Pursuant to the notice issued under Section-129 of the Act determining the amount to be paid towards the tax and liability, the requisite amount has been paid by the writ-applicant and the conveyance and the goods have been released. It appears that later, a show-cause notice came to be issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ-applicant to show-cause why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated.
In the given case, the respondent assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked power of revision under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 on the ground that without deducting TDS on the export freight, the assessee company had paid export freight to Inter Ocean Shipping and Logistic Services.
The interest paid in respect of the borrowings for acquisition of capital assets is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act regardless of the fact that the capital assets acquired were not put to use in the concerned financial year in question
It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that since the petitioners have not paid due tax amounts for the relevant periods and they do not file mandatory returns till day, blocking of E- way bill is made on account of this mandatory provision contained in the above said Rule and unblocking of E-way bill is possible only if the due amounts as envisaged in the above said Rule are remitted and the returns are filed up to date.
Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power under section 83 can be exercised. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission of the Respondents that even though specified proceedings have been launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person can be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued under section 70 to him.
The appellant is providing financial services and gives loans. For recovery of loans, the appellant collects post-dated cheques. There are instances when post-dated cheques after being presented to bank get dishonoured. The bank collects charges for dishonouring of the cheques. Such charges are recovered by the appellant from their clients. It appeared to Revenue that such charges should be included in the assessable value for levy of service tax. Therefore, proceedings were initiated which culminated into passing of the impugned order.
The formation of the opinion by the authority that the goods and the conveyance are liable to be confiscated should reflect intense application of mind. We are saying so because it is not any or every contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules which may be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the case is one of an intention to evade payment of tax. In short, the action must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence.
Issue under consideration is that whether the Appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on the input service viz. event management service?
In the given case the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ to the respondents granting permission to the petitioner to submit TRAN-1 form electronically by opening electronic portal or in the alternative allow the petitioner to tender the form manually and thereafter the petitioner’s claim be assessed for input tax credit in accordance with law
It was submitted that therefore, the first proviso to section 148 of the Act would be attracted and the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act is invalid.
