Jurisprudentiol-Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Seizure of heroin and cash - Independent witnesses do not turn up in Court - Conviction cannot depend only on fact that huge quantity of heroin is shown to have been seized. Also, argument that prosecution will not needlessly implicate innocent persons does not impress Court. Voluntary Statement doubted - Leave to appeal rejected: HC

THE High Court held:

The NCB has to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it is the Respondents who are guilty of the offences with which they have been charged. Since the NCB has presented a version in which independent witnesses are stated to have participated throughout the raid, the NCB has to satisfactorily explain how and why the addresses given for such witnesses has turned out to be non-existent and they have not been produced in Court. No effort appears to have been made by the NCB to ascertain the correct addresses and summon the independent witnesses. That was not the responsibility of the Court. In the circumstances, the only inference that was possible to be drawn was that the said witnesses and their addresses did not exist.

The medical report clearly shows that A-3 had a swelling and abrasion on his forehead and bruises all over his back and on his knee. The injuries noted in the said report substantiated his statement given under Section 313 Cr PC that his head was banged against the wall by the NCB officials and that he was beaten mercilessly by them at their office.

Income Tax

Whether when Revenue fails to take action on demand of tax with interest for 27 years and also fails to apply mind to interest waiver application, it is fit case to reduce interest amount u/s 220(2A) - YES: HC

THE demand, including interest, u/s 220 (2) was certified by the Tax Recovery Officer and after collecting the entire arrears, the Tax Officer raised demand of Rs.65,472/- representing the interest under Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Against the said demand, assessee preferred an application before CIT u/s 220 (2) for waiver of the interest demanded. In the said petition, assessee had stated that for more than 25 years, he was an assessee on the file of ITO, Trichy, and then he was a student and his income tax affairs were looked after by his father, Mr.K.S.Rajan, who was no more and the taxes were also paid and there was no outstanding demand. It was further stated that the assessee had settled down in Madras and his old assessment records were not traceable. It was stated that after the lapse of 27 years, the Tax Recovery Officer issued summons u/s 131 and the assessee was asked to appear before him and to pay arrears of Rs.58,000/- together with interest levied under Rule 5 of the Rules.

The issue before the Bench is - Whether when the Revenue fails to take action on demand of tax with interest for 27 years and also fails to apply mind to interest waiver application, it is a fit case to reduce or waive interest amount u/s 220(2A). YES is the answer.

Service Tax

Sofa, Almirah, chairs, ladder, drop box, doors, fire resistant file cabinets, safe deposit lockers, whether capital goods/inputs under CCR, 2004 - Matter debatable - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE appellant is a banking company and registered with the Service Tax department in respect of Bank and Financial Services and Credit Card service etc.

A SCN dated 5.3.2013 was issued alleging that during the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 the appellant availed inadmissible CENVAT credit on goods like almirah, chairs, defender safe, display unit/vinyl display, drop box, fire resistant file cabinets, ladder, safe deposit lockers, signage/signage board, sleeper for locker, sofa, storewel, strong room door, frill, door and frill gate etc. which do not qualify as ‘capital goods'.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements