|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 514 Records
-
2005 (11) TMI 504
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's termination during the probation period.
2. Interpretation of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (Staff Regulations), 1979 regarding the probation period.
3. Whether the termination order was punitive in nature.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the appellant's termination during the probation period:
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer on probation for one year, starting from 02.03.1986. The probation period was extended due to unsatisfactory performance. On 28.09.1988, the appellant's service was terminated as his performance did not improve despite several opportunities. The appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was decided against him by Labour Court No. III, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and his subsequent writ petition was dismissed.
2. Interpretation of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (Staff Regulations), 1979 regarding the probation period:
The appellant's counsel relied on Clause (iii) of Regulation 18, which states that the probation period may be extended but not beyond two years. The appellant contended that he should be deemed confirmed after two years, i.e., on 19.02.1988, and thus his service could not be terminated without an enquiry. The respondent's counsel referred to Clause (vii) of Regulation 18, which states that if no order of confirmation or termination is issued at the end of the probationary period, the employee continues on probation until such an order is issued. The court agreed with the learned Single Judge that the case falls within the third category of cases described in the Supreme Court decision in *The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar* (AIR2001SC3234), where a specific act of confirmation is required even after the maximum probation period has expired.
3. Whether the termination order was punitive in nature:
The appellant argued that the termination order was punitive as it was preceded by a show cause notice. The court referred to *State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ram Bachan Tripathi* (2005)IIILLJ731SC), where it was held that mere mention of a show cause notice does not constitute a stigma. The court also cited several Supreme Court decisions, including *Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Jalna* (AIR 2003 SCW 731) and *Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munishi Ram* (2005)ILLJ1077SC), which held that the mere fact of an inquiry or mention of suspension does not make the termination punitive. The court concluded that the termination order in this case was not punitive.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appellant's submission that his service must be deemed confirmed after two years. It also held that the termination order was not punitive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 503
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of modvat credit on items used in the workshop for repairing machinery used in the manufacture of cement.
Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Admissibility of Modvat Credit on Workshop Items
Background:
The appeal challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 4.7.2003. The primary legal question is whether modvat credit is admissible on items such as drilling machines, welding machines, and lubricants used in workshops for the maintenance of machinery involved in cement production.
Contention of the Respondent-Assessee:
The respondent-assessee claimed modvat credit on the aforementioned items under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the period ending prior to July 1996. They argued that these items, used for general maintenance of the plant and machinery, should be considered "capital goods" eligible for modvat credit.
Contention of the Revenue:
The Revenue denied the modvat credit, asserting that the items used in the workshop do not directly produce or process the final product (cement) and hence do not qualify as capital goods under Rule 57Q.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in Jawahar Mills Limited Vs. CCE, Coimbatore, and held that items essential for the upkeep and better functioning of machines used in manufacturing are eligible for modvat credit as capital goods.
Legal Provisions:
Rule 57Q allows credit for specified duty paid on capital goods used in the factory for manufacturing final products. The definition of "capital goods" under Rule 57Q includes machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools, or appliances used for producing or processing goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. It also includes components, spare parts, accessories, moulds, dies, generating sets, and weigh-bridges used in the factory.
Court's Analysis:
The Court emphasized that the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 57Q is broad and liberal. It includes not only machines directly involved in manufacturing but also those used for maintenance and upkeep. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of C.Ex., Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd., which supported a liberal interpretation of "capital goods." The Supreme Court had stated that the language used in the definition is very wide and includes various items essential for the manufacturing process, even if they are not directly involved in producing the final product.
Precedents:
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Farmers Fertilisers Cooperative Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, which held that items used in activities essential for manufacturing, even if not directly used in producing the final product, are eligible for tax exemption.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the items in question (drilling machines, welding machines, and lubricants) are essential for the maintenance and efficient functioning of the machinery used in manufacturing cement. Therefore, they qualify as "capital goods" under Rule 57Q and are eligible for modvat credit. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision was upheld.
