|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 839 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 359
Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the NI Act - trial of summon case - seeking that complainants be directed to produce documents and accounts - HELD THAT:- From the provisions contained in Sections 251 to 259 of the Code, it is quite clear that in a summons case what the Court does on the appearance of the accused is to state the particulars of the offence, and to ask him whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. If the accused does not plead guilty the Court will proceed to record the evidence on the side of the prosecution, hear the accused and take the evidence that the defence may produce. The Court will then either hold the accused not guilty or convict him. Section 255(3) of the Code empowers the Court to convict the accused of any offence which from the facts admitted or proved he appears to have committed, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused would not be prejudiced thereby. It is significant to note that Chapter XX of the Code which deals with trial of summons-cases, does not contemplate a discharge of the accused.
It is quite vivid that in summons-cases once offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is registered under the provisions of the NI Act it has to be tried as a summon case and in summon case, there is no provision for recall or revocation of summons already issued to the accused. The accused has to face the trial and he has to be either acquitted or convicted by the said Court and remedy of the accused, if any, to question the order issuing summons to him, is to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code. As such, the order passed by the learned trial Court duly affirmed by the revisional Court holding that in summon-trial of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act the accused cannot be discharged, is an order which does not need interdiction by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, both the Courts below are absolutely justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners claiming discharge.
The power to issue a summons for the production of a document or a thing is to be exercised whenever the Court considers that its production is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. In other words, the power is available to the Court at every stage of proceedings contemplated under the Code. It has to be noticed that this power is available not only to the Court but also to any officer-incharge of a police station and the only condition for the exercise of the power is that the production of the document or the thing should be necessary or desirable for purposes of the proceedings and the only restriction is that contained under sub-section (3) which provides that the provisions of the Section shall not affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act or apply to articles in the custody of the Postal or Telegraph authorities.
Both the Courts below are absolutely justified in rejecting the application for production of documents at the initial stage - there are nomerit in this batch of petitions under Section 482 of the Code - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 358
Principles of Natural Justice - demand of Luxury Tax - petitioner was not served with the order of the appellate court despite the fact that he had approached the office of the 2nd respondent to ascertain the fate of the appeal - HELD THAT:- Since, there is no repealment of Act 23 of 1999 introduced Section 5A for charging of a luxury tax on the building having a specified plinth area or more with effect from on or after 1st April 1999, the action of the respondents in charging the tax and raising the demand cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or lack of competency.
There is no justification warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to bring the case within the realm of jurisdiction - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 357
Input Tax Credit - wrongful disclosure of purchase and sales turnover to pass on input tax credit unauthorisedly to various buyers/dealers - HELD THAT:- Though the petitioner has alleged connivance between the officers of the Commercial Tax Department and the third person who had allegedly accessed the login ID of the petitioner, the issue would be best left to the respondents to cause a proper and through investigation into the allegation with the help of the economic offences and cybercrime Wing of the state to find out whether indeed there was a misuse of the petitioner's login ID or whether the petitioner was himself/herself masquerading as unknown person to make it seem as if the petitioner's login Id was being misused.
The pre-assessment notice as has been prayed for by the petitioner is not quashed - Suffice to state that the respondents shall take appropriate measures and cause an investigation into the complaint of the petitioner and seek help of the specialised investigation wings of the State concerned with cyber crime - This exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 months from date of receipt of this order. During the pendency of the aforesaid investigation, the impugned pre-assessment notice shall be kept in abeyance.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 356
Refund of the MODVAT/CENVAT in cash - factory is closed - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- This issue was examined by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in M/S. GAURI PLASTICULTURE P. LTD., BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., M/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI IV, THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI I [2019 (6) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which also examined whether unutilised cenvat credit can be refunded on account of the closure of manufacture activities of the factory. The Hon’ble Larger Bench has found that the law has not been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the SLP was merely dismissed on account of the concession made by the ASG. Further, the Larger Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that no refund can be sanctioned under Section 11B if the assessee is unable to utilise cenvat credit on account of closure of the manufacturing activities.
