|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 197 Records
-
1990 (5) TMI 59
Issues: Validity of revised return, computation of capital gains
Validity of Revised Return:
The appeal raised the issue of the validity of the revised return, but the counsel for the assessee decided not to press this ground. As a result, the tribunal rejected consideration of this issue.
Computation of Capital Gains:
The main issue in the appeal was the computation of capital gains amounting to Rs. 70,400, categorized as short-term and long-term. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) determined that the transfer of 10 shares to a partnership firm and the sale of 40 shares attracted tax under section 52(2) as long-term and short-term capital gains, respectively. The fair market value of the shares was assessed by the ITO, resulting in capital gains calculations.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision on both computations, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT. The CIT(A) deemed the transactions as a tax avoidance measure and confirmed the application of section 52(2) for both transfers.
The assessee contested the decisions before the tribunal, arguing that there was no evidence to support doubts on the genuineness of the transactions. The counsel highlighted that if the transactions were not genuine, the value of the shares should have been taxed earlier. The assessee also challenged the application of section 52(1)/52(2) and emphasized the nominal difference in share values.
The Departmental Representative supported the tax authorities' orders, citing the ITO's reasons for treating the transactions as tax avoidance measures. The representative referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT to justify the authorities' stance.
After examining the submissions and orders, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. They found no evidence to support additional consideration beyond the declared values, leading to the deletion of the addition in the capital gains calculation for the sale of 40 shares. Regarding the transfer of 10 shares to the firm, the tribunal concluded that since the firm was accepted as genuine, there was no basis for taxation. They referenced the Gujarat High Court's observations in Harikishan Jethalal Patel's case to support their decision.
The tribunal dismissed the Departmental Representative's arguments based on the McDowell case, emphasizing the lack of action by the department to revise the assessment order of the firm. They concluded that the capital gains tax did not apply due to the absence of consideration in the share transfer. The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai to support their decision.
In the final analysis, the tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition made by the ITO and ruling in favor of the assessee based on the application of relevant legal principles and lack of substantial evidence supporting the tax authorities' position.
-
1990 (5) TMI 58
Issues:
1. Disallowance of a sum of Rs. 21,000 towards "rent expenses."
Detailed Analysis:
The appellant, a registered firm, received compensation from a company for the termination of its agency as surveyors during the assessment year. The firm also earned commission from handling shipping documents and a fee for working as surveyors for other parties. The firm had earlier received commission from its principal at Bombay, who later started its own offices at different locations. The appellant received monthly compensation for providing facilities to the principal, which included hiring residential accommodation for the principal's employees. The IAC (Asst.) disallowed Rs. 21,000 spent on residential accommodation, considering it as falling under s. 37(4) and (5). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
The appellant argued that the properties were exclusively for the principal's employees stationed at Jamnagar and not used by the firm's partners or employees. The appellant contended that the properties did not qualify as a guest house under s. 37(4) or (5) as they were not used by persons on "tour or visit." The appellant requested the disallowance to be deleted. The departmental representative supported the tax authorities' decision, citing precedents. The appellant distinguished the cited cases, emphasizing that the situation was different.
The Tribunal examined the submissions and reviewed the tax authorities' orders. The Tribunal noted that the cited precedents were not applicable to the appellant's case as they involved different facts. In the present case, the properties were used permanently by the principal's employees for residential purposes, not for touring or visiting. The Tribunal referred to s. 37(5) and concluded that the expenditure on residential accommodation for the principal's employees was not covered by s. 37(4) and (5) and allowed it as a deduction. The appeal was allowed, and the disallowance of Rs. 21,000 was overturned.
-
1990 (5) TMI 57
Issues:
1. Penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return.
Detailed Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-C involved the consideration of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case pertained to an assessment year where the assessee, a registered firm, filed its return with a delay of 15 months, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The assessee resisted the penalty on grounds including the illness of its accountant, extension sought, and excess advance tax payment compared to the tax assessed.
The ITO, in the penalty order, rejected the ground related to the illness of the accountant as it had been continuously raised since previous assessment years. The ITO levied a penalty of Rs. 59,110 under section 271(1)(a) without addressing the other grounds raised by the assessee.
Upon appeal, the Appellate Commissioner (AAC) acknowledged the extension application filed by the assessee but upheld the penalty without considering the effect of the extension on the penalty amount. The AAC also distinguished a relevant decision cited by the assessee regarding excess advance tax payment and confirmed the penalty based on the provisions of section 271 and the explanation thereto.
The main controversy in the appeal revolved around the effect of advance tax payment exceeding the assessed tax on the levy of penalty for late filing of the return. Previous decisions of the Gujarat High Court were cited, including cases where penalties were cancelled due to the absence of contumacious conduct by the assessee, especially when excess tax payment indicated no fraudulent intent.
The Tribunal observed that the conduct of the assessee, demonstrated by the excess advance tax payment and entitlement to a refund, did not reflect contumacious behavior. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty under section 271(1)(a) was justified in this case, leading to the cancellation of the penalty and allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasized that the levy of penalties should be based on the principle of contumacious conduct and the conduct of the assessee in the given circumstances.
-
1990 (5) TMI 56
Issues:
1. Penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return of income by a registered firm for the assessment year 1982-83.
2. Effect of advance tax payment in excess of assessed tax on the levy of penalty.
3. Interpretation of the deeming fiction under section 271(2) in the context of penalty imposition on registered firms.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-C involved the consideration of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on a registered firm for the delay in filing its income tax return for the assessment year 1982-83. The firm had filed the return with a delay of 15 months, leading to penalty proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The grounds raised by the firm to resist the penalty included the illness of its accountant, a requested extension, and the payment of advance tax exceeding the tax assessed.
The ITO rejected the illness ground, citing its continuous plea since the assessment year 1977-78, and levied a penalty of Rs. 59,110. Upon appeal, the Appellate Commissioner (AAC) confirmed the penalty, disregarding the extension application filed by the firm and distinguishing a relevant case law regarding advance tax payment. The AAC upheld the penalty based on the provisions of section 271(1) and 271(2) of the Act.
The main controversy in the appeal centered around the effect of advance tax payment exceeding the assessed tax on the penalty imposition for late filing. The Tribunal referred to various cases decided by the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing the principle that penalty should not be levied unless contumacious conduct is established. The court highlighted that the conduct of the assessee, particularly in making advance tax payments in excess of the assessed tax, indicates non-fraudulent behavior, leading to the cancellation of the penalty in such cases.
In the specific case under consideration, the Tribunal found that the firm had made an advance tax payment surpassing the assessed tax, resulting in a refund entitlement, which indicated non-contumacious conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty and allowing the appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of assessing the conduct of the assessee in determining the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
1990 (5) TMI 54
Issues involved: Disallowance of interest paid by the assessee on cash credit account with the Bank of Baroda.
Summary:
The assessee, a firm dealing in crockery items, tiles, and sanitary wares, appealed against the disallowance of interest paid on a cash credit account with Bank of Baroda. The ITO disallowed the interest, alleging diversion of funds borrowed from the bank to a sister concern owned by relatives of the partners. The CIT(A) directed the disallowance to be calculated based on the day-to-day fund usage, resulting in a reduced disallowance amount. The assessee argued that since the borrowed funds were for business purposes, the interest should be fully deductible u/s 36(1)(iii), emphasizing the loan's business purpose and security against goods. The Departmental Representative claimed a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and interest-free advances to the sister concern, citing a Delhi Bench decision.
Upon review, the Tribunal found no direct correlation between the borrowed funds and advances to the sister concern, noting the mixed funds in the bank account and business transactions routed through it. The Tribunal referenced a Gujarat High Court decision emphasizing that as long as borrowed capital is for business purposes, the specific application is immaterial u/s 36(1)(iii). Considering the substantial interest-free funds and lack of nexus, the Tribunal canceled the sustained disallowance, directing the full interest amount to be allowed as a deduction.
Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 53
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on a deceased person.
2. Legality of assessment and penalty orders issued in the name of a deceased person.
3. Jurisdiction and applicability of proceedings under section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Validity of penalty under section 273(1)(b) in the context of reassessment under section 147(a) read with section 143(3).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty on a Deceased Person:
The core issue was whether penalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be imposed on a deceased person without bringing his legal representatives on record. The Tribunal noted that the penalties were imposed on the deceased without involving his legal representatives, which was a significant procedural lapse.
2. Legality of Assessment and Penalty Orders:
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order and subsequent penalty orders were issued in the name of the deceased, which is inherently void and illegal. The Tribunal emphasized that an assessment made on a dead person is a nullity in law and cannot be sustained. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had wrongly assumed that the appellant had accepted the assessment order since it was not challenged, but the Tribunal clarified that the doctrine of res judicata/estoppel does not apply to tax proceedings.
3. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Proceedings under Section 159:
The Tribunal discussed section 159 of the Income-tax Act, which deals with the liability of legal representatives to pay dues of the deceased. It was noted that proceedings initiated against a deceased person during his lifetime can be continued against his legal representatives. However, if the deceased had died before any proceedings were initiated, the proceedings must be taken against the legal representatives. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment and penalty orders issued in the name of the deceased without involving the legal representatives were void ab initio.
4. Validity of Penalty under Section 273(1)(b) in Reassessment Context:
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under section 273(1)(b) could be imposed when the assessment was made under section 147(a) read with section 143(3), which is a reassessment and not a regular assessment. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that penalties under section 273(1)(b) are applicable only in cases of regular assessments. Since the assessment in this case was a reassessment, the penalty under section 273(1)(b) was not justified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals, canceling the penalties levied under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment and penalty orders issued in the name of the deceased were declared void and non-est in law. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of involving legal representatives in proceedings concerning deceased persons and clarified that penalties under section 273(1)(b) are not applicable in cases of reassessment.
-
1990 (5) TMI 52
Issues:
Claim of investment allowance under section 32A of the IT Act for new plant and machinery installed at Kandla project.
Analysis:
The appeals were against the CIT (A)'s order rejecting the claim for investment allowance for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The appellant, a registered firm running an oil mill, claimed investment allowance for new plant and machinery installed at Veraval and Kandla. The ITO rejected the claim for Kandla project, stating the appellant was not engaged in manufacturing activity there. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, considering the appellant's activity as processing, not manufacturing. The appellant contended that its activity of converting imported oil into a marketable commodity constituted manufacturing. The D.R. argued that more than processing was required for manufacturing, citing various court decisions. The tribunal found that the appellant's activities at Kandla, including heating, filtering, filling, tinning, and sealing oils, transformed the imported oil into a marketable product. The tribunal referenced cases where similar processing activities were considered manufacturing. It distinguished cases cited by the D.R., noting the unique nature of the appellant's activities in converting thick or crude oil into a marketable commodity through mechanical processes. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities constituted manufacturing, entitling it to investment allowance for the new plant and machinery at Kandla.
The tribunal emphasized that the appellant's processing activities at Kandla were akin to manufacturing, as they transformed the imported oil into a marketable commodity through various mechanical processes. It noted that the Gujarat High Court and Ahmedabad Tribunal consistently considered such processing activities as manufacturing. The tribunal highlighted the distinction between processing and manufacturing, asserting that the appellant's activities crossed the threshold of mere processing to qualify as manufacturing. It rejected the D.R.'s arguments and found the appellant eligible for investment allowance based on the unique nature of its activities at Kandla.
The tribunal distinguished cases cited by the D.R., emphasizing that the appellant's activities resulted in the creation of a new marketable commodity from the imported oil. It noted that the appellant's operations were distinct from mere preservation, as seen in cases involving cold storage plants. The tribunal rejected the D.R.'s reliance on cases involving different circumstances, such as the manufacture of sweet drinks or construction of buildings, as they were not analogous to the appellant's situation. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's activities at Kandla met the criteria for manufacturing, warranting the allowance of investment allowance for the new plant and machinery installed there.
In conclusion, the tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the CIT (A)'s order and directing the ITO to grant the investment allowance to the appellant for the machineries installed at the Kandla project as claimed by the appellant for both assessment years.
-
1990 (5) TMI 51
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
2. Whether the appellant trust should be treated as a discretionary trust.
3. Whether the creation of the appellant trust was a scheme to divert income and evade tax.
4. Whether the CIT had jurisdiction under section 263 to set aside the assessment and direct the ITO to reframe it.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the assessment order passed by the ITO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue:
The CIT found that the assessment order passed by the ITO under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because the ITO failed to examine the nature and character of the appellant trust. The CIT noted that the ITO did not investigate whether the income was assessable in the hands of the trust, its beneficiaries, the settlor, or the trustee. The CIT observed that the ITO did not inquire into the source of investment or how the property came to be owned by the trust when its capital was only Rs. 1,000. The CIT concluded that the ITO's failure to make these inquiries rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
2. Whether the appellant trust should be treated as a discretionary trust:
The CIT opined that the trust should be treated as a discretionary trust because the beneficiaries were indeterminate. The CIT referred to clause II of the trust deed, which indicated that the beneficiaries could change over time due to births, deaths, and marriages. The CIT concluded that the trust was not a specific trust but a discretionary one, and therefore, the maximum marginal rate should have been applied to it. The CIT's view was supported by the Explanation introduced to section 164 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980.
3. Whether the creation of the appellant trust was a scheme to divert income and evade tax:
The CIT believed that the creation of the appellant trust was part of a scheme to divert income and evade tax. The CIT cited the Supreme Court decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, which held that tax avoidance through the creation of trusts could be considered a fraud on the Revenue. The CIT pointed out that the trust was created with a capital of Rs. 1,000, yet it managed to earn substantial income from property. The CIT noted that the balance sheet showed significant assets, which raised questions about the genuineness of the trust. The CIT concluded that the trust was a device to evade tax and defraud the Revenue.
4. Whether the CIT had jurisdiction under section 263 to set aside the assessment and direct the ITO to reframe it:
The CIT exercised his powers under section 263, which allows a Commissioner to revise an assessment if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT provided the appellant trust an opportunity to be heard and made necessary inquiries before passing the order. The CIT chose to cancel the assessment and direct the ITO to make a fresh assessment, rather than making the assessment himself. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in this appeal was limited to determining whether the CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment and directing the ITO to re-do it. The Tribunal found that the CIT had sufficient grounds to exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 and upheld the CIT's order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT had sufficient grounds to exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 and set aside the assessment. The Tribunal found that the ITO failed to make necessary inquiries into the nature and character of the trust, and the CIT was justified in directing further inquiries and investigations. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT's order to reframe the assessment after conducting proper inquiries and investigations.
-
1990 (5) TMI 50
Issues:
1. Revisional order passed by the Commissioner under s. 263 based on estimated receipts and lack of maintained books of accounts.
2. Commissioner's directive for the ITO to consider various factors in determining the assessee's income.
3. Assessee's contention regarding due enquiries made by the ITO and reliance on previous Tribunal orders.
4. Departmental Representative's argument on the purpose of revisional powers and errors in ITO's assessment.
5. Tribunal's consideration of the net income and comparison with previous years.
6. Assessment of whether the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad dealt with an appeal against the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under section 263. The Commissioner's order was based on the discovery of a diary and files during a search, leading to estimated receipts for specific assessment years due to the lack of maintained books of accounts by the assessee. The Commissioner directed the ITO to consider various factors, including the number of patients treated and medicines prescribed, in determining the assessee's income.
The assessee contended that the ITO had conducted due enquiries and applied his mind, citing previous Tribunal orders confirming the net income for the relevant assessment years. The Departmental Representative argued that the purpose of revisional powers was to rectify errors by the ITO, emphasizing discrepancies in the gross income for the current year compared to previous years.
The Tribunal considered the net income for the current assessment year and found it comparable to previous years, thus determining no prejudice to the Revenue. Despite the assessee's argument regarding the ITO's diligence, the Tribunal held that the question of error in the ITO's order must be objectively determined. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263, concluding that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of objective assessment in determining errors in the ITO's order, considering the net income and previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order was based on the lack of proven error or prejudice to the Revenue in the assessment.
-
1990 (5) TMI 49
Issues:
1. Conviction under Section 9(B) of the Central Excise Act for evasion of duty.
2. Interpretation of the term "evades" in the context of excise duty payment.
3. Application of Section 9(B) of the Act in cases of non-payment of assessed duty.
4. Legal consequences of removal of goods from a warehouse without payment of excise duty.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a revision challenging the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(B) of the Central Excise Act for evasion of duty. The petitioners were initially convicted by a Judicial Magistrate and later by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The petitioners argued that removal of tobacco from a warehouse already assessed to tax does not constitute evasion of duty. They contended that non-payment of duty on assessed goods does not amount to evasion as the duty is recoverable under the Act and Rules. On the other hand, the opposite party argued that the petitioners' failure to pay duty and removal of tobacco constituted evasion of duty.
The High Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the term "evades" in the Act implies underhand dealings or attempts to escape duty payment through deceptive means. Mere non-payment of assessed duty does not fall within the purview of evasion as per Section 9(B) of the Act. The Court emphasized that the Act provides procedures for duty recovery, and non-payment of assessed duty does not automatically amount to evasion. In the present case, the petitioners were accused of surreptitiously removing chewing tobacco from a warehouse without proper permits or duty payment.
The Court concluded that the petitioners' actions did not constitute evasion of excise duty as the goods were already assessed to duty. The government could recover the duty through prescribed procedures even if the duty was not paid initially. Therefore, the basis of the petitioners' conviction under Section 9(B) was found to be erroneous, and the revision was allowed. The Court clarified that the decision was based on the definition of "evasion" and not merely on non-payment of assessed duty. The petitioners were not convicted for permit contraventions, and Section 9(B) is not intended for such cases.
Ultimately, the High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, holding that the petitioners' conviction under Section 9(B) was incorrect in the given circumstances. The Court's analysis focused on the distinction between non-payment of assessed duty and evasion of duty, emphasizing that the latter involves deceptive practices to avoid duty payment, which was not established in this case.
-
1990 (5) TMI 48
Issues:
1. Validity of the Explanation to the notification dated March 20, 1980 and subsequent notices demanding duty on stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer.
2. Interpretation of Rule 147 regarding payment of duty on excisable articles.
3. Jurisdiction of the State Government to impose duty on imported foreign liquor.
4. Right of the petitioners to challenge State actions in the Writ Court.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The Rule was issued concerning the validity of the Explanation to the notification and subsequent notices demanding duty on the stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to withdraw, cancel, or set aside the Explanation and notices, claiming no duty was payable on the stock as of April 1, 1980. The petitioners argued that the demands were without jurisdiction or authority of law. The Court examined the Explanation and found it within the scope of the Act and Rules, not contrary to the law. The petitioners' challenge was dismissed as the Explanation was deemed lawful and justified.
2. The interpretation of Rule 147 was crucial in determining the duty payment on excisable articles. The Rule specified that duty on imported foreign liquor should be paid before removal from the excise warehouse, with provisions for revision in duty rates. The Court analyzed the Rule and its proviso, emphasizing that the duty difference applies only to liquor imported under bond, not to all imported liquor. As the petitioners' liquor was not imported under bond, they were not liable to pay the duty difference as demanded, highlighting the importance of a close scrutiny of the Rule's provisions.
3. The jurisdiction of the State Government to impose duty on imported foreign liquor was a significant issue. The petitioners relied on precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, to argue against the State's actions. The Court considered the statutory powers granted to the State and the limitations on rule-making authorities. It emphasized that executive actions beyond the scope of rules are unlawful, but in this case, the Explanation was found to be within the legal framework. The State's authority to impose duty was upheld based on the existing Act and Rules.
4. The right of the petitioners to challenge State actions in the Writ Court was debated. The State contended that the petitioners, as liquor licensees, had no fundamental right to run a liquor business and could not seek remedies against State actions. However, the Court affirmed that any person affected by unlawful acts is entitled to approach the Writ Court for remedies. The Court stressed the importance of lawful and justified State actions, ensuring that individuals can challenge actions that are contrary to the law. Ultimately, the petitioners' challenge was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged with no costs awarded.
