Shroff United Chemicals Limited. versus The Union of India – The Bombay high court last week described the denial of interest on refund of service tax by the deputy commissioner as ‘specious’ in the case, Shroff United Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India. It asked the revenue authorities to pay interest for the delayed refund. The firm, in anticipation of import of intellectual property services, had obtained service tax registration.
CIT v Tata SSL Ltd (Mumbai High Court) – by paying the impugned charges to Mahanagar Gas Ltd., the assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility. The Tribunal held that the facilities served the sole purpose of supplying the gas to the assessee’s work and, therefore, it was an integral part of the profit earning process and facilitated in carrying on the assessee’s business more efficiently without giving any enduring benefit to the assessee.
The unit in question is situated at Nashik, Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said unit was initially administered by the LTU at Delhi and it is only as an afterthought the revenue is contending that the unit in question would not be governed by the LTU scheme for the period where there was no specific approval. If mere forwarding of the consent letter entitles the large tax payer to avail the benefits of the LTU scheme then the benefits of the LTU cannot be denied where the consent is impliedly given by submitting ER-1 returns regularly. The show cause noticed is issued by the LTU, Delhi to the petitioner’s unit at Nashik. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the show cause notice issued by the LTU, Delhi to the unit of the petitioner set up at Nashik.
Joseph Vilangadan. v. Phenomenal Health Care Services Ltd. & Anr. – As per the said contract, Contractors deposited the sum of Rs. 10 lacs by undated cheque no.027840 drawn against South Indian Bank Ltd., Palarivattom Branch, Cochin branch with the respondent no.1 as refundable security deposit for the due performance of the agreement. The said undated cheque was in custody of the respondent 2 no.1 and it appears that the respondent no.1 filled in the date on undated cheque as 4.6.2008. The cheque was presented to the drawee bank through the banker of the respondent no.1. Cheque was returned unpaid on the ground that the drawer had stopped the payment. Therefore, notice was issued by the respondent to the contractor as well as its managing partner for the payment of the cheque amount. In spite of notice, payment was not made.
Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran vs The State Of Maharashtra – The Bombay high court has ruled that when a bank account is sought to be seized during criminal investigation, the account-holder need not be given prior notice. In this case, Essar Logistics vs Vinoskumar, the account holder argued that natural justice demanded that he should be given notice before freezing his account. The division bench of the high court rejected his contention and remarked: It would indeed be absurd to suggest that a person must be told that his bank account, which is suspected of having been used in the commission of an offence by himself or even by another, is being frozen to allow him to have it closed or to have its proceeds withdrawn or transferred upon such notice.
There is no justification on the part of the revenue in retaining the amount of interest earned on the seized amount especially, on the touchstone of the doctrine of accretion.
CIT v. Qatar Airways (332 ITR 253) – The agents of the assessee (airline) were entitled to sell tickets at any price between the fixed commercial price and the published price. As a result the assessee would have no information regarding the final rates at which tickets were sold. It would be impracticable and unreasonable to accept the assessee to collect feedback from its numerous agents on the prices at which tickets are sold. Thus, it was held that the difference between the commercial price and the published price could neither be considered as commission or brokerage in the hands of the agents and hence was not liable to TDS
Exchange traded derivative transactions carried on by the assessee during AY 2003-04 are speculative transactions covered under Section 43(5) of the Act and the loss incurred in those transactions are liable to be treated as speculative loss and not business loss. We further hold that clause (d) inserted to the proviso to Section 43(5) with effect from 1/4/2006 is prospective in nature and the ITAT was in error in holding that clause (d) to the proviso to Section 43(5) applied retrospectively so as to apply to the transactions carried on by the assessee during AY 2003-04. CIT vs. Bharat R. Ruia (Bombay High Court)
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited. vs Sami Khatib Of Mumbai (Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited). A division bench of the Bombay high court last week dismissed the appeal of Cadila Pharmaceuticals against the judgement of a single judge bench restraining Cadila from manufacturing, marketing or exporting medicinal preparations under the trade mark “Hb TONE”/ “HB TONE” or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademarks of another company, Medley Pharmaceuticals, namely “ARBITONE”, “RB TONE” or “HB RON”. The complaint was that Cadila was “passing off” the products with similar names.
Jayant Agro Chemicals Ltd v ITO and Others – As per the proviso to s 147 of the Act, the assessment can be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years and there is no material on record to suggest that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. From the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it cannot even remotely be said that there is failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Presumption on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to achieve 82% value addition is not even case of the licensing authority who has imposed the condition regarding value addition. The notice impugned in the petition for reopening of the assessment cannot be sustained.
