|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 14810 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1466
Recover of already sanctioned drawback - failure to submit the Bank realisation certificate in prescribed format as a proof of realisation of export sale proceeds - Held that:- Despite prolonged litigation applicant has not produced the documentary evidence for realisation of export sale proceeds in the prescribed format of Bank realisation Certificate and still insisting that nowhere said format is prescribed and documentary evidence submitted by them may be accepted. - in the C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 2-2-2009, a system for in house monitoring mechanism to monitor the realisation of such proceeds of exports made under drawback scheme was devised. It nowhere stated that Bank Realisation Certificate is not to be submitted as proof of realisation of export sale proceeds. - DGFT has prescribed Bank Realisation Certificate for all exports under drawback scheme in format Appendix 22A (Form I). The said format is amended vide DGFT Public Notice No. 9 (RE : 2010) 09-14, dated 7-9-2010. In said Bank Realisation Certificate details like Invoice No., SB No., Bill No., Bill amount, date of realisation of export proceeds, etc., are required to be mentioned. There is no relaxation from submission of BRC in said format. Applicant had sufficient opportunity to submit the BRC in prescribed format but they failed to fulfil their statutory obligation. Therefore, the order for recovery of drawback claim cannot be faulted with. - Decided against Assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1465
Penalty u/s 116 - Shortage of goods - Held that:- Provision of Section 116 makes it clear that penalty is imposed for not unloading the goods which were loaded in vessel for importation into India. There is no requirement of proving mens rea on the part of person-in-charge of conveyance. In this case, the short landing or non-landing of goods is admissible by the applicant. As such penalty is imposable under Section 116 - 0.5% losses due to natural causes like moisture are required to be taken into account while working out actual short landed quantity. As such, after deducting 27 MT (0.5%) from 99 MT, the actual short landed quantity is 72 MTs. The proportionate duty involved on 72 MT of said cargo is ₹ 3,47,879 - Applicant is liable to penal action under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 as held by lower authorities taking into account the short landed quantity of 72 MT of cargo involving duty of ₹ 3,47,879/-. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed is quite harsh and should be reduced. As such Government reduces the penalty to ₹ 3,47,879/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1464
Penalty u/s 116 - short landing quantity - Held that:- Section 30 stipulates delivery of import manifest or import report with true declaration therein. Further Import Manifest (Vessel) Regulations, 1971 provides the nature, condition and position (including status) to be truly declared as per respective declaration form. It is therefore quite clear that “Manifest” is to be considered a basic legal document and the declarations made therein are to be taken as statutory declarations for the purpose of further action under the relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, Chapter V of the Act provides for levy and assessment of Customs duties and Section 13 thereof when read with provisions of Bill of Entry (Form) Regulations, 1976 the legality of the duty levied in this case can be clearly understood. Further for levy/calculation of impugned penalty, the provisions of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 unambiguously stipulates the levy of penalty not exceeding twice the amount of duty.
Vessel sailed from Port of Ruwais Abudhabhi on 3-6-2012 after loading cargo of 36749.322 MT of BYCS in bulk for deliver at Chennai and Vizag Ports. 22000 MT cargo was discharged at Chennai Port in respect of BL No. 1 & 2. The said vessel arrived at Vizag on 24-6-2012 and discharged cargo of 14539 MT in respect of BL No. 3, 4, 5 against the quantity of 14749.322 MT. Applicant has claimed that 0.5% tolerance limit should be worked out on total quantity of 36749.322 MT as 183.75 MT which should be taken into account for arriving at the actual shortlanded quantity. In this regard, it is noted that the vessel has discharged 20000 MT cargo at Chennai port and balance cargo of 14539 MT at Vizag port. This fact is not rebutted by the department. The tolerance limit has to be applied with reference to total bulk cargo of BYCS which was loaded in the vessel. The losses occurred with reference to quantity of 20000 MT discharged at Chennai cannot be attributed only to the quantity of cargo discharged at Vizag.
Losses of 0.5% of total cargo loaded in the vessel i.e. 36749.322 MT equal to 183.75 MT is to be considered as genuine losses due to natural causes and as per general practice the said quantity of 183.75 MT is not to be taken as shortlanded quantity. As such actual shortlanded quantity is 210.322 MT - 183.75 MT = 26.572 MT of BYCS on which proportionate custom duty involved is ₹ 66,094 - applicant is liable to penal action under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 as held by lower authorities. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed is quite harsh and should be reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1463
Penalty u/s 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Held that:- The words/phraseology used in the first proviso to Section 20(1), especially “shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him” lead to a pre-supposition that the authority first has to come to a conclusion on the appeal and in the event the appeal is allowed, then thereafter the question of penalty would arise. In my view, the proviso gives the losing parties a right to a notice and hearing as regards imposition of penalty after the verdict of the appeal is handed down. It is only thereafter that a party similar to the petitioners would then become aware that the verdict has gone against it and would then be posed with the possibility of a penalty being imposed. It is in this situation that the hearing on the penalty is necessary.
Analogy from the M/s. Guduthur Bros. (1960 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) ruling establishes that though issuance of notice before imposing penalty had not been expressly provided for under the Income-tax Act, 1922, opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty pre-supposes a proper hearing. Such a hearing can be made possible by issuing notice of hearing on penalty. Thus the concerned party is called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. To achieve this object, which appears to be the intention of the Legislature in providing a proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, it is incumbent upon the authority to issue a show cause notice under the proviso to Section 20(1). - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1462
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- Authority shall not admit or allow the application where the question raised in the application is already pending before any officer or authority of the department or any other authority or appellate Tribunal or in Court and it relates to a transaction or issue, which is designed apparently for the avoidance of tax. In other words, the application before the Advance Rulings Authority has to be made before the question raised for consideration before any officer or authority of the department. If such a question is already decided by the authority, acting on the decision, the assessee can manage his affairs better. The authority who are subordinate to the said Advance Rulings Authority are bound by the opinion of the Advance Rulings Authority. At the same time, once the said question arises for consideration before any officer or authority, the said officer or authority is competent to decide the said issue of the assessee. If he is aggrieved, he is provided with a statutory remedy of preferring an appeal before the appellate authority as well as to the Tribunal.
It is only after inspection of the premises, the authorities issued notices to the assessee calling upon him to produce the documents, a recommendation is made for initiation of reassessment proceedings, and a demand for ₹ 2 crores was made to the assessee which is already paid after protest, the assessee filed the application before the Advance Rulings Authority. If the authorities have accepted the returns as it is and if they had no grievance whatsoever, they would not have called upon the assessee to produce the books of account and would not have collected a sum of ₹ 2 crores as tax even under protest. - So prima facie, the question of exemption is pending before the officer concerned for adjudication and therefore, once such a question is pending before any authority or officer for adjudication, the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an application for advance rulings is not maintainable - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1461
Demand of differential duty - Clearance of goods to DTA Unit over and above 50% of DTA entitlement under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 - Non payment of 4% additional duty - whether the applicant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E - Held that:- exemption benefit would be extended to the goods manufactured in EOU cleared into DTA in accordance with the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy. Then, it has to fulfil the particular conditions as specified in the Table appended thereto. EOU is permitted to clear the goods into DTA as per provisions of Paragraph 6.8 of Foreign Trade Policy.
Concessional rate of duty under would be restricted as per Condition 2, to the goods cleared into DTA as per provisions of sub-paragraphs (a), (d), (e) and (g) of Paragraph 6.8 of Foreign Trade Policy, which are permitted to sell into DTA in a particular limit. On the other hand, the concessional rate of duty of serial No. (1) of the Table of the said notification would apply to the goods cleared into DTA in accordance with the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and subject to fulfilment of condition No. 1 insofar as the goods cleared into DTA are not exempted by the State Government from payment of sales tax or value added tax. Sub-paragraph (h) of Paragraph 6.8 permitted to sell into DTA upon intimation to Development Commissioner provided they have achieved positive NFE.
