From our Legal Corner - Monday's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.
Service Tax
Appellants appointed as commission agents for the purpose of procuring orders - they are not warehousing the goods or taking any steps for clearance of the goods from the manufacturer's place - not a C & F agent - Tribunal by majority.
For the period 1999-2000 to 2003-December 2004, the appellant's records were scrutinized by the C.Ex. authorities and a notice was issued directing the appellant to show cause as to why the service tax amount due on the commission received by the appellant be not demanded and penalty & interest should not be recovered, as receiving the commission will fall under the category of C&F agent services.
The lower appellate authority upheld the order of confirmation of demand based on the Tribunal decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory Private Ltd. & hence the matter came to the Tribunal. There was a difference of opinion between the two Members inasmuch as Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal based on the LB decision in Larsen & Toubro but the Member(Technical) took a contrary view basing his findings on the LB decision in Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 2006-TIOL-848-CESTAT-Del. Hence the matter came to be referred to the Third Member.
Customs - Who will escape from the LAW?
Detained in 1976 under COFEPOSA - property forfeited in 1978 - both owners of property are dead - 30 yrs have passed - The facts of this case show how drastic laws life SAFEMA can be used to badger individuals, often weak in comparison with the might of the State : Delhi HC
THE facts of this case show how drastic laws like SAFEMA can be used to badger individuals, often weak in comparison with the might of the State. Three decades have passed by; Shiv Shankar and his wife expired. Yet the stigma cast by the impugned order has visited their heirs. This is an oft recurring situation, so evocatively described by James Jeffrey Roche, in ''The Net of law'':
The net of law is spread so wide,
No sinner from its sweep may hide.
Its meshes are so fine and strong.
They take in every child of wrong
O wondrous web of mystery!
Big fish alone escape from thee!
Income Tax
The word 'served' as appearing in Sec 153(2) cannot be equated with word 'issue' - 'Intimation' and 'assessment' are different - failure to take steps u/s 143(3) will not render AO powerless to initiate re-assessment proceedings : ITAT
Limitation: 'issue' and 'serve' - do they mean the same thing?
Notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.3.03. This notice was served on 4th Apr, 03. As per time limit prescribed u/s 153(2) of the Income-tax Act, order of assessment, re-assessment is to be made u/s 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice u/s 148 was served. In the general clauses Act, the words 'serve', give and send are all used u/s 27 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Banarasi Debi Vs. ITO has held that all these words are inter changeable words. The Supreme Court held that the word issued is to be held as served. In the case of Banarasi Debi though the notice was served beyond the period of limitation but since the notice was issued prior to that date, the Supreme Court held that issuance should be regarded as equivalent to served. It was argued that the assumption of jurisdiction and the time for completion should be judged from the same yardstick. Once the word serve is taken as equivalent to 'issue' then the assessment should have been completed on or before 31.3.04. The assessment completed on 30th Mar, 05 is beyond limit prescribed under the Act.
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com