Jurisprudentiol-Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Whether service rendered by an assessee is service within meaning of expression used in Finance Act, 1994, if so, under which category is an issue which has direct relation to rate of service tax - Appeal lies to Supreme Court under Sec 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 and High Court has no jurisdiction - Revenue appeal dismissed: HC

THE assessee paid service tax under construction service by availing abatement and started paying service tax under works contract service with effect from 01.06.2007. It is the contention of revenue that the development charges received by the assessee are taxable under Real Estate Agent service and the assessee cannot reclassify the service of construction under Works Contract service with effect from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of assessee and the revenue is before the High Court.

The respondent assessee raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal before the High Court as the issue relates to determination of rate of tax or value of the service as the same stands excluded in terms of Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Income Tax

Whether when major part of sales were made against opening stock, then sales are nothing but conversion of stock into liquidity - YES: ITAT

THE assessee is a private limited company. A search was conducted in the residential premises of the B.K. Dhingra, Poonam Dhingra and M/s Madhusudan Buildcon (P) Ltd. Assessment proceedings were initiated in the cases of the assessee company u/s 153C r/w section 153A. In response to the notice u/s 153C the assessee filed a return for six assessment years as required by the AO. Subsequently, the cases were transferred to another AO u/s 127. The AO however rejected the legal contentions of the assessee, made additions pertaining to unexplained purchases under Section 69C and disallowed expenses in the respective assessment orders. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and deleted the additions made.

The issue before the Bench is - Whether when a major part of sales were made against the opening stock, then the sales are nothing but the conversion of stock into liquidity. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Customs

Sikka port is situated in Gujarat and, therefore, offence, if any, has taken place in Gujarat & Customs Commissioner at Mumbai does not have jurisdiction - he could not have issued any SCN let aside ordering confiscation of vessel: CESTAT

THE appellant placed a ship building contract on M/s. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. for supply of crude oil tanker with a capacity of 115000 DWT. The said vessel was delivered to the appellant on 27/10/2010. The said vessel called upon India at Sikka Port (Gujarat) for the first time as a conveyance for cargo loading operations during its foreign run. On vessel's arrival in India, a ‘nil' cargo IGM was filed and all the procedural formalities were complied with. The vessel was also boarded by the Customs officials for preventive checks. Thereafter, the vessel left India taking on it the export cargo, after complying with the formalities, including filing of EGM and obtaining port clearance from the Customs authorities. Thereafter, during 2010-12 the vessel called upon India several times while being on foreign run.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements