Pre-condition for invoking the extended period is that the Commissioner should record ‘reasons to believe’ that the tax has not been paid and that the reason for non-payment of tax should be concealment, omission or failure to disclose full material particulars on the part of the assessee.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that imposition of fine under Section 70(5) of the DVAT Act is for an offence as defined under Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which shall be tried by the Hon’ble Court of criminal jurisdiction in accordance with Section 26(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Commissioner or its delegates do not have power or jurisdiction to impose such fine.
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the Appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said Assessment Order and consequently, filling of any appeal would not arise. Accordingly, the Appellant is entitled for refund.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not case of wilful misstatement, since all the facts and manner were disclosed in letter addressed to the Department. Hence, extended period could not be invoked.
No reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs in case of slump sale of on-going factory along with raw materials, packing materials etc., as there is no removal from factory.
In the instant case, Sanjay Industrial Corporation (the Appellant) was engaged in profile cutting viz. cutting larger size plates into small size and shapes using gas cutting machines, as per requirements of customers. The Department invoked extended period of limitation alleging that the process carried out by Appellant amount to manufacture and thus exigible to Excise duty.
In the Instant case, the Department alleged undervaluation and clandestine clearances on ground that Synfab Sales (the Respondent) was clearing the goods from its factory gate at very low value in the name of non-existing firms, while the goods were actually being cleared to godown at Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) and Surat (Gujarat) from where they are subsequently being sold through brokers to actual buyers at a higher value.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that an Order which has been passed on a concession given by the Commissioner cannot be challenged by the Commissioner himself. Further, the argument of intermediary service when not raised before AAR cannot be raised first time in Writ petition,especially, when the same is a ground relatable to facts
In the instant case, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed Swift Talk (the Appellant) to deposit Rs. 3 Lakhs as pre-deposit for hearing the case on merit by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).The Appellant argued that the Hon’ble Tribunal has adopted discriminatory approach in respect of same controversy and vide its earlier decisions in case of other dealers
In instant case, Monarch Catalyst (P) Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in export of goods and for that purpose availing services of certain commission agents located abroad(Impugned services) on which Service tax paid under Reverse Charge. Accordingly the Appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated July 7, 2009.