The ratio of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is binding and prevails and accordingly no refund of MODVAT/Cenvat credit can be sanctioned to the respondent - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2020 (6) TMI 355
Extended period of Limitation - suppression of facts or not - SCN based on change of opinion of Department - As the appellant was required to manufacture finished goods for supply to Railways out of scrap supplied by Railways, it appeared to Revenue that the inputs (copper rod) were never used in the manufacture of final product and the credit have been taken on the basis of documents only without receipt of inputs - HELD THAT:- The appellant have maintained proper books of accounts and records of their transactions. Admittedly, the whole demand is for the extended period of limitation. The Revenue has only made a bald allegation of suppression of facts, alleging the non disclosure of actual sale value of the scrap received from the Railways. There is no obligation cast on the appellant to intimate the Department on each and every transaction. The appellant have filed regular returns with the Department and have maintained proper records. Further, the appellant have obtained statement of “cost of production‟ duly certified by the Cost Accountant, who have considered various elements of cost like raw material, salary and wages, direct expenses and work overheads, quality control cost, administrative overheads, packing cost etc. as required under the Central Excise Valuation Rules read with CAS-4 guidelines (Cost Accounting Standards) as adopted by the Government of India for Central Excise purposes.
The elements of suppression, mis-statement, fraud, etc. are not coming out from the facts and circumstances. The show cause notice is only based on change of opinion of Department - the extended period of limitation is not attracted and thus the show cause notice is not maintainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 354
CENVAT Credit - outward transportation of goods - Cement sold by the assessee to their customers on FOR destination basis - place of removal - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer Res integra. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] and the issues were identical. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that where the goods are sold on FOR destination basis i.e., where the ownership of the goods gets transferred only at the buyer’s premises also no CENVAT credit is admissible for transportation of goods to the buyer’s premises.
Credit cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 353
Intellectual Property Service - Import of services - reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - inclusion of know how in any other similar intangible property under any law for the time being in force - contention of the Appellant is that there is no law in India for the time being in force which protects ‘know how’ as an intangible property right and, therefore, the grant of exclusive right to use the ‘know how’ would not include such a right in the definition of ‘intellectual property right’ - HELD THAT:- This issue was also examined at length by a Bench of the Tribunal Bangalore in ABB LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -BANGALORE-LTU [2019 (1) TMI 1037 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and it was observed that since ‘know how’ is not recognized as ‘intellectual property right’ under Indian law, no ‘intellectual property right’ service can be said to be provided.
It is more than apparent that the grant of exclusive right to the Appellant by Mauritius Revlon to use the ‘know how’ in any plant in accordance with the processes, specifications and recipes thereof in connection with the manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of Revlon Products would not fall in the definition of ‘intellectual property right’ so as to make it taxable under section 65(105) (zzr) of the Finance Act.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 352
Demand of Service Tax - reverse charge mechanism - Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services - Intellectual Property Right Service - Management and Business Consultant Services - Programme Producer Services - Sponsorship Services - Time Limitation - Principles of Natural Justice - Jurisdiction.
Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services - HELD THAT:- If the agreement between Appellant and FSE are examined in terms of the definitions of Manpower Supply & Recruitment Agency Services as per Section 65 (105)(k) read with Section 65 (68) of Finance Act, 1994 and the clarification issued by the Board and above decision of Tribunal, we conclude that services provided by M/s FSE are squarely covered under this category. Vijay Amritraj is a separate and distinct legal person from FSE, in which he may be one of the Directors. FSE has entered into agreement with Appellants for causing the appearance and participation of Vijay Amritraj in a tournament organized by the appellant against payment of agreed consideration - there are no doubt in holding that FSE was in the business of supplying recruiting and providing the players to the sport events organizers like appellant. Hence the services provided by such companies as FSE will be classified as Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services as defined by the Finance Act at relevant times.
In case of fees paid for secondment of employees of IMC DBA New York, USA for Lakme Fashion Week, an event organized by appellants we find that nothing has been placed on record that during the period of secondment, these employees of their USA counterpart worked in manner so as to create employer employee relationship between the appellants and those persons. These people continued in employment with the USA company and nothing like salary or remuneration was paid either in Indian or Foreign Currency, to these people by the Appellant - there is no hesitation in holding that the USA company has provided “Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services” to the Appellant.
Intellectual Property Service - HELD THAT:- Appellants in the present case undertook to register the trademark of their USA counterparts in India for organizing the event of Lakme Fashion Week. For registering they incurred certain expenses which were paid to them by the USA company. There was no transfer of the right temporarily, by the USA company, nor any permission was granted for use or enjoyment of any intellectual property. Nothing is forthcoming to show that there was such transfer or permission. Revenue has not been able to substantiate that the basis ingredients to hold that USA Company had provided any Intellectual Property Service - impugned order set aside.
Management and Business Consultant Services - HELD THAT:- Appellants is part of a group of companies located in India and elsewhere. Certain common facilities are created for usage of all the group companies. In this case, USA company created software and SAP facilities and incurred expenditure for the same. This expenditure has been distributed amongst all the group companies on a proportionate basis depending upon the usage. It is a settled position that the payments made for creation of common facilities in a group company is not payment towards any service rendered, and hence cannot be subjected to Service Tax.
Appellants have contended that the services revenues sought to be taxed under the category of “Programme Producer Services” are not in respect of any services provided but are towards transfer of right to use and hence is an act of sale - HELD THAT:- Issue under consideration was considered by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I [2014 (9) TMI 598 - CESTAT MUMBAI] holding that the activity of recording the live cricket match for providing feed to TV channels is activity covered under the taxable category of “Programme Producer Services” and will be subjected to Service Tax - Since the issues involved in the present case are identical to the case considered by Mumbai Bench referred above, in our view the order of Commissioner upholding the demand under the category of “Programme Producer Services” cannot be faulted with.
Sponsorship Services - HELD THAT:- In the present case undisputedly Appellant have received certain amounts from sponsor’s towards sponsoring the various events and matches organized by them. Appellants do not dispute that the services so provided by them fall in the category of sponsorship services - In respect of the claim made by the appellants that certain payments were received by them towards the sponsorship of sports event, or from the service recipient located outside India, or from service recipients located in India who were located in India, Commissioner should have recorded the finding in terms of the above provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the clarification as above issued by the Joint Secretary (TRU). If the claims made are justified these amounts should be deducted from the taxable value - Since the Commissioner has failed to consider these submissions in the light of the above referred clarification issued by the Ministry, the matter needs to go back to the commissioner for consideration of these.
Appellants have submitted that demand in respect of the three taxable services received by them against foreign currency expenditure has been made collectively without specifying the quantum of expenditure that can be attributed to each of the services separately - we are setting aside the entire demand made in respect of Foreign Currency Expenditure and remanding back the matter to the Commissioner for determination of value of taxable services in respect of which demands are to be confirmed separately. Appellants should make available to the Commissioner all the information that may be required/ called by him for determination of taxable value in respect of each service separately.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The issues which are raised and adjudicated, are all issues which would involve the interpretation of legal provisions. If the appellants claim that a certain issue was of interpretation, then it is for him to establish on the basis of documents and evidence to show that he genuinely had made effort to resolve the doubts that could have arisen in respect of interpretation of law. Appellant cannot have defence, in his own wrong or misinterpretations. In the present case appellants have made the statement without substantiating the grounds on which they could have entertained the interpretation which they followed - In absence of any evidence to that effect we are not in position to agree with this submission of the Appellants.
Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- This is not a show cause notice in terms of Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, but is simply a statement of demand made in terms of Section 73 (1A). Section 73 (1A) inserted in Finance Act, 1994 by Finance Act, 2012 - in cases of statement of demands issued in terms of this sub section, the jurisdiction will immediately at the time of issuance itself be vested with the officer adjudicating the earlier show cause notices. There may not be any need to confirm separate jurisdiction in respect of such a statement of demand, because as per the provision in terms of which such statement of demand is issued makes it part of the Show Cause Notice issued earlier. However since the matter is going back to the Commissioner on remand he should resolve any jurisdictional issues which may be there and then proceed to adjudicate this statement of demand.
Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- Natural Justice is back bone of modern judicial system and it is bounden duty of the adjudicator to not only follow the principles of natural justice but show that he is following the said principles. Hence in respect of these the matter could be remanded back on this preliminary ground itself.
CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant subject to verification of the reversal made by them of the CENVAT Credit now being demanded from them. Commissioner should in remand proceedings cause a verification of the same and record a proper finding.
Interest - HELD THAT:- Since the demand of tax has been upheld the demand for interest will follow. It is now settled law that interest under Section 75, is for delay in the payment of tax from the date when it was due. Since appellants have failed to pay the said Service Tax by the due date interest demanded cannot be faulted.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since matter is being remitted back to the commissioner for redetermination of the quantum of demand, the amount of penalty are to be redetermined in accordance with the duty demand confirmed in remand proceedings.
The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the show cause notices in accordance with the observations made in this order. Since matter is pertaining to demand notices issued from the year 2009 onwards, in de novo proceedings Commissioner should adjudicate the matter within six months of receipt of this order, after following the principles of natural justice - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (6) TMI 351
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The plea of the Corporate Debtor that the Company is a solvent and 'going concern', cannot be made a ground for delaying the initiation of CIR Process or to keep in abeyance the instant Application as sought for as this Tribunal is required in case of a 'financial debt' which is due and in the event of 'default' as defined under I&B Code, 2016, is perforce required to admit the Application and the parties including the Corporate Debtor can have recourse during CIR Process to submit a Plan for restructuring if otherwise not disqualified. It is evident from the documents filed by the individual Financial Creditor in their respective petitions the debt is also not time barred in view of acknowledgments given by the Corporate Debtor to each of the Petitioner banks as contemplated under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In any case, there is no denial of liability owed to the individual Financial Creditor by the Corporate Debtor.
The Applications, as filed by the Financial Creditors are required to be admitted under Section 7 (5) of the I&B Code, 2016.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (6) TMI 350
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is incumbent upon the Financial Creditor while filing this petition to place on record before this Authority, the Financial Contract' and demonstrate without any ambiguity from the financial contract, the amount disbursed as per the loan/debt, the tenure of the loan/debt, the interest payable and the conditions of repayment.ln the present case, it is evident that the Financial Creditor has placed on record the Board Resolution passed by the Corporate Debtor requesting for the Loan Amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- and has also attached the Promissory Notes, however, the Financial Creditor has failed to show that the amount has been disbursed by the Financial Creditor for time value of money and admittedly no loan agreement was entered into between the parties setting out the details of the tenure of the loan/debt, the interest payable and the conditions of repayment. On the other hand, it is assumed to be an oral loan agreement.