The purpose of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. is to extend the benefit of concessional rate of duty to the goods manufactured in an EOU and cleared into DTA in accordance with the provisions of Policy. There is no dispute that the applicant cleared the goods into DTA in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 6.8(h) of Policy. It is not the case of the Department that the applicant had violated Condition No. 1 as stipulated in Serial No. 1 of the Table of the Notification. So, we do not find any reason to deny the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 1 of the Table of the Notification as claimed by the applicant. - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1460
Undervaluation of goods - Whether penalty can be imposed or not under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the assessees accepted the violations mentioned in the show cause notice and paid the differential duty amount - Held that:- Even though a lengthy show cause notice has been given by the appellant on 28-6-1996, no specific provision is mentioned which enables the Department to get penalty. But, on the other hand, it has been simply stated Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and it is not at all sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the Department has quoted opt provision of law so as to sustain the claim of penalty. - unless a specific provision of law is quoted in the show cause notice, claim of penalty is not legally maintainable. - Appellate Tribunal, after considering the bereft of particulars in show cause notice with regard to claim of penalty, has rightly rejected the claim of penalty made on the side of the Department and in view of the foregoing enunciation of both the legal and factual aspects, this Court has not found any acceptable force in the contention put forth on the side of the appellant, whereas the contention put forth on the side of the respondent is really having subsisting force and the substantial question of law raised in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not having substance - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1459
Seizure of foreign currency and coins - Smuggling of currency - Confiscation - Commissioner set aside confiscation order - Held that:- In the matter of illegal import of the currency the only evidence relied upon by Revenue is the statement of the appellant. This statement does not state that the goods were smuggled into India by the appellant. The statement is about the action of persons who were brought to him by brokers and hence not known to him. Such statements about acts of persons not known to the person making the statement cannot be admitted as evidence. The seizure is not anywhere near a customs barrier. So there is no circumstantial evidence of smuggling of currency into India. - So the initial burden to prove that the goods were smuggled was on Revenue having regard to provisions under regulation 6 in Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000. So the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that illegal import of the goods in question is not proved cannot be faulted. - So the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and 113(d) of the Customs Act is not maintainable in such circumstances as ordered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Amit Kumar Saha (2003 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA).
An officer empowered to investigate a matter can definitely take assistance of subordinate officers but substantive power of seizure and recording of statement cannot be delegated in the guise of taking help. Such actions cannot have legal validity. So a seizure made by a Superintendent for enforcing prohibitions of FEMA cannot be valid. So is the case with statements recorded. Further there is a procedure laid down in Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000. Such procedure was not followed for adjudication proceeding either. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1458
Seizure of goods - Non production of bills - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed findings while allowing the appeal. He has observed that as per version of the appellant, he purchased the said goods from Chennai and the packages came from Chennai is not in doubt. Being the recipient of goods, the ownership of the said goods rest with the respondent. It is findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods are not notified under Section 123 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Revenue officials to prove beyond doubt that the goods procured were smuggled one. It is thus not necessary for the appellant to produce copies of bills of entry under which goods were imported in India. Commissioner (Appeals) observed it is the submission of the applicant that he purchased the impugned goods from Chennai and this fact is not disputed. Department also could not prove that the said goods were smuggled. Accordingly I do not find any inconformity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1457
Denial of refund claim - order of assessment not challenged - Held that:- Though the appellant had wrongly declared the currency as US $ in the Bill of Entry, whereas in the import invoice the currency is declared as Singapore $. In customs matters, the assessment is done by the Appraising Officer. Therefore, it is an error committed by the Appraising Officer in not taking the correct currency, even though the appellant misdeclared the currency as US $ in the Bill of Entry. However, this mistake should have been noticed and corrected by the Assessing Officer himself. There is no dispute either about the classification of the goods or about the rate of duty. Thus, it is not a case which comes under the category of ‘assessment required to be challenged’. It is an error committed apparently on face of the record. Thus, there is no ground for rejecting the refund claim on account of non-challenging the order of assessment. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1456
Misdeclaration of goods - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 28(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 are applicable or not - Difference of opinion - Majority order - Held that:- Appellants are not disputing the fact that the goods were misdeclared by them in terms of description as well as in value. Section 111(m) of the Customs Act provides that the goods are liable for confiscation in case there is a misdeclaration by the importer. Once the goods are held to be liable for confiscation, the adjudicating authority is empowered to give option to the importer to redeem the goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act and the importer is also liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Sonam Clock Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case, as the issue in the case of Sonam Clock Pvt. Ltd. was demand made under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. There are no parallel provisions under the Central Excise Act as Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. - present case does not cover under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1455
Deduction u/s 80P denied - CIT(A) allowed the claim deeming the assessee bank as co-operative society - Held that:- In the present case, a clear finding is given by the Assessing Officer that by various judgments cited by learned A.R. of the assessee, the assessee does not get any support for the income earned from the investments made in non-SLR category because such investments were not the subject matter of the decision of CIT vs. Nawanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2005 (8) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The learned CIT(A) has not given any contrary finding that this contention of the Assessing Officer is not correct and the interest income is not in respect of non-SLR investment. Therefore, we find that the order of learned CIT(A) is not sustainable. We, therefore, reverse the same and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Decided in favour of revenue.
