The assessee has paid both the service tax and interest for delayed payments before issue of show cause notice under the Act. Sub-Sec.(3) of Sec. 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 categorically states, after the payment of service tax and interest is made and the said information is furnished to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice under Sub-Sec.(1) in respect of the amount so paid. Therefore, authorities have no authority to initiate proceedings for recovery of penalty under Sec. 76 of the Act.
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that tower sharing by Telecom Infrastructure companies with telecom service providers is not liable for levy of VAT, as there is no transfer of right to use. M/s. Indus Tower Limited V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes
It is well settled that, whether the transaction amounts to transfer of right or not cannot be determined with reference to a particular word or clause in the agreement. The agreement has to be read as a whole to determine the nature of the transfer. From a close reading of all the clauses in the agreement it appears to us that under the terms of the contract there is no transfer of right to use the passive infrastructure conferred on the sharing operator/mobile operator.
A notice under section 158BC cannot be equated with that of notice under section 148. A notice under section 158BC provides for a procedure to be adopted for block assessment under which, the Assessing Officer shall serve a notice requiring the assessee to furnish his return within such time not being less than 15 days but not more than 45 days as specified in the notice. Therefore, the time to be granted to the assessee in terms of section 158BC is a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 45 days.
CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd (Karnataka High Court)- The High Court had to consider two issues for AY 2001-02 & onwards: whether (i) the loss incurred by a non-eligible unit & (ii) the brought forward unabsorbed loss & unabsorbed depreciation of the eligible unit has to be set-off against the profits of the eligible unit before allowing deduction u/s 10A/ 10B.
An appeal is a substantive right. The assessee should have a full opportunity to put forth his case and should be able to get relief, if any, in accordance with. It is difficult to sustain the assessee’s negligence. However, the assessee cannot also be let scot free. Now, he has preferred this appeal and the learned advocate for the Department has to appear and contest the matter. Hence, we deem it proper to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee.
The material on record would clearly show that there is no doubt I about the date on which the amendment was made to the provisions of the Act retrospectively with effecf from 11-5-2000. The show cause notice is issued on 9-11-2004. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and decision of this court, it cannot be disputed mat when the assessee is covered u/s 71-A of the Act any show-cause notice can be issued u/s 73 of the Act. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal of the Apex Court in L.H. Sugar Factoies Ltd.’s case (supra) has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in Gujarat Carbon & Industries’ case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it is clearly stated that class of persons who come under Section 71-A are not brought under net of Section 73 and show cause notice issued to the assessee invoking Section 73 are not maintainable.
CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Maxim India Integrated (Karnataka High Court)- When assessee has been availing benefits u/s 80HHE, and applies to the STPI Director for the change in status, it cannot be denied benefits of Sec 10A on the ground that it had sought permission for a new unit and not the conversion of the existing one.
CIT and Anr Vs R Hanumaiah Associates (Karnataka High Court) – No addition can be made on account of the unexplained investment on the basis of the DVO findings when the assessee satisfactorily explains that the difference was on account of the construction expenditure incurred, which was not considered by the DVO.
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court)- Facility of providing mobile telephone towers for various service provider – Referring to various judgements of the Apex Court and other courts, petitioner’s counsel contended that petitioner has already remitted the entire service tax due to the Centre.
