Ld. Counsel Shri Pahwa argues that the second category of work carried out with M/s. Unitech Machines Ltd., Gurgaon is exhibited by para 34 of the adjudication order at page 94. In this case, the appellant acted as a sub-contractor and tax liability has been discharged by the principal contractor. According to him such aspect remains undisputed by Revenue, in which no liability arose. But this is subject to scrutiny in the course of regular hearing.
Recently Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Allahabad high court which had granted exemption from trade tax to a firm which was engaged in the manufacture and sale of various scientific and biological equipment used by scientists for research purposes. In the case, Commissioner of Trade Tax vs Kartos International, the revenue authorities demanded 10 per cent tax, but the company challenged it invoking a 2000 notification arguing that it was entitled to the benefit under the Central Sales Tax and also because it was engaged in inter-state sales made to various government institutions. The Supreme Court ruled that the company was not entitled to the benefit as the notification covered maps, educational charts, mechanical drawings and biology equipment used in schools and colleges. Goods used by research institutions are not eligible for the tax benefits, the court ruled.
The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board was wrong in raising the price of industrial plots arbitrarily, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing its appeal against the high court ruling. The board had allotted plots after receiving payment. But 13 years later, it asked the allottees to pay more. This was challenged by the allottees. The board claimed that it has power under the rules to raise the demand.
Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that this issue has been already settled by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 = (2010-IST-46-HC-MUM-ST wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that input service credit availed by the assessee on outdoor catering is available subject to that the assessee does not charge anything from the employees (in case the cost of food supplied to the worker forms part of the assessable value.) As there is no allegation ag
CIT v Grewal Brothers – No doubt the firm and the partners may be separate entities for income tax and it may be permissible for a firm to give a contract to its partners and deduct tax from the payment made as per s 194C, but it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there was any separate subcontract or the firm merely acted as an agent as pleaded in the present case. The case of the assessee is that it was the partners who were executing the transportation contract by using their trucks and the payment from the companies was routed through the firm as an agent. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted this plea on facts. Once this plea was upheld, it cannot be held that there was a separate contract between the firm and the partners in which case the firm was required to deduct tax from the payment made to its partners under s 194C.
Synergy Entrepreneur Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The reason given for the revision in the s. 263 order (that the AO has not verified the issue) is different from the reason set out in the show-cause notice (that speculation loss cannot be set-off against other income). If a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause notice, it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that the assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point (Maxpack Investments 13 SOT 67 (Del), G.K. Kabra 211 ITR 336 (AP) & Jagadhri Electric Supply 140 ITR 490 (P&H) followed);
If the owner of a motor vehicle has shown due diligence while appointing a driver and examined his licence, the insurance company cannot deny the insured amount on the ground that the licence was fake. The ruling of the National Consumer Commission to the contrary in the case, Mrs Rubi Dutta vs United India Insurance Co, was set aside by the Supreme Court and the company was asked to pay Rs 2.70 lakh as compensation for the damage to a bus in an accident. The insurer argued that the driver’s licence was fake. But it was a duplicate issued after following the legal procedure. The court stated that at the time of giving employment to the driver, “the owner of the bus must have examined the licence issued to him and after satisfaction thereof, he must have been given employment. Nothing more was required to have been done by the owner. After all, at the time of giving employment to a driver, owner is required to be satisfied with regard to correctness and genuineness of the licence he was holding. After taking the test, if the owner is satisfied with the driving skills of the driver then, obviously, he may be given an appointment.”
Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd, which had bid for a project for issuing identity cards for the public distribution system in Madhya Pradesh. The government rejected it offer as it did not produce the latest ‘quality certificate’ with the bid document. The firm argued that it did have the latest certificate and therefore it was eligible to be considered. It also contended that the requirement for producing the latest certificate was added later by the government in a corrigendum to the bidder check list. Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court stated that in such circumstances, the authority inviting bids has the discretionary power to accept the bid or not. The decision can be quashed only if it was proved to be arbitrary or perverse. In this case, it was neither, the court declared.
The Supreme Court last week directed Glaxo India Ltd to deposit Rs 71.21 crore in the Drug Prices Equilisation Account, asking it to comply with the demand of the government. The central government had issued drug price control orders under the Essential Commodities Act fixing the maximum selling price of bulk drugs. Those notifications were challenged by the pharma company as arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the government and stated that several drug companies were overcharging the consumers and the notifications were meant to control prices to benefit consumers.