-
1990 (5) TMI 46
The petitioners are in the business of processing fabrics and seek reassessment of assessable value by excise authorities, excluding trader's profit. The High Court directs authorities to reassess value in line with Supreme Court decision and grant refund for excess duty paid. [Case: G.T. Nanavati and J.U. Mehta, JJ., 1990 (5) TMI 46 - High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad]
-
1990 (5) TMI 45
The High Court of Gujarat directed excise authorities to reassess the value of processed fabrics, excluding trader's profit, and grant refunds for excess duty collected. Petitioners must submit claim statements within one month, and bank guarantees need to be renewed within one month. The court allowed encashment of bank guarantees to pay the department. No costs were awarded. (Case citation: 1990 (5) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)
-
1990 (5) TMI 44
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Rebate
2. Limitation Period for Rebate Claim
3. Procedural Compliance for Rebate Claim
4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Due to Delay
Summary:
1. Entitlement to Rebate:
The petitioner exported 18 consignments of tea, claiming a rebate for 10 consignments amounting to Rs. 2,19,205.42p under Notification No. 171/81-C.E., dated 17-10-1981. The court acknowledged that the petitioner fulfilled all conditions for rebate under the said notification.
2. Limitation Period for Rebate Claim:
The petitioner initially claimed the rebate by a letter dated 14-11-1981, dispatched under certificate of posting. However, the formal application in Form 'B' with required documents was submitted on 6-8-1982. The respondents rejected the claim citing it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period u/s 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court noted that any duty collected without authority of law is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution and should be refunded without being barred by limitation.
3. Procedural Compliance for Rebate Claim:
The respondents argued that the letter dated 14-11-1981 was not received and even if it was, it did not comply with the notification's requirements as it lacked necessary documents. The court held that the procedural lapse should not bar the rebate claim, emphasizing that the presumption of regularity applies to letters sent by post unless rebutted by evidence.
4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Due to Delay:
The respondents contended that the writ petition should not be entertained due to delay. The court found the delay sufficiently explained, as the petitioner's advocate misplaced the relevant orders, which were later found and promptly acted upon. The court cited precedents emphasizing that technical pleas should not defeat legitimate claims.
Judgment:
The court directed the respondents to rescind the orders dated 8-3-1984 and 25-10-1984 and refund Rs. 2,19,245.42 P to the petitioner within six weeks, stating that the petitioner is entitled to the rebate on merits and procedural lapses should not bar the claim.
-
1990 (5) TMI 43
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.
2. Application of the Import and Export Policy for the period April 1988 to March 1991.
3. Eligibility criteria for availing Open General Licence for import.
4. Discretion and obligations of the Development Commissioner in registering import contracts.
5. Application of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel against the Government.
6. Fundamental right to carry on private trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Analysis:
1. The judgment delves into the powers conferred by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, allowing the Central Government to regulate imports and exports. The Imports (Control) Order, 1955 lists controlled items, permitting import under specific conditions like licensing or Open General Licence.
2. The case involves the Import and Export Policy for April 1988 to March 1991, which allows amendments notified by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The petitioner, a Small Scale Industry Unit, seeks to import specified materials under the Open General Licence.
3. The petitioner meets eligibility criteria for the Open General Licence as an Actual User (Industrial) under the Import Policy. The materials sought to be imported fall under a specific category in the policy, entitling the petitioner to import them.
4. The judgment discusses the conditions governing import under the Open General Licence, emphasizing the requirement to register import contracts with the Development Commissioner. The Development Commissioner's obligation to register contracts within a specified period is highlighted.
5. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is applied, stating that the Government is bound by its representations in the Import Policy, and cannot retract from them. The judgment cites relevant Indian Supreme Court decisions establishing the applicability of Promissory Estoppel against the Government.
6. The judgment upholds the fundamental right to carry on private trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It emphasizes that unless clear legislative provisions allow, public functionaries like the Development Commissioner cannot refuse registration of import contracts, affecting the right to carry on trade and business.
In conclusion, the judgment rules in favor of the petitioner, directing the registration of import contracts and emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Import Policy's provisions without arbitrary refusals.
-
1990 (5) TMI 42
The High Court of Gujarat quashed the order in a Special Civil Application due to violation of natural justice, as the final order changing the tariff heading was passed by a different Assistant Collector than the one who conducted the hearing. The case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector to dispose of the matter based on the original show cause notice within two months. Petitioners were directed to cooperate, and if the show cause notice is deemed invalid, necessary orders for refunding excess amount collected should be made.