It is an admitted fact that the Resolution Plan does not crystalize the amount that is due and payable to the Financial Creditor - the Resolution Plan has a saving Clause for the Financial Creditor i.e. Clause 4 which states that the Disputed Creditors, i.e. the Financial Creditor herein, shall be paid on the basis of the outcome of the adjudication of the legal proceedings. The claim of the Financial Creditor was rejected by the Resolution Professional at the first instance in its entirety and based on the list of admitted claim given by the Resolution professional, the Resolution Applicant has submitted the Resolution Plan to the Committee of Creditor and the same was also approved by this Tribunal, thereby the amount which is payable to be Financial Creditor has not been crystallized. The Financial Creditor ought to have approached the appropriate forum for the adjudication of the claim. However, the Financial Creditor is now trying to adjudicate the amount that is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Creditor by filing this Application and by agitating this issue once again before this Tribunal.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 349
CENVAT Credit - denial of credit on the ground that as per N/N. 02/14-CE (N.T.) dt.20.1.2014, the appellant was not entitled to credit prior to the N/N. 01/10-CE dt.6.2.2010 - period i.e. 01.06.2012 to 19.01.2014 - HELD THAT:- Similarly placed assessee was allowed the credit although against those orders, the appeals have been filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in that circumstance, when the Revenue is having divergent views on the issue, the extended period of limitation is not applicable - Admittedly, in this case, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 348
Classification of services - Photography service or not - manufacture and sale of photobooks to photography studio or individual photographers who outsourced such work to the respondent against agreed consideration - HELD THAT:- The issue is decided in the case of M/S. VENUS ALBUMS CO. PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH/LUDHIANA/AMRITSAR [2018 (11) TMI 754 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that As the activity of printing has also been exempted from payment of service tax, if we take note of the fact that the activity undertaken by the appellant in relation to photography service then also the activity undertaken by the appellant is not taxable service.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (6) TMI 347
Valuation - goods transferred to sister concerns when there is also sale price of the same goods to independent consumers through service branches by the respondent herein - allegation that since there is a sale to independent buyers, the same value must also be adopted to the goods transferred by them to their sister concerns - HELD THAT:- When there was a concept of normal price (prior to 2000), a price list would be filed by the assessee and approved by the officers which would show the normal price after appropriate calculations including deductions on account of trade discount, transportation etc. After 2000, the concept which has been introduced was that of transaction value. Therefore, if the same goods are sold by the same assessee at different prices on different dates or to different customers, each such price would be the transaction value for the purpose of determining the Central Excise duty. In this changed law, a doubt had arisen in the minds of the officers as to how deal with the cases where there is sale to independent buyers as well as sale of the same product to sister concerns by the assessee. This has been clarified by the CBEC in the aforesaid Circular categorically holding that the price at which goods are sold to independent buyers cannot be applied to determine the value for sale to related persons.
The impugned order is correct and causes for no interference - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (6) TMI 346
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and default or not - HELD THAT:- As per provision of Sub-section (6) of section 60 of I&B Code, it is always open to a Creditor to proceed with the suit or arbitration proceeding, if pending, on completion of the Moratorium. However, once a Creditor/'Financial Creditor' or 'Operational Creditor' files its claim before the 'Resolution Professional' and the same is taken into consideration by the 'Successful Resolution Applicant' and while submitting the plan or the revised plan providing them same treatment as has been given to the other similarly situated 'Financial Creditors'/'Operational Creditors', the 'Financial Creditors'/'Operational Creditors', thereafter cannot take the benefit of sub-section (6) of section 60 of the 'I&B Code' nor they can pray to pursue the suit or arbitration proceeding or to file a fresh suit or arbitration proceeding for the same claim.
In terms of section 31, once the 'Resolution Plan' is found to be in accordance with section 30(2) and is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, it is binding on all the stakeholders including the 'Financial Creditor'/'Operational Creditor' and the 'Corporate Debtor' etc. The approved 'Resolution Plan' including the revised 'Resolution Plan', as per offer as inconsonance with section 30(2) of the 'I&B Code', the Appellants cannot be allowed to pursue the alternative remedy of suit or arbitration proceeding even if it is pending - the 3rd Respondent ('Successful Resolution Applicant') to provide Appellant(s) with the same treatment as has been given to the other similarly situated 'Financial Creditors' and pay pro-rata amount i.e., same percentage of claim amount, as made available to other similarly situated 'Financial Creditors'.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 345
Extended period of limitation - penalty - Valuation - inclusion of value of SIM cards sold by the appellant during the period 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 - HELD THAT:- The issue whether the appellant is required to pay service tax on the value of SIM cards or not, has been settled on 04.08.2011 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Idea Mobile Communication Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT]; therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable.
Admittedly, in this case, whole of demand is confirmed against the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation - On limitation itself, impugned order is not sustainable, accordingly, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (6) TMI 344
Maintainability of application before NCLT - Notification dated 24.3.2020 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi - default in the present case was below rupees one Crore - HELD THAT:- This issue has not been discussed by the National Company Law Tribunal at all. The petitioner is therefore permitted to approach against the said order dated 5.5.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, or file a review application before the NCLT itself.
