Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes the issuance of show cause notice and other related provisions. In this section, sub-section 7A is inserted by Budget, 2013 to cover the cases of recurring nature where the show cause notices are issued on the exactly same grounds and allegations from time to time to the same assessees.
It is urged by PSPC, on the strength of the decision in Rajasthan Housing Board v. Krishna Kumari [2005] 13 SCC 151, that since the electricity connection was restored to the factory premises in terms of the order dated 18th December 2008 of the Court, the dues of PSPC ought to be directed to be paid straightway by CBL and PSPC should not be relegated to the OL for its dues. The above submission is untenable for more than one reason.
it is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme court in ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815 that the Tribunal, while exercising its appellate powers under the Income Tax Act has also the power to ensure that the fruits of success are not rendered futile or nugatory and for this purpose it is empowered, to pass appropriate orders including orders of stay. In ITO v. Khalid Mehdi Khan [1977] 110 ITR 79 the Andhra Pradesh High Court, applying the rule laid down in M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (supra), stayed the assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer consequent to the directions of the CIT given in orders passed under Section 263 of the Act.
Though the power of the A.O. to reopen an assessment within a period of four years is indisputably wider than when an assessment is sought to be reopened beyond four years, the power is nonetheless not unbridled. After the amendment which was brought in by the Direct Tax Laws Amendment Act, 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989, the A.O. must have reason to believe that income has escaped the assessment. At the same time, the A.O. is not conferred with the power to review an assessment and he cannot reopen an assessment only because of a mere change in the opinion.
Bare perusal of the scheme of Chapter XVII-B shows that it mandates the person responsible for paying any sum out of which tax is required to be deducted at source to deduct the requisite amount of tax at source out of the amounts paid/credited by him. Deduction of tax is made out of the amounts paid/credited by the person responsible for paying/crediting the same.
A plain reading of the provisions of Section 188 makes it amply clear that a member who intends getting his proposed resolutions included for circulation to members must have not less than one twentieth of the total voting power of all the members at the date of the requisition or must be not less than 100 members in number to exercise such a right.
The lower authority had also held that the refund claim is partially time-barred. The appellant had argued that the refund claim is not hit by limitation inasmuch as the time prescribed under Section 11B is applicable only to those tax which is collected as permitted by the statute and in the instant case the tax was collected without authority of law and hence time limit is not applicable.
Appellant has undertaken the activity of harvesting sugarcane and its transportation to sugar factory from the fields of farmers and this activity is in relation to sale of sugarcane by farmers and purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factory and service provided by a commission agent. In view of this finding, we find that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-ST which provides exemption from payment of service tax in respect of service provided under “Business Auxiliary Service” in relation to the sale of agricultural products.
CA M B Abhyankar We are attaching herewith revised format of ST-3 in Excel Format for Trial Data Entry before the E-Version of same gets released on ACES website. Revised format applies for the period from July 2012 to September 2012 and for the Periods subsequent to that. Please note this format is only for […]
Regard being had to the statement of objections the answer to the question as to whether the bearings supplied by the petitioner to the respondent were, in fact, defective or not being a pure question of fact requires an adjudication after a trial. Hence the defence is not a moonshine defence. Since a triable issue has arisen petitioner cannot but be relegated to the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
