Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Price Escalation - Supplementary Invoices - Interest u/s 11AB - It cannot be said that short payment was due to fraud, collusion etc. which means intentional, deliberate or deceitful means - it is only reasonable that period of limitation that applies to claim for principal amount should also apply to claim for interest thereon - Appeals allowed: HC

IN the present case there is no allegation and it cannot be held that the longer period of limitation of five years is applicable. It cannot be said that the short payment was due to fraud, collusion etc. which means intentional, deliberate or deceitful means. In view of the aforesaid position, it has to be held that the period of limitation of one year would apply to the present cases and the show cause notices were belated and barred by limitation.

Income Tax

Whether non-entertainment of a writ petition by High Court, when I-T Act offers an efficacious alternative remedy, is a rule of self-imposed limitation - YES: SC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether non-entertainment of a writ petition by a High Court, when the I-T Act offers an efficacious alternative remedy is a rule of self-imposed limitation; Whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked even if there is alternative remedy on the ground of substantial reasons and Whether a High Court should exercise its writ powers only if it identifies some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy. And the verdict goes in favour of the Revenue.

Service Tax

Appellant conducting training programs for officials of various banks and also post-graduate diploma programme for students in banking management and for which they are charging lumpsum amount from participants or their sponsors - in view of retrospective amendment made to definition of "commercial training or coaching centre" by FA, 2010, appellant liable to pay Service Tax: CESTAT

NATIONAL Institute of Bank Management (NIBM) conducted a number of training programs for the officials of various banks and also a post-graduate diploma programme for students in banking management. The appellant charged lumpsum amount for conducting these programmes from the participants or their sponsors. The department was of the view that the service rendered by the appellant came under the category of ‘Commercial Training or Coaching' and accordingly a SCN dated 06/04/2009 was issued demanding service tax of Rs.3,58,38,984/- on a gross amount of consideration received of Rs.30,72,93,330/- during the period 01/10/2003 to 30/09/2008.

See our Columns tomorrow for the judgements