Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)227CTR(SC)417; [2009]319ITR306(SC); JT2009(14)SC441; 2009(14)SCALE163; (2010)1SCC489; [2009]185TAXMAN416(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 7771/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 23851/2007, Civil Appeal No. 7770/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 17835/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7765/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 28521/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7769/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 6844/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7767/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9589/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7756/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9590/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7766/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 9591/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7763/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 14363/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7764/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 17840/2008, Civil Appeal No. 7758/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 20012/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7762/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 1344/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7760/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 3759/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7754/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 21067/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7759/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 25174/2009, Civil Appeal No. 7768/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 30587/2008 and Civil Appeal No. 7761/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 1476/2009.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. A short question which arises for determination in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(Del)635; [2009]313ITR161(Delhi); [2009]177TAXMAN1(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act) against judgment dated 12.8.2005 in ITA No 1585/Del/2002 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99. The only issue which arises for consideration is the allowability of deduction under Section 36(1)(5a) read with Section 2(24)(x) and Section 43(B) to the assessee in respect of employer/employees contributions towards provident fund payments which were made after the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the Rules made thereunder before the due date for furnishing the return of income under Sub-section 1 of Section 139.2. The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned judgment on account of the fact that the Tribunal, based on its own decision in the case of ACIT v. Vistas RRB (India) Ltd. (2005) 92 ITD 1 Delhi, has taken the view that the amendment brought about in Section 43B by virtue of Finance Act, 2003 was curative in nature and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(4)Raj3568
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These writ petitions have been filed at the instance of one assessee Rakesh Kumar Goyal in respect of assessment years 1990-91 to 1994-95. These petitions are being decided by this common judgment on the basis of the facts of SBCWP No. 4866/2000 which pertains to assessment year 1988-89. The assessee has challenged the notices/letters dated 20/9/2000,17/10/2000,17/10/2000 and 17/10/2000, Annexures 5, 7, 8 and 9 respectively, whereby certain additional information has been asked for by the assessing authority from the petitioner-assessee in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act').3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that such information could not be called for by the assessing authority because Section 148 itself provides that the provision of the Income Tax Act shall, so far as may be, applied accordingly to the proceedings under Section 148 as if t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:20. 06.2013 Coram The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A.No.1451 of 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise Central Excise Commissionerate No.1, Williams Road Tiruchirapalli 620 001 .. Appellant Vs. M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited Thirumandankudi Papanasam Taluk Tamil Nadu .. Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final order No.844/2004 dated 1.10.2004 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhana Raman For Respondent : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq for M/s. R.Karthikeyan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenue against the final order No.844/2004 dated 1.10.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench by raising the following substantia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being taken up together for disposal.2. In these cases, the refund claims filed by the appellants, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti and Ors. v. UOI reported in 1999 (84) ECR 53 (SC), were rejected in view retrospective amendment of the law.3. The retrospective amendment was also challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Aambuja Cements Ltd. and Anr. v. UOI reported in 2005 (120) ECR 377 (SC) upheld the constitutional validity of provisions to Sections 116 & 117 of the Finance Act 2000. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the constitutional validity of the provisions was upheld, the service tax paid by the present appellants will be deemed to have been paid under the valid provisions. Therefore, request for refund of amount is not sustainable. In these circumstances, I find no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)8STT156
2. The issue in this appeal relates to the liability to pay any Service Tax by a person receiving services from goods transport operators.3. The appellants herein is having Sugar Factory and engaged the services of the goods transport operators for transporting the sugar canes to its factory during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. A Show-Cause-Notice dated 09.03.2001 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs (Service Tax) Jalgaon alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Section 68, 69 & 70 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) in as much as they failed to pay the Service Tax on the transportation charges paid during the period in dispute, fail to get a Registration under the Finance Act and non-furnishing the returns. The Show-Cause-Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jalgaon Division who has confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 5,69,204/- and directed them to make ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC226
1. Heard both sides at length in respect of these nine appeals, four of which have been filed by the Department and five of them have been filed by M/s. Dharampal and Satyapal Ltd. and others. We find that the impugned Orders-in-Original has been passed by the Original Authorities, (sic) in pursuance of the amendments made in Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 retrospectively. The Appellate Authority vide his Orders dated 24.6.2004 and 15.6.2005 has set aside the impugned Orders and has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with direction to pass Orders in accordance with law. The learned Advocate, Shri R.K. Chowdhury for the Department states that the Remand Order is bad as the Original Authorities have passed correct Orders in accordance with the law. He also draws our attention to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in the case of R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and states that no show cause notice was required to be issued in this case in terms of the said Ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2007)8STR513
1. In the impugned order ld. Commissioner confirmed a demand of service tax of over Rs. 1.4 crores against the appellants under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest on tax under Section 75 of the Act. He also imposed penalties on them under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act. The present application is for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of these amounts.2. After examining the records and hearing ld. Sr. Counsel for the appellants and ld. SDR for the Revenue, we have found prima facie case for the assessee against the above demand. The subject matter of the demand is reinsurance brokerage received in Indian currency by the appellants from certain overseas companies, hereinafter referred to as "reinsurers". The appellants were functioning as reinsurance brokers between General Insurance Companies in India and the reinsurers abroad.There is no dispute regarding the nature of the service rendered by the appellants to the reinsurers. They accept it to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. The appellants had paid service tax of Rs. 13,899/- on 31.1.2003 for the Goods Transport Operator's (GTO) service availed by them during the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. The Commissioner demanded interest on the above amount under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed a penalty on the appellants under Section 76 of the Act.2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the party was not liable to pay tax in view of the decision of the Tribunal in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC). Where tax was not payable, no interest on tax was demandable as held by this bench in Final Order No. 1549/2005 [2006-TIOL-138-CESTAT-MAD.]. Further, recipients of GTO service, like the appellants, were exempt from penal liability by Parliament through retrospective amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 vide Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000.3. It appears from the records that the service tax returns we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
1. One of the miscellaneous applications is for change of the appellant's name to 'Ramsar Tex Private Ltd.' and the other is for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery. A copy of 'Fresh Certificate of Incorporation' issued by the Registrar of Companies, Tamilnadu is being produced by counsel and the same indicates change of name of the company to 'Ramsar Tex Private Ltd.' with effect from 25.3.1999. The application is allowed and, accordingly, the name of the party in the Memorandum of Appeal and the stay application stand changed to 'Ramsar Tex Private Ltd.' 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides on the stay application, I note that the issue arising in the appeal stands settled by numerous decisions of the Tribunal based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise v. L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (3) STR 715 (SC). In the circumstances, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal for final disposal.3. The appellants had...
Tag this Judgment!