Here, the only question, which false for our determination, is as to whether the Additional Director had the authority under section 132 (1) of the Act to issue warrant of search and seizure. In view of the amendment brought by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, this point need not detain us much. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 has specifically inserted the words “Additional Director” in section 132 (1) of the Act with effect from 01.06.1994, besides other authorities.
CA Ankit Gulgulia (Jain) The Works contract composition provisions under Delhi VAT shall be significantly revamped w.e.f 1.4.2013. The details of Revised composition model under VAT is as detailed hereunder. Governing Statute for New Model Effectuated vide Notification No. 3(13)/Fin.(Rev-I)/2012-13/dsvi/180 dated 28th February,2013. This notification shall come into force with effect from 1st April 2013.
Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner that the assessment orders passed on remand are the subject matter of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal, as the case may be. It is, therefore, for the petitioner to work out its remedy in the said forum including appropriate interlocutory orders as against tax and interest. The writ petition filed challenging the letter demanding payment of arrears is, per se, not maintainable for the abovesaid reason. The petitioner, having availed the statutory remedy, has to seek indulgence in the appeals said to have been filed.
In the present case, the Fly Ash Handling System, even though classified under plant and machinery as a general item, is still qualified as a different class under the heading ‘Air pollution control equipment’ entitled for higher amount of depreciation. Therefore, the special category, under which air pollution control equipment is placed, applies to the Fly Ash Handing System installed by the assessee. Its eligibility for higher amount of depreciation will not be shadowed by the general rate provided for plant and machinery.
The short point in question is whether only a registered trademark has a right under any law for the time being in force In India and whether any law other than enacted law In force In India will come within the meaning of any law for the time being in force.
The entire case is based on principal claim of revenue neutrality and non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment. It is undisputed fact that the duty amount was not paid on the due date in relation to the period for which the authority had found short-payment essentially because there was subsequent payment of the said amount, that cannot ipso facto result in revenue neutrality, merely because the appellants are entitled to avail credit in respect of the duty paid.
The petitioner trust, in this case, is also being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 for which it cannot be blamed at all : it had no liability whatsoever to pay this amount to the Revenue. Yet, the Revenue has refused to refund the same by taking some hypertechnical view of the matter. If the petitioner-trust is being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 which legitimately belongs to it due to perverse view taken by the Revenue, is it still rational to say that no genuine hardship is being caused to it ?
Mere pendency of the public interest litigation would not extinguish the liability of assessee to pay tax on the income received. The amount received by the assessee is not in pursuance to any interim order of the court wherein, the interim order merges with the final order and such payment is contingent depending upon the final verdict in the litigation. In this case, ultimately when the Government Order is set aside, if the assessee repays the money, he is eligible for adjustment of tax paid for the income received or for refund of the said amount. On the pretext that the third party has filed the public interest litigation for the relevant assessment year, he cannot avoid payment of tax on the said revenue receipt. In the event of assessee losing the battle, he will be bound to refund the amount of Rs. 2,06,33,600/- to the Government. If he were to pay tax under the Act, when once that amount is returned, he would be entitled for refund of the said tax or adjustment of tax in future, but that does not enable him to withhold payment of tax on the pretext of pending litigation. In that view of the matter, the approach of the Tribunal is not proper.
Oil and natural gas and its exploration are a field of specialized technical knowledge and not for the use of public at large. A specific training is required in the field. The information obtained by the assessee are also of technical nature. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that it contains general information is without any justification.
The Stock Exchanges are advised to report to SEBI, the action taken in this regard in the Monthly/Quarterly Development Report.