Penalty imposed u/s 271B - photocopy of tax audit report submitted by the assessee is not genuine document as such and it is not acceptable as per CIT - depreciation on Mutual Funds and securities - Held that:- While going through the assessment order, we do not find any such addition having been made by the Assessing Officer of the amount in respect of disallowance of depreciation on Mutual Fund securities. In the ground of appeal, it was stated by the Revenue in ground No. 2 that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee never submitted that Mutual Fund were held for the purpose of trade and not for investment. It is also submitted in ground No. 2 that the assessee did not file any evidence in this regard even after several opportunities were given during the assessment proceedings. There is no mention of any remand report in this regard in the order of CIT(A). Under these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the order of CIT(A) on this issue is not sustainable. his matter should go back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision and pass speaking order. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
Revision u/s 263 - AO has not examined the issue of Carry forward of Loss and Unabsorbed Depreciation - Held that:- After carefully going through order of learned CIT passed by him u/s 263 we do not find any infirmity therein and therefore, the same is confirmed. - Decided against assesse.
Deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - deduction @10% of the aggregate average advances made by the Rural branches has to be computed in the manner laid down under Rule 6ABA of the l.T.Rules - Held that:- Since the date of inclusion in the Sch-H of the RBI Act is an obvious fact, I hereby hold that the assessee bank was not a scheduled bank during the F.Y. 2006-07 (corresponding to the A.Y. 2007-08) and, therefore, is not entitled to deduction @10% u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act.- Decided against assesse.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1454
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 377 IPC.
2. Violation of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution.
3. Application of judicial review and presumption of constitutionality.
4. Misuse of Section 377 IPC and its impact on LGBT rights.
5. Interpretation of "carnal intercourse against the order of nature."
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Section 377 IPC:
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 377 IPC, which criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," is constitutionally valid. The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality that applies to all laws, including pre-Constitutional laws, unless a clear constitutional violation is proved. The Court noted that Parliament, despite various debates and recommendations, including the 172nd Law Commission Report, has chosen not to amend or repeal Section 377 IPC. This indicates that the legislature, representing the will of the people, does not find the provision unconstitutional.
2. Violation of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution:
The High Court had declared Section 377 IPC violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15, arguing that it infringes on the right to privacy, autonomy, and dignity of individuals, particularly those from the LGBT community. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's decision was based on insufficient factual foundation and speculative data. The Court held that the classification made by Section 377 IPC does not violate Article 14, as it applies to all individuals regardless of gender or sexual orientation and is not arbitrary or irrational. The Court also ruled that the section does not infringe on the right to privacy under Article 21, as the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted by law.
3. Application of Judicial Review and Presumption of Constitutionality:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of presumption of constitutionality, stating that laws enacted by the legislature are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise. The Court emphasized that judicial review should be exercised with self-restraint, respecting the separation of powers and the democratic process. The Court also discussed the doctrine of severability and the practice of reading down statutes to save them from being declared unconstitutional, provided it does not alter the essence of the law.
4. Misuse of Section 377 IPC and Its Impact on LGBT Rights:
Respondent No.1 argued that Section 377 IPC has been misused to harass, blackmail, and torture LGBT individuals. The Supreme Court acknowledged these concerns but clarified that misuse of a law does not render the law itself unconstitutional. The Court held that such issues should be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary. The Court emphasized that the law's misuse should not be a basis for declaring it unconstitutional, as the law itself does not mandate or condone such treatment.
