Jurisprudentiol - Friday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Service Tax
Commercial Training or Coaching Centre Appellant providing computer training but certificate was issued by Maharashtra State Board of Vocational Examination - as per the definition the only exclusion is in respect of institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law Demand upheld, however penalties set aside as appellants were under bona fide belief that they are not liable to ST: CESTAT
TWO appeals have been filed - one against a confirmed demand and the other against rejection of a refund claim.
Brief facts of the case are that SCNs were issued to the appellants raising demand of service tax on the ground that the appellants are providing commercial training and coaching services. For the period July, 2004 to March, 2005 the appellants paid service tax as per the direction of the Revenue and subsequently filed a refund claim on the ground that they were not providing any taxable service. Since this refund has been rejected by the lower authorities the appellant is before the CESTAT. There is also another appeal, as mentioned, against an order confirming a ST demand on the same issue.
It is submitted that the appellants are an Institute providing computer training which is recognized by Maharashtra State Board of Vocational Examination and hence excluded from the purview of taxable services. They rely upon the certificate issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Vocational Examination and which is counter-signed by the appellants. Inasmuch as the appellants were providing training course which is recognized by law, the demand is not sustainable, submitted the appellant. They place reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in Indian Institute of Aircraft Engineering vs. UOI to support of their contention.
Income Tax
Whether if assessee is a notified entity and its assets and properties are attached by a Special Court, it is still liable to pay interest under Ss234A, B & C - YES: Bombay High Court
THE assessee is is a company. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the only issue involved in this appeal was not covered by the Judgment of the Division Bench of HC -IT.This Judgment was relied upon and it was submitted that the point was covered by the same in favour of the Revenue. It was also submitted that both the questions were answered in favour of the Revenue and the Tribunal's order was set aside. It was further submitted that the Division Bench rendering the judgment in "Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd." had failed to consider several judgments of SC and the orders of HC taking a view that when the assets and properties of the assessee were attached by operation of Statute, then, liability to pay tax will not arise. There was nothing by which the assessee can be said to be in default enabling the Department to levy interest on the assessee. It was submitted that the properties being statutorily attached and permission to deal with the same was sought from the Special Court but the same was rejected, that the assessee was prevented from discharging the liability, if any, to pay the advance tax. Thus, this was a case where an act of the Court had caused prejudice to the assessee.
The issues before the Bench are - Whether if the assessee is a notified entity and its assets and properties are attached by a Special Court, it is still liable to pay interest under Ss234A, B & C and Whether merely because certain aspects were not considered or that relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court, it is enough to ignore and brush aside a binding precedent. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.
Customs
Any requirement with respect to registration has to be in terms of the Project Import Regulations or the Foreign Trade Policy as it stood at the relevant point of time Importer eligible for benefit of concessional rate of duty under Project import: CESTAT
NHAVA SHEVA Port Trust (NSPT) now known as JNPT awarded a contract dated 15/12/1986 to M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd., South Korea for setting up the NSPT Port Project. In the said contract, NSPT has been termed as the 'Employer' and M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. as the 'Contractor'.
Pursuant to the said contract, M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. imported Container Handling Equipment and spares for NSPT Project between 1988 and 1990. However, before clearance of the goods, it sought to avail itself of the project import benefit under the Projects Imports Regulations, 1986. Accordingly, it applied for registration of the Contract to the then Assistant Collector of Customs Project Cell, New Custom House, Bombay vide its letter dated 12/09/1988.
The Asstt. Collrregistered the said contract provisionally subject to production of a recommendatory letter for duty concession from the concerned Sponsoring Authority, namely the Ministry of Surface Transport.
The goods were cleared under heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff on payment of concessional rate of duty. Customs duties were paid by NSPT (as per the terms of the contract) for expeditious clearance of the goods.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com