Judgment:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Tribunal's decision to allow modvat credit on the items used in the workshop for maintaining machinery used in cement manufacturing is affirmed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 502
Application u/s 482 CrPC for recall of the order - not served with the notice of the revision - ex parte against him - Challenged the summon order for facing prosecution u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent that a Court takes cognizance of an offence and not of an offender holds good when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence u/s 190, Cr.P.C. The observations made by this Court in Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar [1967 (1) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] were also made in that context. The Prevention of Corruption Act is a special statute and as the preamble shows this Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. Here, the principle expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant would apply which means that if a special provision has been made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions.
Therefore, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319, CrPC. A Special Judge while trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot summon another person and proceed against him in the purported exercise of power u/s 319, Cr.P.C. if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate authority for prosecution of such a person as the existence of a sanction is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence qua that person.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court directing summoning of the appellant- Dilawar Singh is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the Special Judge, Barnala, is restored.
-
2005 (11) TMI 501
Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as 'heavy melting scrap' to evade Customs duty.
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Issue 1: Misdeclaration of imported goods as 'heavy melting scrap' to evade Customs duty.
The appellant-company imported goods described as 'heavy melting scrap' in two bills of entry. Customs Authorities found brand new, rust-free, varnished, prime quality nails of steel in the containers instead of the declared scrap. Investigation included statements from company employees, market inquiries, and searches revealing the company's involvement in the sale of nails. The Commissioner of Customs concluded that the goods were misdeclared, making them liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant submitted a reply with a certificate supporting their claim, but the Commissioner upheld the misdeclaration, classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 7317.00 and imposing penalties.
Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Commissioner directed the classification of imported goods, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act, and imposed fines and penalties on the importer and the company's director for contravention. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, affirming the misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods but remitting the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh determination of value, redemption fine, and penalties. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation order but required a reevaluation based on Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rules.
Issue 3: Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order. It upheld the findings of fact by the authorities below regarding misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods. The Court found sufficient material supporting the authorities' conclusions, including visual inspections, statements, market inquiries, and packaging details. The Court rejected the argument of lack of evidence supporting the findings and concluded that the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law, thus dismissing it.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the misdeclaration of goods, confiscation under the Customs Act, and the appeal process, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions involved in the case.
-
2005 (11) TMI 500
The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the grossing up of tax perquisites paid by ONGC on behalf of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1990-91. The court dismissed the appeal based on a previous judgment stating that multiple stage grossing up was not applicable to notional income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2005 (11) TMI 499
Issues:
Reopening of assessment without notice to all legal heirs of deceased-assessee, validity of reassessment orders, principles of natural justice, non-service of notice to other legal representatives, authority of Supreme Court judgment in similar cases.
Issue 1: Reopening of Assessment without Notice to All Legal Heirs
The deceased-assessee had filed returns for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. After his demise, a notice under section 148 was issued to the appellant, one of the legal heirs, proposing to reopen the assessments. The appellant contended that since notice was not served to all legal heirs, the reassessment orders were illegal. The Commissioner annulled the reassessment orders on this basis. However, the Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, held that non-service of notice to all legal representatives was an irregularity, not an illegality, and upheld the reassessment orders.
Issue 2: Principles of Natural Justice and Non-Service of Notice to Other Legal Representatives
The appellant argued that non-service of notices to other legal representatives violated principles of natural justice and rendered the reassessment orders invalid. The Supreme Court precedent cited in a similar case emphasized that defects in notice service do not invalidate assessment orders, as long as the liability to pay tax is established by substantive provisions. The Court highlighted that the appellant had received the notice, participated in reassessment proceedings, and the irregularity did not affect his liability to pay tax. Therefore, the argument regarding violation of natural justice was not applicable in this case.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court upheld the reassessment orders, emphasizing that the irregularity in notice service did not render the orders void or illegal. The judgment reiterated the principle that procedural defects do not erase tax liability established by substantive provisions. The appellant's participation in the reassessment proceedings after receiving the notice precluded the argument of violation of natural justice.
-
2005 (11) TMI 498
... ...
... ... ..... R.V. Raveendran, JJ. ORDER Appeal admitted.
-
2005 (11) TMI 497
Issues:
Challenge to lease grant decision by State of Orissa in Department of Steel and Mines over 6.90 acres in Mayurbhanj District, Priority of lease application between appellant No.1 and respondent No.4 under Rule 6(6-a)(i) of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990.
Analysis:
The judgment in question involves the legality of a decision by the State of Orissa in the Department of Steel and Mines to grant a lease over 6.90 acres in Mayurbhanj District to respondent No.4, which led to the rejection of appellant No.1's application. Appellant No.1 had applied for a quarry lease for decorative stones, while respondent No.4 applied for a similar lease over a larger area after acquiring a sick unit engaged in processing the same mineral.
The main contention raised by the appellant was that their application should have precedence over respondent No.4 as it was filed earlier. The appellant argued that respondent No.4's acquisition of a non-functional unit did not grant it priority under Rule 6(6-a)(i) of the Rules. The appellant questioned the lack of reasons provided for prioritizing respondent No.4 over them.
In response, it was argued that Rule 6(6-a)(i) prioritizes applicants who have already set up an industry for processing the relevant mineral. The State and respondent No.4 contended that the acquired unit was engaged in processing the mineral, justifying the priority given. They also highlighted that appellant No.1 did not establish eligibility under Rule 6(6-a)(ii) and was considered under a residual category.
The judgment analyzed Rule 6 of the Rules, which outlines criteria for granting quarry leases and prioritizing applicants. It distinguishes between different categories of priority, with specific provisions for cases involving decorative stones and industrial minerals. The judgment emphasized the importance of the term "set up an industry" in determining priority under Rule 6(6-a)(i).
The Court clarified that the crucial factor was whether the industry had been established, not necessarily operational, at the time of application consideration. It cited precedents to define "set up" as establishing a business ready to commence operations. The judgment highlighted that the priority assessment should be based on the factual position at the time of application consideration.
Regarding the lack of reasons provided for prioritizing respondent No.4, the judgment differentiated between Rule 6(5-a) and Rule 6(6-a) requirements. While reasons must be recorded under Rule 6(5-a) for granting preference to later applicants, Rule 6(6-a) itself provides the reason for prioritizing those who have set up an industry.
Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference with the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the rationality of the priority decision under Rule 6(6-a)(i). The judgment concluded by making costs easy for the parties involved.
-
2005 (11) TMI 496
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 61,807 under Rule 6B.
2. Taxability of Rs. 14,00,000 received on termination of agency.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,14,117 under Rule 6D.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 2,65,002 being expenses on guest house.
5. Taxability of Rs. 80,288 received from Digital Equipment Corporation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 61,807 under Rule 6B:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 61,807, arguing that the expense was not for business purposes and exceeded the limits prescribed under Rule 6B. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide any findings on whether the presentation articles carried the company's logo. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that without such findings, the disallowance could not be upheld. Thus, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the revenue's ground.
2. Taxability of Rs. 14,00,000 received on termination of agency:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in treating the Rs. 14,00,000 received on the termination of the agency as a capital receipt. The Tribunal examined the agreement between the assessee and HTIPL, noting that the compensation was for transferring intangible assets like trained personnel and customer lists. The Tribunal reviewed various case laws and concluded that the compensation was a revenue receipt because the business apparatus was not impaired, and the assessee continued to earn income from other sources. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's ground, treating the receipt as taxable revenue.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,14,117 under Rule 6D:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,117. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held that conveyance and travel expenses incurred by employees on tour for business purposes are not covered under Rule 6D. Following these decisions, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the revenue's ground.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 2,65,002 being expenses on guest house:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,65,002 incurred on guest houses. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which held that guest house expenses are disallowable under section 37(3). However, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify the recovery of expenses from employees and directors and exclude such recovery from the disallowance. The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's ground.
5. Taxability of Rs. 80,288 received from Digital Equipment Corporation:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in treating Rs. 80,288 received from Digital Equipment Corporation as a capital receipt. The Tribunal noted that the payment was made under a non-competition agreement, preventing the assessee from competing with the sister concern of Digital Equipment Corporation. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that compensation received for agreeing to refrain from competition is a capital receipt. Thus, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and rejected the revenue's ground.
Cross Objection by Assessee:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 61,807 under Rule 6B:
The Tribunal allowed this ground, aligning with its decision in the departmental appeal.
2. Taxability of Rs. 14,00,000 received on termination of agency:
The Tribunal rejected this ground, consistent with its decision in the departmental appeal, treating the receipt as taxable revenue.
3. Taxability of Rs. 80,288 received from Digital Equipment Corporation:
The Tribunal allowed this ground, confirming that the receipt was a capital receipt as decided in the departmental appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection appeal, providing a detailed examination of the issues and applying relevant case laws to reach its conclusions.
-
2005 (11) TMI 495
Challenged the judgment passed by High Court - Non- application of mind - directed appellant-Corporation to pay to the respondent no. 1 a sum of ₹ 8.5 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of order with default stipulation that in case of non-payment the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. after three months - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that there was clear non- application of mind. On one hand the High Court observed that the disputed questions cannot be gone into a writ petition. It was also noticed that essence of dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the conclusions the High Court should have dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly, the High Court proceeded to examine the case solely on the writ petitioner's assertion and on a very curious reasoning that though the appellant-Corporation claimed that the value of articles lifted was nearly rupees 14.90 lakhs no details were specifically given.
From the counter- affidavit filed before the High Court it is crystal clear that relevant details disputing claim of the writ petitioner were given. Value of articles lifted by the writ petitioner is a disputed factual question. Where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinized and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised.
Above being the position the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. However, our interference in the matter shall not stand in the way of the writ petitioner seeking any other remedy as is available in law.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 494
Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no receipts were received or accrued to the assessee pursuant to the agreement for transfer of marketing rights.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance when the Assessing Officer concluded that the amount accrued to the assessee on revenue account.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant-revenue raised concerns regarding the Appellate Tribunal's decision on the transfer of marketing rights to Neumetic Marketing Co.Pvt.Ltd. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, found that no money was received by the assessee during the relevant accounting period. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal established that the agreement with Neumetic Marketing Co.Pvt.Ltd. was set to commence after the accounting period. Consequently, as no payment had accrued to the assessee during the year under consideration, the authorities correctly determined that no income had accrued to the assessee. The appellate authority emphasized that the mere making of an entry in the records was not sufficient to establish the accrual of income. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as there was no substantial question of law arising from the case.
Issue 2: The second question raised by the appellant concerned the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance despite the Assessing Officer's conclusion that the amount in question accrued to the assessee on a revenue account. The Tribunal's decision was based on the factual finding that no money was received by the assessee during the relevant period. Since the agreement was not operational during the accounting year, no income accrued to the assessee. The authorities rightly emphasized that the timing of the agreement coming into effect was crucial in determining the accrual of income. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance was justified based on the factual findings and legal principles applied in the case.
-
2005 (11) TMI 493
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of notifications issued by various States under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Interpretation of Sections 113, 114, 194, and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Validity of the continuation of offences post-compounding.
4. Practical difficulties in enforcing the provisions related to overloading.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Notifications Issued by Various States:
The petitioners challenged the legality of notifications issued by several States under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These notifications allegedly allowed acts outside the ambit of Section 200, thereby condoning offences and permitting their continuation. The petitioners argued that the notifications effectively allowed the carriage of excess weight post-compounding, which is not legally permissible.
2. Interpretation of Sections 113, 114, 194, and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
- Section 113: Limits the weight and use of motor vehicles, specifying that no vehicle should exceed the weight mentioned in its registration certificate.
- Section 114: Grants authority to weigh vehicles suspected of overloading and mandates off-loading excess weight if found in violation.
- Section 194: Imposes penalties for driving vehicles exceeding permissible weight and mandates off-loading of excess weight.
- Section 200: Allows for the composition of certain offences, including those under Section 194, but does not permit the continuation of the offence post-compounding.
The Court emphasized that Section 200 does not authorize the State Government to permit the carriage of excess weight post-compounding. Compounding of offences should not result in the continuation of the infraction, as it would contravene Section 113.
3. Validity of the Continuation of Offences Post-Compounding:
The Court noted that any notification allowing the continuation of excess weight carriage post-compounding is invalid. The intention behind Section 194 is clear: the excess weight must be off-loaded, and permitting its carriage post-compounding would amount to a fresh offence. The Court held that the object of fixing maximum permissible weights is to prevent road damage and ensure safety, which would be defeated if excess weight carriage is allowed post-compounding.
4. Practical Difficulties in Enforcing the Provisions Related to Overloading:
The State Governments highlighted practical difficulties in off-loading excess weight from numerous vehicles, citing traffic and logistical issues. However, the Court maintained that practical difficulties cannot justify statutory violations. The State Governments must address these issues without overstepping statutory prescriptions.
Individual State Responses:
- Gujarat: Discontinued the system of special tokens post-discussion with Central Government officials.
- Haryana: Withdrawn the earlier notification.
- Orissa: Discontinued the earlier scheme post-discussion with Central Government officials.
- Maharashtra: Acknowledged the need to issue proper notifications aligning with Sections 113 and 114.
- Madhya Pradesh: Similar stance to Maharashtra.
- Uttar Pradesh: Withdrawn the earlier notification by issuing a new one on 1st December 2003.
- Rajasthan and Karnataka: Agreed to withdraw the notifications forthwith.
Constitutional Validity of Sections 194 and 200:
The Court referenced the case of P. Ratnakar Rao and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359), which upheld the constitutionality of Sections 194 and 200. The discretion given to the State Government under Section 200(1) was deemed not unguided, uncanalised, or arbitrary. The compounding fee must not exceed the fine prescribed by the penal section, ensuring it is neither exorbitant nor irrational.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that while the power of compounding vests with the State Government, it cannot authorize the continuation of the offence post-compounding. The State Governments must withdraw any such notifications immediately and address practical difficulties within the statutory framework. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 492
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding customs duty on a ship purchase and subsequent refund claim.
Analysis:
The petition challenged an order passed by CESTAT related to a dispute between the petitioner and Customs Authorities regarding the customs duty on a ship purchased for breaking up. The petitioner claimed no duty was leviable on the Indian-built and registered ship. After depositing the duty under protest, the petitioner pursued statutory remedies up to the Tribunal, succeeding in the claim. The departmental appeal was dismissed, leading to a refund claim directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The petitioner appealed the refund order, arguing that CESTAT's order lacked consideration of submissions and findings. The respondent contended that the petition was filed out of the statutory limitation period for a Tax Appeal, citing CESTAT as the final fact-finding authority. The impugned order of CESTAT was found to be lacking in detail and consideration, failing to discuss facts and evidence adequately.
The judgment highlighted the importance of CESTAT providing detailed reasons and findings in its orders, especially in cases amenable to statutory appeal. The lack of consideration for submissions and findings led to the quashing of the impugned order and the restoration of the appeal to CESTAT for a fresh hearing with proper opportunity for both parties. The decision emphasized that legal propositions must be supported by factual foundations and evidence, which were lacking in the original order. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and costs were not awarded.
-
2005 (11) TMI 491
Chargeability of interest under ss. 234A and 234B - Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining permission to raise additional grounds merely on the ground that these grounds were not raised within a period of limitation for filing appeal against the order of CIT ? - Unexplained Investments - HELD THAT:- It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the power to permit additional grounds to be raised vests in Tribunal. Subject to permission of Tribunal, additional plea can be raised at any time. No period of limitation is prescribed for raising additional plea. The Tribunal could not have refused to consider the question of grant of permission for raising additional plea or ground solely on the basis of the fact that when such plea was raised, period for filing appeal against order under appeal had already expired.
The principle was reiterated and explained in wide amplitude in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] in which it was noticed that the power to allow additional ground to be raised at the time of hearing vested in the Tribunal which has direct nexus with the object of the taxing powers. It was a case which arose in like circumstances as the present case. The assessee has sought to ascertain the conditions before the Tribunal by drawing its attention to its decision by claiming that the assessee is entitled to certain relief in respect of certain conditions made by the section officer which the Tribunal had earlier not found to (be) taxable. The Tribunal has declined to undertake the plea. The assessee was unsuccessful in his plea before the High Court, on a reference being made about the jurisdiction of Tribunal to allow raising of such grounds which were not urged before the appellate authority earlier.
The Tribunal in refusing to entertain the plea raised by the assessee on the anvil of binding decisions in respect of chargeability of interest under ss. 234A and 234B has declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by ignoring the well settled principle, that it owes a duty to determine correct tax liability which in the context include liability arising on account of charging section, penalty or interest leviable under the Act and as per the binding precedent of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Madras High Court in JDB Srinivasan's case [1993 (7) TMI 323 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and of this Court in Shilpa Associates case [2003 (3) TMI 55 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT].
As a result, the first question reframed as above must be decided against the Revenue. We hold that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to allow the assessee to raise additional ground which required application of mind by the Tribunal and by the High Court which otherwise binds the authority in correctly assessing the tax liability on the ground of limitation.
So far as merit of the contention that no notice of demand claiming interest under any of the provisions under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C can be issued unless there is a specific order to that effect in the assessment order, the matter appears to be concluded by the reasoning given in decision of the Patna High Court in Uday Mistanna Bhandar & Complex vs. CIT & Ors. [1996 (7) TMI 126 - PATNA HIGH COURT] and which decision of Patna High Court has been merged in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on appeal, when it was dismissed.
The present case is no different. The assessment order in the present case only speaks about charge of interest as per rules as was the case in Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra), wherein the principle was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it was not sufficient to make interest payable as a consequence of order passed under the Act.
Unexplained Investments - Apart from the legal fiction created under the provisions contained in ss. 68 and 69C no other provision has been brought to our notice where investment found to be in the name of wife and disclosed by her; on rejecting the source of such investment, the AO can be allowed to deviate from statutory presumption required to cause and jump on unproved presumption to assume such investment to be from undisclosed income of assessee's spouse. No such presumption is permissible in law, nor it arose from fact. If the AO wanted the investment disclosed by wife to be clubbed in the hands of her husband, on finding that explanation about sources of such investment submitted by her was not satisfactory, it was for the Revenue to bring on specific material on record to link such investment with the husband of Smt. Huma. No such material has been referred to or brought on record. In the present appeal automatic substantive assessment in the hands of assessee by clubbing the same with his income cannot be sustained on any ground. The reason adopted by the authority only permits it to be assessed as the income of the wife from explained source in her hands.
Accordingly, the question No. 3 as reframed in the case of Zakir Hussain has to be decided in negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue relating to clubbing of income of Smt. Huma Hussain with the income of appellant Zakir Hussain and raising a demand on account of interest under ss. 234A and 234B without any specific order.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) and the AO are set aside to the extent indicated above.
-
2005 (11) TMI 490
Validity Of Notification regarding the acquisition of the land - whether the impugned Notification meets the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act regarding giving brief description of land - award of additional 30 per cent amount as compensation - HELD THAT:- In the present case in view of an order dated 3rd April,2002 passed by the High Court final compensation could not be determined by the competent Authority. Therefore, there could not be a valid deposit of amount finally determined as required u/s 3E(1) of the Act, which means the possession could not have been taken. But the fact is that possession was taken on 19th February, 2003 on deposit of provisional amount of compensation. The NHAI had in fact applied for permission of court to take possession of the land under acquisition. But without any order being passed on that application, it hastened to take possession after giving only one day's notice when the Act requires 60 days notice. Moreover, the possession is to be taken through the Commissioner of Police or the Collector. This was not done. Neither of the three statutory requirements for taking possession were fulfilled. Thus taking of possession of the lands in the present case is in total violation of the statutory provisions.
The learned counsel for the acquiring authority submits that possession was taken on basis of oral observations of the court. This is a totally misconceived plea. Court orders are always in black and white. Oral orders are never passed. Moreover, this plea is wrong because the Division Bench observed in its order dated 27th March,2003 that it never dealt with question of possession. The result is that taking possession of the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be in accordance with law in this case and does not improve matters for the NHAI.
Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance, i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners may be more.
Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the land owners, that is, writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action.
Normally, compensation is determined as per the market price of land on the date of issuance of the notification regarding acquisition of land. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of the notification so that the land owners are adequately compensated.
Accordingly appeals filed by the Competent Authority and the National Highways Authority of India are hereby dismissed while the appeal filed by Ridh Karan Rakecha & Anr. allowed in terms of the above judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs
-
2005 (11) TMI 489
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Classification of the appellant as a Service Provider under the category of "advertising agency."
Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
The appellant, a proprietary concern, filed an Affidavit explaining a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal due to the Accountant leaving without handing over relevant papers. The appellant cited precedents like Evergreen Plywood Indus. (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna and State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO to support the condonation of delay. The Tribunal accepted the reasons given and noted that a strict view should not be taken in the absence of gross negligence. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the COD application was allowed.
Issue 2: Classification of the appellant as a Service Provider under the category of "advertising agency"
The appellant was required to pre-deposit Service Tax and penalty amounts as a Service Provider under the category of "advertising agency." The appellant argued that they only provided space for advertisements, not advertising services, citing Board's Circular No. 64/13/2003-S.T. and Tribunal rulings supporting their position. Considering the circular and rulings, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case in favor of the appellant. As a result, the stay application was allowed, waiving the pre-deposit amounts and staying their recovery until the appeal's disposal. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on 27th January 2006.
-
2005 (11) TMI 488
Issues: Challenge to imposition of penalty for non-filing of ST-3 returns, dispute over levy of service tax for letting out auditorium for prayers, challenge to correct calculation of service tax.
Analysis:
1. Challenge to Imposition of Penalty for Non-filing of ST-3 Returns:
The appellant, a charitable religious organization, contested the penalty of &8377; 5,407/- and an additional penalty of &8377; 1,000/- for not filing ST-3 returns. They argued that they were engaged in community services and had leased the auditorium for religious activities, not for marriages typically associated with a "mantapam." Citing the judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, they claimed a bonafide belief that they were not covered under the category of "mantapam." The Commissioner upheld the penalty, but the Tribunal found that the levy of penalty was unjustified based on the bonafide belief held by the appellants. The matter was remitted back to the Original Authority for further consideration, emphasizing the religious nature of the activities conducted in the auditorium.
2. Dispute Over Levy of Service Tax for Letting Out Auditorium for Prayers:
The appellant also challenged the levy of service tax for letting out the auditorium for prayers, arguing that it did not fall under the category of "mantapam." The Tribunal observed that the activity was purely religious and not social or cultural, warranting a reevaluation by the Original Authority. The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed, emphasizing the need for a correct determination of whether the activity of letting the auditorium for prayers fell within the scope of "mantapam." The matter was referred back to the Original Authority for a fresh assessment, stressing the importance of following principles of natural justice.
3. Challenge to Correct Calculation of Service Tax:
The appellant disputed the correct calculation of service tax, highlighting that the show cause notice lacked clarity on the demanded amount and alleged a lack of proper calculation by the authorities. The Tribunal agreed that the calculation of service tax was not adequately addressed and directed the Original Authority to reexamine both the issue of activity classification and the accurate calculation of service tax. The penalties imposed were set aside, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to resolve the matter promptly within a specified timeframe to ensure procedural fairness.
-
2005 (11) TMI 487
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of termination under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the appellant worked for 240 days continuously.
3. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Irrigation Department.
4. Burden of proof regarding continuous service.
5. Drawing adverse inference for non-production of records.
6. Interference by the High Court with concurrent findings of fact.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Termination under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The appellant claimed that his termination on 20.06.1994 was illegal as it did not comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court found in favor of the appellant, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages, but the High Court set aside this order.
2. Whether the Appellant Worked for 240 Days Continuously:
The Labour Court, based on the certificate (Ex.W1) and the appellant's testimony, concluded that he had worked for more than 240 days prior to his termination. The High Court, however, found the certificate to be fabricated and noted the absence of corroborative evidence like appointment letters or salary receipts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant had stepped into the witness box and produced Ex.W1, which was not adequately countered by the management.
3. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Irrigation Department:
The Labour Court held that the Irrigation Department was an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that this issue was not argued in detail by the management at earlier stages, and thus declined to adjourn the matter pending a larger bench's decision on a related issue.
4. Burden of Proof Regarding Continuous Service:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he worked for 240 days in a given year. This can be discharged by stepping into the witness box and producing cogent evidence. The Court found that the appellant had met this burden by producing Ex.W1 and testifying, whereas the management failed to produce relevant muster rolls for the entire period.
5. Drawing Adverse Inference for Non-Production of Records:
The Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the management for not producing the complete muster rolls. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, noting that the management's partial production of records and lack of explanation for missing documents justified the Labour Court's conclusion.
6. Interference by the High Court with Concurrent Findings of Fact:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for interfering with the Labour Court and Single Judge's concurrent findings without adequate reasons. It emphasized that High Courts should not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Labour Court's award. It directed the appellant's reinstatement as a daily wager with 50% back wages from the date of the award till reinstatement, emphasizing the need for proper record-keeping by government departments to avoid such disputes.
-
2005 (11) TMI 486
Issues Involved:
1. Recall/rectification of the Tribunal's order due to alleged haste and non-application of mind.
2. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act.
3. Cost of acquisition of shares for capital gains calculation for non-residents.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Recall/Rectification of the Tribunal's Order Due to Alleged Haste and Non-Application of Mind:
The assessee sought the recall or rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 15-4-2004, arguing that the order was passed in haste on the retirement date of one of the members, resulting in non-application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the hearing concluded on July 1, 2003, and the order was passed on April 15, 2004, the Accountant Member's retirement date. The assessee referenced administrative instructions and the Apex Court's guidelines in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, which mandate timely disposal of appeals. The Tribunal, however, found this submission untenable under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, which allows amendment of orders only for mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the validity of an order must be challenged before the High Court under section 260A, not under section 254(2). The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of the Supreme Court's guidelines for ensuring speedy justice but clarified that these guidelines do not render an order invalid if passed belatedly. The Tribunal concluded that inordinate delay alone does not invalidate an order and rejected the assessee's submission.
2. Levy of Interest Under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee contended that interest under section 234B could not be levied without default in advance tax payment, arguing that tax was deductible at source under section 195 on the sale of shares. The Tribunal had previously decided the issue based on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, which the assessee claimed was irrelevant. The Tribunal maintained that review under section 254(2) is impermissible and noted that it had considered the facts in light of section 209(1)(d). The Tribunal emphasized that tax deductible at source must be considered on the date of advance tax payment. As the assessee received payments before the advance tax due date without tax deduction, it was obligated to pay advance tax. The Tribunal found no mistake in its earlier decision and rejected the assessee's contention.
3. Cost of Acquisition of Shares for Capital Gains Calculation for Non-Residents:
The assessee argued that the cost of acquisition for shares purchased before 1-4-1981 should be taken at the market value as on 1-4-1981 under section 55(2)(b)(i), despite the Tribunal's finding that non-residents cannot exercise this option due to the second proviso to section 48. The Tribunal reiterated that section 254(2) does not permit review of earlier orders. It noted that the Tribunal had recorded and considered the assessee's arguments and relevant statutory provisions before concluding that non-residents are not entitled to the option under section 55(2)(b)(i). The Tribunal emphasized that any error in judgment must be corrected by higher courts, not under section 254(2). The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co., which held that failure to consider an argument does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application, finding no merit in the submissions regarding the recall/rectification of the order, the levy of interest under section 234B, and the cost of acquisition of shares for non-residents. The Tribunal emphasized the limited scope of section 254(2) and the necessity of addressing any errors through higher judicial forums.
-
2005 (11) TMI 485
Issues:
1. Allowance of claim of loss against undisclosed income for the block period.
2. Charging of surcharge under section 113 of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Allowance of claim of loss against undisclosed income for the block period
The appeal by the Revenue was directed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the allowance of the assessee's claim of loss of later years against the undisclosed income determined for an earlier year of the block period. The search and seizure operation under section 132 was conducted at the assessee's business premises on 16-1-2001. The Assessing Officer initially denied the claim of loss for the block period. However, the CIT(A) referred to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of B.D.A. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1998] 65 ITD 501 and allowed the set off of losses against the undisclosed income. The ITAT, in this case, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing precedents where losses computed in block assessments were allowed to be set off against undisclosed income from other previous years within the block period. Therefore, the appeal on this ground was dismissed.
Issue 2: Charging of surcharge under section 113 of the Income-tax Act
Another ground of appeal was related to the charging of surcharge under section 113 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer had levied surcharge, but the CIT(A) deleted the surcharge based on the provision inserted in the Income-tax Act prospectively from 1-6-2002. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A) and held that the surcharge could not be charged for searches conducted under section 132A before 1-6-2002. The ITAT relied on the decision in the case of Dy. CIT v. Sai Metal Works, Jalandhar, etc. and concluded that the amendment regarding surcharge was not applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue on this ground was also dismissed.
In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues, emphasizing the applicability of precedents and the prospective nature of the relevant amendments to dismiss the Revenue's appeal comprehensively.
........
|
9911796707
