In the present matter it is seen that TDS has been deducted on “estimated income” of the employee, and the employer was not expected to step into the shoes of the AO and determine the actual income. Furthermore, under Section 191 of the Act the liability to pay the tax was that of the recipient, and that while forming this opinion the employer was undoubtedly expected to act honestly and fairly and, therefore, if it is found that the estimate made by the employer is incorrect, this fact alone, without anything more, would not inevitably lead to the inference that the employer has not acted honestly and fairly as held in the decision of Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd.(supra).
Under the provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act, it is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to the staff. Thus, provision of canteen services is a statutory requirement. Provision of canteen services being indispensable, it is incumbent on a manufacturer of goods, to provide the same if he desires to run his factory
The present notice to show cause is not one where the question of limitation can be decided straightaway on law without adverting to intrinsic facts. It is also not a case where it can be said that the revenue has sent an indiscriminate show cause notice without proper application of mind. Issues require to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the show cause on the grounds urged cannot be lanceted.
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 […]
Shri Ram S Sarda Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot)- ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M Shetty vs ACIT held that the department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance-tax from the date when it was seized and accordingly directed the assessing officer to adjust the seized cash from the date of seizure. In the case under consideration we find that the assessee claimed adjustment of seized cash in the return of income filed by the assessee.
