Explore the Supreme Court judgment on Corporation Bank vs. Saraswati Abharansala regarding excess Sales Tax collection. Learn how the retrospective effect of a notification led to a rate reduction, compelling the state to refund the excess amount. Discover the legal implications, the court’s interpretation, and the directive for the state to refund the tax with interest. Stay informed about key legal precedents and the principles of statutory construction.
Haleema Zubair, Tropical Traders Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)- The business activities relating to transaction of M/s. Poseidon Food Company unless otherwise proved cannot bring the appellant within the purview of definition of `dealer’. If she was not a dealer, the professional fees earned by her would not be exigible to payment of sales tax; only because the appellant happens to be the proprietress of M/s. Tropical Traders also.
Whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed. merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the different High Courts. In this case, it is accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the fact situation in all the assessment years is same. According to him, if the fact situation changes then the revenue can certainly prefer an appeal notwithstanding the fact that for some years no appeal was preferred.
It was held that the order was passed in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against which the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable.
In the present case, the debt is the amount receivable by the assessee and not any liability payable by the assessee and, therefore, any provision made towards irrecoverability of the debt cannot be said to be a provision for liability. Therefore, in our view Item (c) of the Explanation is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in adding back the provision for doubtful debts of Rs.92,15,187/- under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA of the 1961 Act.
Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors – The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the IT Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return.
Since the tax due had already been paid which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest Under Section 234A does not arise.
A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority.
In American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute vs. CBDT 2008 (301) ITR 86 SC, the Supreme Court analysed the provision and found that the second proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) lays down the powers and duties of the prescribed authority for vetting an application for approval and that the prescribed
Whether oil rigs engaged in operations in the exclusive economic zone/ continental shelf of India, falling outside the territorial waters of India, are foreign going vessels as defined by Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962, and are entitled to consume imported stores thereon without payment of customs duty in terms of Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962?
