Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Entire case is based on documentary evidence and petitioner can be subjected to interrogation without being arrested - anticipatory bail granted by High Court

Investigation is yet on but it is not a case where custodial interrogation shall be essential as the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the petitioner can be subjected to interrogation without being given custody to the respondent, therefore, it is a fit case where petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Income Tax

Liaison Office of non-resident company places purchase orders of goods on behalf of affiliates of parent company - Since LO acts only as buyer's agent, goods meant for export eligible for exemption u/s 9(1)( i ) and no income is earned in India : ITAT

IN an interesting decision the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT has held that the liaison office of a non-resident company cannot be treated as a Permanent Establishment in the light of the fact that it acted only as a window for quality control of goods manufactured for exports to various affiliates of the non-resident company located in various countries. Since all the services provided by the LO were geared towards only the purchase of goods for exports, no income can be attributed to it.

Service Tax

Section 11D of CEA – Service tax recovered from customers but not deposited – Once fact remains that appellant is registered with SEBI as ‘stock broker' and this registration is not cancelled, even if they act as ‘sub broker' in some cases it will not make any difference: Tribunal

THE appellant is a stock broker registered with the SEBI . They recovered Service Tax of Rs.2.69 lakhs from their customers but did not deposit the same with the Central government. When proceedings were initiated against them in terms of section 11D [which was then applicable in terms of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994], they argued that they were not a “stock broker” but only a “sub broker” and hence were not liable to service tax and consequently proceedings cannot be launched u/s 11D .

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements