty exemption under notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1-3-2002 vide Sl. No. 230 of the Table annexed to the said notification. The assessing officer denied the benefit of exemption.

"In a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used."

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements