Court : Mumbai
Oral Order: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard the learned Special Counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard the learned APP for the respondent No.2. 2. Present application for bail is preferred by the applicant in the matter of offence punishable under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. During the arguments it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is the Director of M/s. Prashant Transport Exchange Division, and the Managing Director of M/s. Naidu's Infracon Private Limited. He was arrested on 22nd January, 2014 at 9:00 p.m. under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax for the period from 2010 to December, 2013. 4. Prior to discussing the rival submissions, the factual position is required to be mentioned inasmuch as the applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. 2. The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are claiming a writ, order or direction declaring clause (zzzzv) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010 as ultravires the Constitution of India, null, void and of no legal affect. It is prayed that the said provision be struck down as violative of the mandate of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246, 265, 300A and 366(29A)(f) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the relief restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the said provision directly or indirectly, so also, levying or attempting to levy any service tax under the impugned provision is also claimed. 4. Few facts which are necessary for appreciating the rival contentions are that the Petitioner No.1 before us is an Association registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and claims that it has 2000 Hotels in G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2009)222CTR(Del)430; [2009]312ITR22(Delhi); [2009]177TAXMAN168(Delhi)
Rajiv Shakdher, J.1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are preferred by the Revenue against a common judgment dated 05.01.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 313/Del/2006 and ITA No. 3509/Del/2003, in respect of the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the respondent/assessee was entitled to deduction as claimed, in respect of the profits derived from an industrial undertaking set up in assessment year 1994-95.3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent/assessee was entitled to the claim made by it for the reasons given in the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal deserves to be sustained for the reasons given hereinafter. Before we elucidate t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1978]114ITR822(Ker)
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. In these two references made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred to this court for decision the following three questions of law arising out of the consolidated order passed by the Tribunal in two connected appeals relating to the assessment made against a company for the year 1966-67, one of the appeals having been filed by the assessee and the other by the department : '(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot avail of the benefit of the Circular No. 27 (LIX-2) of 1955 dated 6th July, 1955, issued by the Central Board of Revenue (annexure 'B') and the clarificatory Circular F. No. 10/49-65-IT(AI) dated October 14, 1965, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (annexure ' C') (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit derived by the sale of import entitlements cannot be considered as profits de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(179)ELT447Tri(Chennai)
1. In the Revenue's appeal, the challenge is against dropping of a demand of Service Tax on the respondents. The demand was raised in a show cause notice issued on 14-2-2003 for the month of August, 1999.The respondents in this case had received 'Clearing and Forwarding' services from the service-provider during the said period and the demand was raised thereon. The original authority confirmed the demand and the first appellate authority vacated the same.2. In the other appeal, the appellants are aggrieved by a demand of Service tax for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 for having received 'Goods Transport' service from the service-provider. This demand was raised in a show cause notice on 13-5-2002 and the same was confirmed by the original authority and sustained by the first appellate authority. Hence this appeal of the assessee.3. As, in these appeals, the question to be decided upon is whether the service recipients (respondents in Appeal No. S/22/2004 and appellants in Appeal N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(185)ELT153Tri(Chennai)
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the challenge is against an order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vacating a demand of service tax confirmed against the respondents by the original authority. During the period of dispute (16-7-1997 to 31-8-1999), the respondents had got their goods marketed through their consignment agent, for which the latter was paid a commission. A demand of service tax on the service rendered by the consignment agent to the respondents was raised on the latter by the department in a SCN dated 28-8-2002. The respondent contested the demand by contending that they did not avail any taxable service from their consignment agent and, further, that, even otherwise, the demand was time-barred. These objections were rejected and the demand was confirmed against them by the adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority vacated the demand as time-barred. Hence this appeal of the Revenue.2. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and submits that, on a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the respondent in C.No.V/BAS/15/144/2009-S.T.ADJ and quash the order Sl.No.07/2012 (Commissioner) dated 30.10.2012 passed therein.) This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of the respondent in C.No.V/BAS/15/144/2009-S.T.ADJ and quash the order Sl.No.07/2012 (Commissioner) dated 30.10.2012 passed therein. 2. The matter relates to an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem under the provisions of Service Tax, Finance Act 1994. A show-cause notice was issued stating as follows:- "02.07. On analytical study of activities of CTandC, it is observed that they have rendered various services for the exporters to promote their business in overseas. Therefore, it appears that service rendered by CTandC for the promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced by their clients are squar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11330 of 2018 CC and CE and ST, NOIDA ...Appellant(s) Versus M/s Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated Civil Appeal No.11330 of 2018 Page 1 of 64 2 09.11.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent and has set aside the Order inOriginal dated 31.03.2017 disallowing the CENVAT Credit, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:2. 1 The respondent assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture, supply and erection at the site of prefabricated/preengineered steel buildings and parts thereof classifiable under Civil Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR518; [1957]31ITR959(Bom)
Chagla, C.J.1. The question raised in this reference lies in a very narrow compass. Under section 10 of the Indian Finance Act, 1942, an option was given to an assessee who became liable to pay excess profits tax to make a deposit of one-fifth of the amount of the excess profits tax; and, if he did so, he became entitled to be refunded one-tenth of the amount of the excess profits tax or one-half of the said deposit, whichever was less. There was a proviso to this section and the proviso was that in respect of any profits which were also liable to assessment to excess profits tax under the law in force in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary to make the deposit. In other words, an assessee who was liable to have his excess profits tax assessed in the United Kingdom had the benefit of the refund profits by section 10 (1) without incurring the obligation to make the deposit provided by that section. Now this voluntary deposit contemplated by section 10 (1) was made obligatory by clause...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1988(38)ELT425(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the issues arising in all these writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The petitioners in all these cases are manufacturers of matches and they have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 52 of the Finance Act of 1982 and the conditions imposed in Notification No. 22/82[GSR 77(E)/82] dated 23rd February, 1982, on the ground of violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as also on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament inasmuch as it purports to retain monies which are not tax collected under the authority of law as provided for in Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the conditions imposed in Notification No. 22/82[GSR 77(E)/82] in regard to production and clearance also on the ground that it is arbitrary or irrational discriminatory. 3. For appeciating the petitioners' said challenge, it is nec...
Tag this Judgment!