As per the Notification, with effect from 1 October 2011, it is mandatory for all the taxpayer, (irrespective of their Service tax liability in the preceding year) to file the Service tax returns electronically. Accordingly, all returns filed on or after 1 October 2011 will be required to be filed electronically. These will not only cover returns due after 1 October 2011 but all returns or revised returns filed for the past periods as well.
Vide Finance Act, 2011, ‘Self-Assessment’ has been introduced under the Customs Act. Under ‘self-assessment’, responsibility of filing correct declaration lies with the importer or exporter. The declaration filed by the importer or exporter may be verified by the proper officer when so interdicted by the Risk Management systems (RMS). In rare cases, such interdiction may also be made with the approval of the Commissioner of Customs or an officer duly authorized by him, who shall not be below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Customs, and that will necessarily be done after making a record of the same in the EDI system.
ICAI- Tax Suite software contains the Income Tax, TDS, Audit Reports, Project Report/ CMA, Form Manager, AIR (Annual Information Return), Service Tax and Document Management and will help the Practitioners & CA Firms in systematic operation of correspondence and documentation through ready to use templates, retrieval of documents and multi-purpose form generation system.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut- II Vs. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- We have a recent decision of this Court in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 601. This Court in the said decision has very carefully considered almost all the previous decisions of this Court on the issue of the levy/payment of Excise Duty Valuation on articles manufactured by the assessee company therein. After referring to practically all the decisions on the issue this Court in the aforesaid case held that the consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges.
Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)- Relabelling would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders with different marking or different certificates to its different customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving different marks or different labels to different cylinders having different quality and quantity of gas. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity.
`Self-Assessment’ has been introduced in Customs vide Finance Act, 2011. Further, it has been made mandatory for importers and exporters to file declarations electronically. These changes necessitated a re-look at the extant regulations / forms. Accordingly, draft ‘Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ and draft ‘Shipping Bill (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ have been prepared by CBEC and are attached herewith as Annexure – ‘X’ & ‘Y’ respectively.
Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)- It is held that the turnkey contract is not divisible and therefore, the offshore supply and offshore services can be attributed to the Indian permanent establishment; as the project office was opened for coordination and execution of project, the same is held to be a fixed place PE.
CIT Vs Surya Herbal Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters.
Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.
Six years after a senior income tax assistant was caught accepting a bribe of Rs 500, a special CBI court on Wednesday sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Vijay Karekar was arrested by the CBI on October 17, 2005, on charges of accepting the bribe from a person, an income tax assessee, for clearing his tax refund order.
