Jurisprudentiol Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Import of coal from Indonesia - whether simultaneous benefit of Notification No.46/2011-Cus dated 1 June 2011 and No.12/2012-Cus dated 17 March 2012 is available - petitioner to avail of benefits subject to giving bank guarantee for 20% of differential duty and bond for balance amount: HC

IN their WP filed before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner states that the coal imported by them from Indonesia is entitled to the benefit of two customs duty exemption Notifications viz. No.46/2011-Cus dated 1 June 2011 and No.12/2012-Cus dated 17 March 2012 as these notifications are not mutually exclusive. Inasmuch as there is nothing in either of the notifications mentioning that benefits under any other notification cannot be availed of.

The department is denying the benefit of simultaneous exemption under both the notifications and restricting the benefit to only one of them. The petitioner vide a communication dated 4 July 2013 has been informed that in the Chief Commissioner's Conference held at Vizag on 5 June 2013, it was decided not to extend simultaneous benefit of two notifications.

Income Tax

Whether when land is given to assessee as part performance of his services rendered to his client but not in capacity of an Advocate, even then such receipt is to be taxed as professional income - NO: Madras HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the sale agreement makes it very clear that the transfer of 3 grounds of land to the assessee, an advocate by profession, was intended as by way of consideration for securing patta and lay-out, the income earned on sale of such plots by the assessee amounts to professional income; Whether when the plots were given to the assessee as part performance for his services and not in the capacity of advocate, the same is subject to capital gains tax and Whether the mere incident of the assessee being a practicing advocate, he is disentitled to claim the receipt as income assessable under capital gains. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Service Tax

In view of specific exclusion of ‘railways' from ‘Commercial and Industrial construction service', question of imposing any Service Tax on construction of viaduct and stations for Delhi Metro Railway project for Delhi Metro Corporation does not arise at all: CESTAT

THE appellant Mumbai undertook civil construction i.e construction of viaduct and stations of Delhi Metro Railway Project for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) under turn-key contracts entered into during the year 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The department was of the view that the appellant is liable to discharge service tax on the above activity under the category of ‘commercial or industrial construction service' and accordingly four show cause notices were issued demanding service tax of Rs. 21,25,49,390/- on the consideration received by the appellant during the period 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2011.

Tomorrow is the 67^th Independence Day - Happy Independence Day to all netizens.

See our Columns Friday for the judgements