We found two Notification on CBEC website of Same Number i.e. Notification No. Notification No. 13/2017-Service Tax. Both are dated differently and are related to different subject. While one is dated as 12th April, 2017 and other one is dated 13th April, 2017.
Court is of the considered opinion that there is no willful suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and it was bona fide on the part of the petitioner, it was not deliberate and in absence of finding relating to mensrea recorded by the Settlement Commission, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 deserves to be quashed.
Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus.
The complainant submits that because the complainant was to deposit the court fees, but due to financial insufficiency suffered by him, he could not make the deposit at the relevant time. It is also contended that during the said period, the Demonetisation was also in force, therefore, his non-deposit of the court fees be condoned and setting aside order dated 17.1.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, time may be granted to deposit the court fees.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee challenging an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.6.2015 confirming imposition of penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act (in short Act) though reducing the quantum from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.2.5 lakhs.
Admittedly, the petitioner has lodged a police complaint that her name has been misused in a document in respect of a property of which she is not the owner. Therefore, the matter requires further detail prob.
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, it is aggrieved that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee claim for its exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short BC the Act CC). Appeal has been filed with a delay of ten days. Condonation petition has been filed. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted.
In view of law laid down by Apex Court in case of Poolpandi & Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise & Others, presence of counsel refusal during interrogation/recording the statement of a person under Customs Act would not be violative of Article 20 (3) and 21 of Constitution of India.
Court be very slow in interpreting the statutes where intention legislature is to curb the evasion of tax. This is a peculiar where the Government has granted the benefit under the only to the persons who are not covered under Section and other proceedings.
Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner.
