From our Legal Corner - tomorrow's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Service - Taxing?? Transfer??

Inter Zonal Transfers of Central Excise superintendents - Petitioner on the leave granted by High Court submitted a representation to the Board - Having submitted to the directions of the High Court, he is disentitled from challenging the order - Supreme Court declines to intervene

Transfer is a touchy issue in the Revenue departments. Department seems to be ready to go to any lengths to make the life of the employees miserable by arbitrary mindless transfers and the employees also seem to be ready to go to any lengths to challenge such transfers. Here is a Superintendent who is before the Supreme Court against his transfer order. And generally the Courts don't interfere with administrative transfer orders.

The petitioner, a Central Excise Superintendent is aggrieved by the High Court order against his transfer and is before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner had been appointed as Inspector, Central Excise, in 1982. Subsequently, in 2003 he was promoted to the post of Superintendent under the Bhopal zone which comprised of the Commissionerates of Bhopal, Indore and Raipur. On 19.2.1994 the Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, issued a circular addressed to amongst others all the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise containing certain instructions regarding the discontinuance of inter-Commissionerate transfers.

Service Tax

Gold smith - Technical Certification Services? - Stay granted by Tribunal

INGENUITY of the Department in exploring new areas of taxation, knows no bounds. You go to a Bank for a loan pledging your gold ornaments and you fin d a goldsmith there to test the purity of the gold. The bright Central excise Officer found this goldsmith violating all the provisions of the Act and evading a huge sum of about Rs. 12,000/- spread over a period of two years. He was charged with providing 'technical inspection and certification' service.

Settlement

No immunity from prosecution by Settlement Commission in cases where proceedings of prosecution already instituted - But what is the relevant date? - Date of registration of FIR or when challan is presented before Magistrate? - HC finds an answer

SECTION 127H of the Customs Act empowers the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution / penalty either wholly or in part for any offence under the Customs Act with respect to the case covered by the settlement.

It is only when a charge sheet is presented before the Magistrate that it could be said that proceedings for the prosecution for any offence have been instituted.

Income Tax

Carried forward investment allowance is not business loss for purpose of Sec 72 - Benefit of set off against capital gains not allowed : Madras HC

INCOME Tax Act allows a whole basket of allowances to be set off against income. But in the statutory scheme of things, as explained under Sections ranging from 70 to 80, which allowance is to be allowed to be set off first or in a particular order has also been ingrained. But the question of interpretation often leads to disputes. And in this case while setting aside the order of the Tribunal the Madras High Court has held that the carried forward investment allowance cannot be treated as a business loss for the purpose of Section 72 to have the benefit of set off of capital gains.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements