|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1526 Records
-
2023 (10) TMI 1166
Levy of Service Tax - notional interest towards security deposit taken by the appellant against the rental property - April, 2007 to September, 2012 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in Murli Realtors [2014 (9) TMI 461 - CESTAT MUMBAI] reveals that since the consideration for leasing of the property is rent, so what can be levied to service tax is only rent and notional interest on the security deposit cannot be subjected to levy of service tax.
Thus, it has to be held that service tax could not have been levied on the notional interest calculated by the department on the interest fee security deposit collected by the appellant from tenants.
The orders impugned in the four orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that have been assailed in the four appeals cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1165
Rejection of benefit of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - ante-dated SCN - case of Revenue is that since the notice under section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994 have been issued dated 18th January 2013, which is prior to 1 March 2013, the Appellant is not eligible to avail the benefit of VCES, 2013.
HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice dated 31st December 13 is anti-dated and have been dispatched only on 10 January 2014 by speed post - It is found that the Show cause Notice has been issued beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed by the Board vide clarificatory circular No. 170/05/2013-ST dated 8 August 2013 and further reiterated vide the Circular No. 174/09/2013 – ST dated 25 November 2013.
The Show Cause Notice is bad and hit by limitation - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1164
Non imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Non-inclusion of value of materials received free of cost from the service recipient and used in providing construction of residential complex and civil structures, in the assessable value - demand of differential duty - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX ETC. VERSUS M/S. BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. ETC. [2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that value of goods/materials supplied free of cost by the recipient used for providing taxable service are not includable in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of service tax.
It is observed that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable in this case. Relying on the above said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court, it is held that the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order are not sustainable. Since the demand of service tax is not sustainable, the demand of penalty under Section 76 does not arise. Accordingly, there is no merit in the department’s appeal.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1163
Demand of Differential Service Tax alongwith interest and penalty - mismatch in figures shown in the ST-3 Returns and the figures shown in the Balance Sheet - it is alleged that appellant could not substantiate their claim towards the excess payment of Service Tax by way of various challans and did not produce the relevant copies of challans - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Department has acceded to the request of the appellant and has arrived at the net Service Tax payable by the Kolkata Unit. The appellants were claiming that they have submitted several challans which were not reflected in the ST-3 Returns, but could not produce copies of such challans. On enquirty, even before the Tribunal, no such copies of the challans could be produced. It is not possible to take a view that they have themselves did not account for such several challans during the period of more than three years and did not reflect the same in the ST-3 Returns till the issue was pointed out by the Service Tax Audit Team.
It is not clear as to how the appellant has himself not accounted for the challans during the period of three years. Further as the appellant has unit at Bhubaneswar, there may be possibility these challans have been used for Service Tax to be paid by that Unit. Unless, the entire transaction of Kolkata Unit vis-à-vis their Bhubaneswar Unit is undertaken, the fact of challans not accounted, cannot be examined. Since the issue pertains to 2007-2008 to 2009-10, at this stage, it would not possible for two Jurisdictional authorities to undertake this huge work to verify the appellant’s claim. Therefore, as the appellant is not in a position to bring any proper clear evidence towards his explanation, it is deemed fit to dismiss their appeal.
The appellant is required to pay the confirmed demand along with interest - Noting that the appellant has also made same claims before the lower authorities that they have paid the excess Service Tax, the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1944, is reduced to 25% subject to the appellant paying the confirmed demand along with interest and reduced to 25% penalty, within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1162
Area based exemption under N/N. 50/2003-CE - non-fulfilment of mandatory condition of the notification that the unit must have commenced its commercial production on or before 31.03.2010 - amount involved in the appeal being less than prescribed threshold limit under litigation policy - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities have considered the evidence produced and concluded that commercial production was started prior to 31.03.2010.
Even a single clearance made by the Respondent would have justified the start of production by the Respondent - Further, this issue as observed by Commissioner (Appeals) has been settled in favour of the Respondent by the decision in case of CCE VERSUS M/S HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL [2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT]. Revenue has not contradicted the said finding of Commissioner (Appeals).
There are no merits in this appeal which could have been dismissed for the amount involved being less than prescribed threshold limit under litigation policy.
Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1161
Clearance of footwear (not intended for retail sale) - denial of benefit under N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Entry No.180) - denial of benefit on the ground that the goods cleared are not intended for retail sale - applicability of Section 4 or Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Penalty of Rs.25 lakhs on the Secretary Shri Ajay Agarwal.
The stand taken by the revenue is that since the goods were cleared to institutional buyers, provisions of Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 were not applicable in the present case and therefore, assessment should be as per provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCE, Panchkula Vs M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which is covered by Weights and Measures Act and Rules, and MRP was fixed on the products supplied, which were not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, the provision of Section 4A of the Act shall stand attracted.
It is found that retail sales price was embossed on footwear supplied to Arm Forces and Paramilitary forces. Therefore, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula Vs M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. the assessment would be under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Penalty of Rs.25 lakhs on the Secretary Shri Ajay Agarwal - HELD THAT:- Since the entire demand against the main Appellant is found to be unsustainable, the penalty imposed on the Appellant No.2 cannot be justified. Accordingly, the same is set aside.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1160
Invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - Levy of service tax - Business Auxiliary Service - commission income received on account of sale of bonds.
Appellant contended that the services rendered by them in relation to marketing of securities have been concluded prior to June 2003 and service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ was introduced as a taxable service only w.e.f 01.07.2003, as defined under Section 65(105)(zzb)of the Finance Act, 1994.
HELD THAT:- The Appellant has not denied the rendering of services related to sale of bonds and earning commission income. The contention of the Appellant is that such services were rendered by them prior to introduction of service tax under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ w.e.f 01.07.2003. The bills submitted by them in support of this claim was not accepted by the lower authorities on the ground that there was no running serial number in the bills.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The demand in the impugned order pertains to the period 2003-2004 and the Notice was issued on 11.06.2007, beyond the normal period of limitation. The details of commission income received by the Appellant have been collected by the Audit team form their Audited Balance Sheet, which is a public document. Thus, there is no suppression involved in this case, Hence, the demand raised by invoking extended period of limitation not sustainable. As the Notice was issued on 11.06.2007 for the demand pertained to the period 2003-2004 , the entire demand of service tax in the impugned order is time barred.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1159
CENVAT Credit - allegation of contravention of rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules - clearance of pure lead ingot on which CENVAT Credit was availed, but were sold ‘as such’ in the home market on payment of an amount as duty which was less than the amount of Cenvat Credit availed by them at the time of it’s procurement.
HELD THAT:- The department has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Appellant has availed excess credit on the inputs and paid less duty at the time of clearance of the inputs ‘as such’. In the grounds of appeal, the department stated that the Appellant themselves are manufacturers of pure lead ingot of a quantity more than required for its captive consumption. Hence, there was no necessity for importing the pure lead ingot and then re-selling the same in the market - the allegation is very strange. In business, there is nothing wrong in manufacturing one product and importing the same to meet the market requirement. If there is any malafide intention in it, the department should have brought it out clearly with evidence. Mere allegation without any evidence is not sufficient to demand the differential duty.
There is no material evidence available on record to substantiate the allegation of the department regarding excess availment of Cenvat credit on the imported pure lead ingot. Hence the allegation of excess availment of credit by the department is not sustainable - Further, the department has not adduced any evidence for diversion of Cenvat credit availed inputs ‘as such’. All the allegations of the department were only on presumption basis, without any evidence.
One such allegation of the department is that during the period Sept 2010 to March 2011, the Appellant procured 1,11,808 Kgs of pure lead ingot and availed Cenvat credit. During this period they have also manufactured 13,77,957 Kgs of the same pure lead ingot and cleared the same to domestic market. Thus, allegation of the department is that there is no need to procure 1,11,808 Kgs of pure lead ingot when they themselves manufactured 13,77,957.10 Kgs of pure lead ingot during the same period - it is found that there is nothing wrong in procuring pure lead ingot from outside sources when there was a shortage. Just because they manufacture huge quantity of pure lead ingot, it does mean that they should not import the same goods to meet their requirement. Thus, the allegations are only on presumption basis without any evidence.
Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1158
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - fake invoices - vendor not having proper infrastructure for manufacturing and generating such scrap at his end - activity of cutting and generating scrap, amounts to manufacture or not - denial of cross-examination - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- When a proper invoice has been made by vendor, which clearly shows the payment of Excise duty and the vendor has filed their Returns, the eligibility of cenvat credit cannot be questioned at the end of the appellant who is the receiver of goods. Further, it is also observed from the Orders passed by the lower authorities that they have not denied the cenvat credit on this ground.
Paper transaction - non-receipt of scrap - HELD THAT:- In spite of seeking a copy of these statements and seeking cross examination of these persons, the same was not granted by the authorities. When the statement itself is not issued to the appellant, it is not clear as to whether the same were supporting the Department’s case or not - merely by the observations of the adjudicating authority cannot be relied upon that the statements are in favour of the Department. It is a gross error on the part of the Adjudicating authority that when the appellant sought to cross examine of the said 8 persons, the same was not granted - It has been held in catena of decisions that the persons recording the statement under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 have to reiterate the same before the adjudicating authority and then only it should be admitted as an evidence. After this, an opportunity should be given to the noticee to cross-examine them. In this case, in spite of the appellant seeking cross examination of these persons, the adjudicating authority has failed to give them this opportunity.
Non-issue of recorded statement of 8 transporters and 2 other officials, denial of cross-examination of these persons and nonproviding of the statements/letters from RTO about the vehicles, are grave errors committed in the investigation process which have proved to be fatal to the Department’s stand.
The entire proceedings have been initiated based on presumption and assumption without any concrete evidence brought in by the Department against the appellant. After going through in details of payments made both to the vendor and to the transporter for the freight charges, which are already admitted in the show-cause notice itself, the Department has not made out any case against the appellant.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1157
Constitutional Validity of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - bar on use of the credit accumulated in Cenvat Credit in making payment of Central Excise Duty - failure to pay duty involving on goods removed for the months of November & December 2006, within the due dates as specified in Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- It is found that the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on which the demand for duty has been raised by the Department has been struck down by the various High Courts as ultra vires.
In this connection, reference can be made for the decisions in INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], M/S. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (5) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], M/S SANDLEY INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2015 (10) TMI 2455 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] PRECISION FASTENERS LTD & 1 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 655 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and M/S A.T.V. PROJECTS INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2016 (9) TMI 321 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].
In view of the above decisions including the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, there is no bar in making use of the accumulated Cenvat Credit for making payment of Central Excise Duty even during default period.
The Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, in the case of M/S. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and has held the portion of rule 8 (3A) as ultra vires.
Thus, there is no bar in making use of the accumulated Cenvat Credit in making payment of Central Excise Duty even during the default period. In the result, the Impugned Order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1156
Levy of service tax - Advertisement Agency Service or not - providing the space for the advertisement to other advertisement agencies - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is observed that the Appellant was only providing space for advertisements on collection of rental charges. The impugned order did not disclose any evidence to the effect that the Appellant themselves had conceptualized, visualized and designed the advertisements.
In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS TEAM UPD LTD. [2004 (10) TMI 9 - CESTAT (CHENNAI)], it has been held that unless it is established that the person concerned had conceptualized, visualized and designed the advertisement, merely allowing its site to be used for display of advertisement by another party against payment of charges are not covered under the definition of “Advertisement Agency” in Section 65(3) of Finance Act, 1994.
In the instant case, the Appellant has not performed conceptualization, visualization and designing of the advertisement. Thus, they have not fulfilled the condition precedent required to satisfy the service under the category of Advertisement Agency Service.
It is not disputed that the Appellant has rented out the space obtained by them from organizations like Calcutta State Transport Corporation and Metro Railway to other Advertisement Agencies like M/s Sampark (Kolkata), Bells Advertising (Kolkata), Dilip Kumar Bhattacharya (Kolkata) and M/s M.A. Publicity (Kolkata) on fixed monthly charges. These Advertisement Agencies who has taken these space on rent from the Appellant actually conceptualize and design the advertisements and they are liable to pay service tax under the category of Advertisement Agency Service and not the Appellant. Accordingly, letting out space for advertisement on hoarding sites, on collection of rental charges, as done by the Appellant are not liable to service tax under the category of Advertisement Agency Service as defined under Section 65(105)(e) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the demand of interest and imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1155
Maintainability of first appeals - first appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority summarily on the ground of non-compliance of the directions of pre-deposit.
It was the case of the appellants before the Tribunal that the orders dismissing the first appeals summarily were bad inasmuch as of the total tax dues under various assessment orders which came to Rs. 204 crores and odd, an amount of Rs. 119 crores were already deposited under protest which were approximately more than 20% of the tax payable and therefore the appeals could not have been dismissed summarily on the ground of failure to pre deposit.
HELD THAT:- Perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that it was the case of the principal appellant that the transactions in question were not bogus and the appellant cannot be liable for the other business done by the agents. Effectively, the tax dues against the appellants is Rs. 204 crores of which Rs. 119 crores has been paid under protest. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the deposit so made be considered towards pre-deposit under Section 73 of the GVAT Act. Merely because the amount was paid, as ‘protest amount’, the first appellate authority could not have directed the pre-deposit without considering the payment already made by the appellant, particularly, when such amounts were paid before passing of the assessment orders.
The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of VVF India [2021 (12) TMI 477 - SUPREME COURT] was in context of Section 26(6A) of the Maharashtra VAT Act which did not have a stipulation of the discretion in the appellate authority as is evident from the language of Section 73 of the GVAT Act.
There is no reason why the appeals on the facts of the present case need to be entertained - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1154
Dishonour of Cheque - legally recoverable debt - actual amount due and payable on the part of petitioner/accused towards the complainant/respondent - whether the amount due as on date of presentation of cheque for encashment and its subsequent dishonoring was less than the amount of cheque in question?
HELD THAT:- The legal presumption of the cheque having been issued in the discharge of liability must also receive due weightage. In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint.
The legal presumption of the cheque having been issued in the discharge of liability must also receive due weightage. In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint.
This Court is of the opinion that the issues raised before this Court can only be decided by the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage, on their own merits. Since a prima facie case exists against the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act, there are no reasons to quash the summoning order dated 25.09.2019.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1153
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Misuse of PAN number of the Chartered Accountant (CA) for fraudulent transaction and evasion of GST - correctness of contents of the status report filed by the Investigating Officer - HELD THAT:- It is stated that in the objections filed to the aforesaid status reports, it has been stated that the requisite documents have been provided. However, it is pertinent to note that in the application for bail as well as in the objections filed to the status report, the stand of the applicants are contradictory with regard to the dealings with M/s Madhu Enterprises. They have also further denied any involvement with Sanjay Kumar, whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
It is pertinent to note that as per investigation, the mobile number with which the said M/s Madhu Enterprises was registered with the GST Department belonged to the aforesaid Sanjay Kumar, who is stated to be a security guard of the applicants. The investigation from the GST Department has also revealed that the aforesaid M/s Madhu Enterprises made business transactions worth crores of rupees with three entities of which the present applicants were director and despite that said fact, the applicants have been evading from giving details of the said transaction.
The ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal [2023 (10) TMI 175 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has no application to the facts of the present case as the answers being given during investigation of the case, are on the face of it, totally evasive.
This Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to unearth entire chain of transactions linked with M/s Madhu Enterprise at the behest of the present applicants and the entities in their control - Application dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1152
Levy of GST - works contract executed and completed after 1st July, 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime - HELD THAT:- It appears the respondent authorities concerned have to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contract either awarded to the petitioner during pre-GST regime or in post-GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill for payment.
Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations stating all the facts and provision as referred in preceding paragraph of this judgment, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representations after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1151
Levy of GST - works contract executed and completed after 1st July, 2017 wherein the contracts were awarded in the pre-GST regime or post-GST regime - HELD THAT:- It appears the respondent authorities concerned have to bear the additional tax liability for execution of subsisting Government contract either awarded to the petitioner during pre-GST regime or in post-GST regime without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) incorporating the applicable GST while preparing Bill for payment.
Considering the submissions of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representations stating all the facts and provision as referred in preceding paragraph of this judgment, before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks from date. On receipt of such representations the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department shall take a final decision within four months from the date of receipt of such representations after consulting with all other relevant departments concerned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1150
Claim of interest on Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit due to inverted tax - amount of refund already sanctioned - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed over a photocopy of the order dated 09.10.2023 whereby the refund of ₹8,76,636/- has been sanctioned, however, with a caveat that the same is subject to the review order and to the outcome of any appeal that may be preferred by the Revenue before the Appellate Tribunal as and when the same is constituted.
Since the petitioner has prevailed before the Appellate Authority, the Order-in-Appeal dated 06.06.2023 is required to be implemented. It is seen that although the Revenue has processed the petitioner’s claim for refund of ₹8,76,636/-, no interest has been provided.
The respondent is directed to disburse interest, if any, payable to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from today - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1149
Recovery of arrears of the tax, interest and the penalty thereon - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has already paid the disputed tax as confirmed vide impugned orders dated 24.04.2023 and 08.09.2023, the Court is inclined to dispose this writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1148
Condonation of delay of 7 months and 11 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- The appeal was filed by the petitioner with a delay of 7 months and 11 days i.e., on 12.04.2023. The impugned order passed by the first respondent dismissing the appeal of the petitioner cannot be faulted. As an officer acting under the provisions of the GST, the first respondent has to strictly apply the provisions of the Act.
Although, the petitioner has taken a stand that the order passed by the second respondent was without jurisdiction and that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 02.04.2023, the fact remains that the petitioner has pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax along with the appeal that was filed belated before the first respondent on 12.04.2023. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order passed by the second respondent on 02.04.2022 only on 23.01.2023. After the third respondent dropped the proceedings initiated for the period between April 2018-March 2019.
The Court is inclined to dispose the writ petition by directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law without reference to the limitation, subject to the petitioner depositing another 10% of the disputed tax within a period of 30 days from the dated of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1147
Review petition - Jurisdiction of Section 41(7)(b) of the KGST Act - re-visiting an issue settled by the Amnesty Order - HELD THAT:- The golden rule of interpretation means that the words of a Statute must prima facie be given their literal and natural meaning and that the language of the Section is read as it is. Applying the said interpretative tool, Sub-section (7) of Section 23B means that (a) the amount settled under Section 23B has been a subject matter of appeal or revision; (b) such appeal and revision may be continued and if the final orders of such appeal or revision results in the reduction of tax payable under this Act; (c) so the tax received more than legally payable will be refunded.
In the case of the State, if the appeal or revision is allowed, the excess amount to be collected from the dealer is collected. The sine qua non for operating the last two stages referred to above is that the amount settled has been a subject matter of appeal or revision. The protection under Section 23B(7) cannot be logically extended to appeal and revision filed ex-post to the Amnesty order. For the above view, it is sufficiently clear that the precedents on which the dealer relied are distinguishable, both in law and fact.
Thus, no ground is made out warranting interference with the judgment - review dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