5. Interpretation of "Carnal Intercourse Against the Order of Nature":
The Supreme Court examined various judicial interpretations of "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and concluded that the acts falling within the ambit of Section 377 IPC can only be determined with reference to the act itself and the circumstances in which it is executed. The Court noted that Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular identity or orientation but merely identifies certain acts as offenses. The Court held that the section applies irrespective of age and consent and regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. The Court held that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity and does not violate Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution. The Court also clarified that the competent legislature is free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting or amending Section 377 IPC.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1453
Valuation of goods - Interest under Sec. 11AB and penalty under Sec. 11AC - whether the element of cost incurred for developing tools and moulds for manufacturing components and further used in the manufacture of seats manufactured by the appellant, is required to be added to the assessable value of seats and cleared by the appellant to M/s. GMI - Held that:- M/s. GMI has given a contract to the appellant to supply him a manufactured product and for that purpose an amount is given for developing the tools/moulds required for parts/components which are used in the manufacture of seats supplied to M/s. GMI. It is irrelevant as to how appellant gets the parts/components developed and manufactured but what is appropriately relevant is that such amount received is a consideration with respect to the finished manufactured seats required by M/s. GMI. Accordingly, it is required to be held that appropriate element of cost, enhancing the value of the component/parts, will also required to be added to the assessable value of the seats. - Decided in the case of M/s. Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nashik [2012 (11) TMI 294 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] followed. - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1452
Validity of order passed by the Tribunal - Held that:- It appears that while disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellant against the OIO [2000 (11) TMI 553 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] as such the learned Appellate Tribunal did not quash and set aside the OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, disposed of the said appeal by observing that “the matter could be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority”. That with the aforesaid observations the appeal came to be disposed of. Considering the above, it cannot be said that there was no specific order of remand for de novo adjudication. The aforesaid observation suggests that the Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the matter is to be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority - no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal [majority decision]. No error has been committed by the learned Appellate Tribunal which calls for interference of this Court. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. - Decided against assesee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1451
Revision u/s 263 - Date of completion of wind mill erection whether September 30, 2007 or September 1, 2007 - Claim of depreciation - Held that:- When the assessee erected the windmill and generated wind power, it cannot be said that it is impossible for the assessee to generate electricity. In this case, the assessee has generated the power from the windmill and the same was sold to the TNEB and the sale proceeds are being offered for taxation. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that assessee has not erected the windmill on or before September 30, 2007. - All the details in respect of the erection of the windmill submitted before the Assessing Officer including the certificate issued by the S.E., Udumalpet Elecy. Distn. Circle, Udumalpet. The certificate issued by the S.E. was not challenged by the Department. Therefore, in our view, it is not a fit case to invoke section 263 of the Act - Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation based on the certificate issued by the State Electricity Board. The hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on the ground that when the Department has not questioned the certificate issued by the State Electricity Board, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation. Keeping in view of the above facts, we find that the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax is not sustainable. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1450
Validity of assessment - Return filed in the name of deceased person - Held that:- Assessment was admittedly framed on the deceased person, which is non est in law, therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly annulled the assessment. Moreover, the tax effect is also below the prescribed limit, therefore, in any case the appeal is not maintainable and we dismiss the same. - cross-objections is filed by the assessee stating therein that the tax effect in the appeal is below the prescribed limit. Since the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is confirmed, cross-objection of the assessee becomes infructuous and stands dismissed. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1449
Detention of goods - Penalty u/s 78 - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the matter, non-submission of any bill, bilty at the time of inspection by the vehicle driver (who was subsequently describes as owner of the goods in question) in relation to the goods in question did not amount to violation of the provisions of Section 78(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act thereby making the assessee liable for penalty under Section 78(5) of the said Act. - held that:- Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries (2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court) is quite explicit wherein it was held that ait is not open to the assessees to contend that in certain cases of inter-State transactions they were not liable in any event for being taxed under the RST Act, 1994 and, therefore, penalty for contravention of Section 78(2) cannot be imposed. As stated hereinabove, declaration has to be given in Form ST 18A/18-C even in respect of goods in movement under inter-State sales. It is for contravention of Section 78(2) that penalty is attracted under Section 78(5). Whether the goods are put in movement under local sales, imports, exports or inter-State transactions, they are goods in movement, therefore, they have to be supported by the requisite declaration.
Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle transporting the goods did not have any document with him. In spite of notice dated 14.06.2002, no document including Form ST 18A was sought to be filed. Consequently in my considered opinion, the assessing officer vide order dated 15.06.2002 rightly visited the respondent-assessee with penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) II as also the learned Tax Board however interfered with the order of penalty dated 15.06.2002, passed by the assessing officer without just cause and in fact contrary to the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court tin the case of Guljag Industries (Supra). It is trite that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court operate retrospectively unless the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is specifically made applicable subsequent to the decision of the Court with reference to doctrine of prospective of overruling. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1448
Denial of input tax credit - Failure to produce the account books, i.e., tax invoices and form VATC-4 or form VATD-1 - Held that:- Petitioner shall be entitled to produce the tax invoices, forms VATC-4 and forms VATD-1 before the Assessing Authority, who shall thereafter, determine the tax liability by deciding the matter by passing a fresh order, in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1447
Denial of input tax credit - failed to produce form VATC4 before the Assessing Authority - Held that:- 46 affidavits were submitted by the petitioner and an opportunity was given to the State counsel to verify the correctness and authenticity of the same. - State counsel submits that the genuineness of the 46 affidavits and form C4 regarding the input-tax credit have been verified by the Department and the same are found to be genuine. - respondent No. 4 directed to re-determine the tax liability by taking into consideration form C4, which has been produced by the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
