Since the appellant is a charitable institution, can they be considered as a commercial training or coaching centre ? Here again the answer is negative. So long as the appellant imparts training or skill in any subject or field other than sports for a consideration, the said activity would come under the purview of commercial training or coaching. It is on record that the appellant is collecting substantial amount of fees from the students for imparting training. Merely because the appellant is registered as a Charitable Institution under the Income-tax Act, 1961, that does not entitle the appellant to claim exclusion from the ambit of service tax. Thus it is obvious that the appellant does not come under the exclusion clause of the definition of commercial training or coaching centre.
The second issue involved in the appeal is levy of service tax on tickets sold before 1.5.2006 and used after 1st May 2006. The appellant’s contention is that the appellant sold the tickets to the passenger prior to 1.5.2006 and at that time there was no provision under the law of charging service tax Therefore, the service tax cannot be demanded from them of tickets sold prior to 1.5.2006. On going through the definition of the taxable service under this category we find that Section 65(105) indicates that taxable service would mean the services provided by the service provider to the service recipient as well as would also mean the services to be provided at a later date. The appellant being a service provider is required to make payment of service tax on the taxable services which were required to be provided on and after 1.5.2006. The levy of Service Tax has no connection with the receipt of payment and the service tax is required to be paid when the service is provided.
The appellants are actually implementing applications software like SAP, Oracle, people soft. They are also into upgradation of application software from existing release level to higher version. They are also specifically into running of electronic data processing centre, business of data processing, word processing etc. Even if there is any advisory role, the same appears to be limited only to the field of Engineering and the services would fall under the category of consulting engineers only.
Appellant has been issued with a show cause notice on 19.05.2004 for the demand of Service Tax liability for the period 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998 on the ground that the appellant has received the services of goods transport agency/operator which is liable to pay service tax as per the retrospective amendment and has not filed returns and discharged Service Tax. On perusal of the show cause notice, we find that the show cause notice has been issued under section 73 of the Act for demand of service tax and consequent for the penalties and interest.
A list of professionals appointed by the company from 1957 onwards is extracted in the written submissions filed by the respondents to argue that the Board seat was not reserved for family members on representative basis. The list includes several non-family directors. Therefore, it is contented that though the company is promoted by three families and has representatives of three families as its shareholders, it has been professionally managed, and hence there was never any understanding or tacit consent stipulating proportional representation of the shareholders on the board. It is the specific case of the respondents that if such an understanding was there, one of the petitioners would have automatically become a director of the company.
When the department wanted the tax liability of the assessee to be revised, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to record a clear finding and to spell out in quantitative terms what should be the correct tax liability of the assessee.
On consideration, the contention raised by the appellants is found to have force. The Company Law Board, cannot issue injunction in implementing the decision to be taken by the shareholders in its meeting, unless the prima facie finding is recorded, that the decision is prejudicial to the public interest or the company at large.
The offence alleged in the complaint against the petitioner is not a ‘continuous wrong’ and, therefore, the bar to take cognizance as contemplated under section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the complaint lodged in the present case and, therefore, taking cognizance of such an offence after more than 11 years is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed and is clearly barred in law. In the result, the instant petition is allowed and the order of cognizance and summons issued in aforesaid cases are set aside.
Ministry of Corporate affairs has vide its General Circular No. 14/2012, dated 21-6-2012 imposed fees on various forms which were free of cost. One such form was E-form-23B which in an Intimation to ROC by statutory auditors regarding their appointment. So now fee shall be payable based on Authorised Capital of the Company. Additional fee provisions shall also apply in case of delay. It shall be applicable from 22nd July 2012.
An internal probe by the Income Tax department, to detect the occurrence of a spate of refund frauds, has found that swindlers have hacked into the user-ids of retired officials and unclaimed suspense refunds were generated to siphon off the taxpayers hard-earned money.