We are not inclined to entertain the present civil revision petition and we leave it free for the petitioner to approach the National Company Law Tribunal itself or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, for raising the said issue. The amendment Notification dated 24.3.2020 depends upon the facts of the case and unless this issue is first adjudicated by the Tribunal below, this court cannot decide such abstract questions in writ jurisdiction.
The present civil revision petition is not maintainable at this stage - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 343
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It may be seen that the Corporate Debtor has sought for time and more time on the pretext that negotiation between the parties for settlement are going on, which dissuade the Corporate Debtor from filing any reply and the same goes on to show that the Corporate Debtor has impliedly admitted their liability of payment due to the Operational Creditor. Thus, the Operational Creditor has proved that there is an existence of 'Operational Debt' and the default of such operational debt which is payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor - From the list of invoices filed and the Purchase Order annexed, it is evident that the claim as raised by the Operational Creditor is within the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years and in relation to the Corporate Debtor the registered office of which is situated within the State of Tamilnadu, amenable to its territorial jurisdiction, this Authority has no hesitation in admitting this Petition and initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as against the Corporate Debtor.
The Petition as filed by the Operational Creditor is required to be admitted under Section 9(5) of the IBC, 2016 - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (6) TMI 342
Claim of interest with refund of Pre-deposit made - Rate of interest - amount was deposited under protest - HELD THAT:- We do not find the petitioner entitled to interest at any higher rate than @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 27th October, 2006 till the end of May, 2018 i.e. 31st May, 2018. However, we do not find any justification for the respondents retaining the said amount thereafter and find the respondents liable for interest with effect from 1st June, 2018 onwards and till date @ 7.5% per annum. While so enhancing the rate of interest, we have also taken into consideration the noncompliance by the respondents of the orders of this Court as detailed above, leading to a contempt notice being issued to the respondents and in response whereto Ms. Niharika Gupta, Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Division-Nehru Place, Central GST, Delhi East Commissionerate is present in the Court.
The respondents are expected to at least now, on or before 15th July, 2020 refund the amount of ₹ 2,38,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 1st November, 2006 to 31st May, 2018 and with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 1st June, 2018 till the date of refund on or before 31st July, 2020. However, if the said amount is not refunded by 15th July, 2020, the rate of interest with effect from 1st August, 2020 shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum.
No purpose will be served in proceeding with the contempt proceedings and the contempt notice issued vide order dated 3rd March, 2020 is discharged - respondents having however indulged in frivolous litigation, are burdened with costs of ₹ 25,000/- payable to the petitioner along with the amounts with respect whereto mandamus has been issued.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 341
Seeking refund of the amount seized during the search proceedings along with interest - Today during the course of hearing, it transpires that the refund voucher for the interest amount given by the respondents at the pain of contempt has been returned unpaid by SBI with the reason, “paper not received” i.e. refund voucher to be presented physically for clearing - HELD THAT:- It is common ground that this activity has to be done in P2F session, but RBI has suspended the said session from 23rd March, 2020 due to Corona outbreak.
From the aforesaid, it appears that no refund voucher issued by the Income Tax Department is being honoured by the banks. This is a serious matter as one of the ways the Government of India plans to revive the economy during the present COVID-19 crisis is by issuing tax refunds forthwith.
Issue notice without process fee to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India through standing counsel for UOI and Reserve Bank of India. Open to the respondents’ officials to speak to the officials of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and Reserve Bank of India in a bid to ensure that the refund voucher issued by them is honoured. List on 22nd June, 2020.
-
2020 (6) TMI 340
Disallowance of expenditure incurred on advertisement and sales promotion of product, brand promotion, development of market and customer relations - HELD THAT:- The advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the assessee are merely for the purpose of publicity of trade name/brand name which results into enhancement of sales. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee as the issue is already covered in earlier years. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
