In the absence of any document showing that in fact possession of the premises were handed over to the Respondent in May, 2010 and in light of the stand taken by the Respondent that possession was handed over to it only in December 2010, the said issue raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without evidence led by the parties. In the circumstances this Court is unable to come to the conclusion at this stage that the defence of the Respondent is sham, false or mala fide. If indeed there is an arbitration agreement between the parties there is no reason as to why it cannot avail of that remedy and must necessarily seek the remedy of winding up.
The company was bound by its own articles and could not have taken a plea contrary to what is contained therein. On the death of the original shareholder ‘J’, in view of his Will dated 23-6-1996 and the subsequent settlement arrived at between his mother and son ‘D’ and daughter ‘L’, on 19-2-2009, 1/3rd shareholding of ‘G’ vested in each of the aforenoted persons and thereafter the death of Gayatri Devi on 20-9-2009 pursuant to her Will dated 10-5-2009, the shareholding then devolved upon the petitioner group i.e. D and L who admittedly had a succession certificate from a competent Court of law recognizing them as holders of the aforenoted shares of the original holder Jagat Singh. In terms of section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, 1965, this evidence was conclusive for the transmission of shares of the companies in favour of the petitioner group.
The activity carried out by the respondent-assessee was of transmitting customized electronic data to its client is factually so found by two authorities under the Act. This finding of fact arrived at by the authorities under the Act is not perverse and nor arbitrary. So far as deduction under Section 80HHE of the Act for data entry is concerned, the same is covered by CBDT notification dated 26.09.2000 wherein the job of data entry has been notified as being computer software service.
It is not in dispute that on the date the assessee deducted the tax, he had to pay/remit the money within seven days from that date and if the amount is actually paid when the credit is given, then the tax is payable within two months. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee did not comply with the legal requirement.
The garden expenditure was for the purpose of maintaining garden to control the pollution. The company had put up an affluent treatment plant and pollution used to generate because of release of pollutants. The maintaining a garden helped in controlling pollution arising from the pollutants. It cannot be gainsaid that the expenses for garden had nexus with business activity.
The Department argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appearing in the adjudicatory process as also by way of an appeal as provided under the statute. However, said proposition could not be agreed to inasmuch as the basis of the show-cause notice as well as the adjudication order was the instruction dated 28-4-2008.
The taxable event as per the Finance Act, 1994 is the providing of the taxable service. In the present case, we find that not only were the services admittedly provided prior of 14.05.2003 but also the bills have been raised prior to 14.05.2003. The only thing that happened after 14.05.2003 was that the payments were received after that date. That, in our view would not change the date on which the taxable event had taken place. Since the taxable event in the present case took place prior to 14.05.2003, the rate of tax applicable prior to that date would be the one that would apply. In the present case, the rate of 5% would be applicable and not the rate of 8%.
Since the impugned order of the CESTAT has been passed almost after six months from the date of concluding the hearing of the appeal and the Tribunal has not specifically dealt with some of the aforesaid vital issues in spite of the directions given to that effect by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, counsel for the parties state that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the CESTAT for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The works contract/job work may not separately provide for sale of the goods but may be a composite amount for doing the work. Therefore, the supply value of goods has to be understood in the context of the work contract/job work contract to determine whether it included in it also the sale of goods.
The question before us is what would be the rate of tax where (a) the service is provided by the chartered accountants prior to 01.04.2012; (b) the invoice is issued by the chartered accountants prior to 01.04.2012 but (c) the payment is received after 01.04.2012.
