UOI Vs M/s Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- The classification made by the legislature appears to be reasonable for the reason that the legislature has grouped two categories of assessees namely, the assessees whose dues are quantified but not paid and the assessees who are issued with the Demand and Show Cause Notice on or before a particular date, month and year. The Legislature has not extended this benefit to those persons who do not fall under this category or group.
CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech Systems (Supreme Court of India)- Deduction under Section 80HHC (Section 80HHE also falls in Chapter VI‐A) is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where Section 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits under Section 115JA is clearly brought out.
Whilst the principle and the object is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD , the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. On same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. The mechanism has outlived its utility.
Although, the respondent has pleaded that it was done out of ignorance, but there appears to be an intention to evade excise duty and contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, proviso of Section 11A ( i ) of the Act would get attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The cause of action, i.e., date of knowledge could be attributed to the department in the year 1997. If the period of limitation of five years is computed from the aforesaid date, the show cause notice having been issued on 15.5.2000, the demand made was clearly within the period of limitation as prescribed, which is five years.
Service Tax – Commercial Training or Coaching Service– In view of insertion of explanation in section 65 (105)(zzc) w.e.f 01.07.2003, Tribunal decision liable to be set aside– Matter remanded to Tribunal for de novo consideration. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5453 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX […]
U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Lucknow, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2011, Supreme Court of India, dated : 12.01.2011 (In favour of Revenue) Brief Fact of the Case: (a) UPSRTC had taken busses on rent for carrying of passengers from private bus operators under individual contracts. […]
The AAI entered into a licence agreement with the appellant by which the appellant was entrusted with the responsibility and the activity of collecting airport admission ticket charges on behalf of AAI Limited at Karipur Airport, Calicut. As per the said agreement the appellant was permitted to collect Rs . 50/- per visitor as airport admission ticket charges for which the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs . 2,66,797/- per month as licence fee.
Union Of India Vs Indian National Shipowners Ass & Ors (Supreme Court of India)- None of the entries in the Schedule could be strictly said to be a service rendered in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas. There is justification in the findings arrived at by the High Court. The nature of work which […]
The second contention of the learned senior counsel for appellants was that the acquisition of the appellants’ land by the Government was for the purposes of the Corporation and the Corporation being a ‘company’ for the purposes of the Act, the contemplated in Part VII of the Act was required to be mandatorily followed and since the said procedure has not been followed, the acquisition is bad in law. In this regard, Mr. Pallav Shishodia placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Raja Ram and others4.
Under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.”