-
1990 (5) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Drafting errors in the memo of appeal filed by the Union of India and the Asstt. Collector of Customs.
2. Incorrect date mentioned in ground (e) of the memo of appeal.
3. Incoherent drafting in various grounds of the memo of appeal.
4. Discrepancy in the duty amount mentioned in ground (j).
5. Consideration of the Full Bench decision in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.
6. Lack of bona fides in the belated filing of the appeal.
7. Imposition of costs on the Appellants.
Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights numerous drafting errors in the memo of appeal filed by the Union of India and the Asstt. Collector of Customs. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of drafting, pointing out errors such as the use of the term 'blank' instead of 'blanket' and inconsistencies in various grounds of the memo.
2. Ground (e) of the memo contained an incorrect date (28th March instead of 20th March), leading to confusion regarding the admission of facts by the respondents. The court noted that the drafting errors raised doubts about the accuracy and integrity of the memo's content.
3. The judgment criticized the overall incoherent drafting of the memo of appeal, highlighting specific sentences that made no sense or were hastily put together. The court pointed out that such shabby work on behalf of the Union of India was unacceptable and indicated a lack of professionalism.
4. Ground (j) mentioned a duty amount of Rs. 16 lakhs, indicating a significant discrepancy in the value of the shipments. The court emphasized that despite the substantial amount involved, the errors in the memo undermined the credibility of the appeal.
5. The court extensively discussed the Full Bench decision in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which was considered binding on the single Judge and the court. The decision clarified the relevant point in time for attracting customs duty concerning imported goods entering India's territorial waters.
6. The judgment raised concerns about the belated filing of the appeal and the lack of bona fides on the part of the appellants. Despite the poorly drafted memo, the court dismissed the appeal based on the correctness of the single Judge's decision and the binding nature of the Full Bench decision.
7. Costs amounting to Rs. 1,000 were imposed on the appellants as a condition precedent for further proceedings in the Writ Petition. The court justified the costs considering the vacation filing of the appeal and the need to ensure compliance with the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding professionalism and integrity in legal proceedings, especially when representing the Union of India.
-
1990 (5) TMI 40
Whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation and hence, the Government had no power to annul the Appellate Collector's Order under Section 131(3) of the Act?
Held that:- The limitation prescribed by Section 28 is applicable when under sub-section (5) of Section 131 the Government seeks to annul or modify orders other than those passed under Sections 128 and 130. It is not applicable to the action taken under sub-section (3) for annulling or modifying orders passed under Sections 128 and 130. Since in the present case the impugned show-cause notice is issued to annul/modify the order passed by the Appellate Customs under Section 128, it will have to be held that it is not barred by limitation. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (5) TMI 39
The High Court of Allahabad rejected the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions referred included the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to enhance sales, adoption of sales estimated by the Sales Tax Tribunal, and the relevance of inferences drawn in sales tax proceedings for income-tax proceedings. The court held that the appellate authority can enhance tax, the order of the Tribunal was correct in adopting sales estimates, and the inferences from sales tax proceedings were relevant. The petition was rejected.
-
1990 (5) TMI 38
Issues involved: Interpretation of registration requirements u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for charitable societies.
Summary:
The High Court of Allahabad heard a writ petition challenging an order by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, a charitable society, sought registration u/s 12A, a prerequisite for availing benefits under sections 11 and 12 which provide for income exemption for charitable purposes. The court noted that registration under section 12A is essential before claiming benefits under sections 11 and 12. The application for registration must be made in Form No. 10A as per rule 17A within one year from the trust's creation. The Commissioner's role is limited to verifying compliance with section 12A and rule 17A, and assessing the charitable nature of the trust's objects, not the application of income.
The impugned order questioned the charitable nature of the society's objects, stating they were general, but did not declare them non-charitable. The Commissioner's observation of no activities by the society was deemed irrelevant at the registration stage. The court held that the order was unsustainable and quashed it, directing the Commissioner to reassess based on the society's objects and the court's observations. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
....
|
9911796707
