|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 469 of 469 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 9
"Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside the reopening of the fact that proceedings initiated were on the basis of vague and non-specific information, which otherwise is against the material on record?" - question suggested about the validity of reassessment proceedings which has been held against the Revenue is a substantial question of law. However, we find from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has not rested its decision solely on the basis of the invalidity of the proceedings under section 147/148, but it has also decided the appeal filed by the assessee on the merits of the assessment also, on all the grounds raised by the assessee. The Revenue has not raised any grievance about the findings recorded on the merits of the assessment. In view thereof, the question raised by the Revenue remains only academic, so far as this appeal is concerned – appeal fails and it is dismissed
-
2003 (8) TMI 8
Perquisite - "Whether, Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision that conveyance allowance granted by the assessee to its employees was not a perquisite under section 17(2), and consequently directing the Assessing Officer to revise the demand created in respect of short payment of TDS and interest thereon?" - Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, has filed the instant application, seeking direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court - The conveyance allowance is in the nature of compensatory allowance and, therefore, is not a perquisite. – no infirmity in tribunal’s order - we decline to direct the Tribunal, to refer the aforesaid question to this court – appeal dismissed
-
2003 (8) TMI 7
Benefits under the amnesty circular -Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that no full disclosure was made and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefits under the amnesty circulars - whether an assessee in whose premises a search was conducted by the departmental officers will not be entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme - held that the amnesty scheme was introduced for the benefit of the taxpayers as well as for the benefit of the Revenue and that the scheme cannot be construed in a narrower fashion as to deprive the assessee of its benefit, simply because he was subjected to search, notwithstanding that there was no detection of any concealment - We therefore, remit the case to the Tribunal to find out whether the search did yield any result in favour of the Revenue
-
2003 (8) TMI 6
High Court was right in holding that the show cause notice issued was too vague and did not disclose the reasons thereof nor the material considered by the appropriate authority in reaching a tentative conclusion was disclosed and, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated and thereby quashed the said notice
-
2003 (8) TMI 5
Issues:
Dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalties for late filing of Service Tax Returns and late deposit of tax.
Analysis:
The applicants/appellants sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of penalties totaling Rs. 40,330.00 and Rs. 15,300.00 imposed for late filing of Service Tax Returns and late tax deposit. They argued that they had paid the entire service tax amount belatedly along with interest. The applicants contended that during the initial period of service tax introduction, they were unaware of the tax payment, and they could not collect the service tax from their customers. However, the Revenue representative argued that the delay in submission of returns and tax payment was unjustified, given that the applicants had filed returns late from October 1996 to September 2000, with the first return filed in May 1997. The Revenue insisted on the imposition of personal penalties due to the delay.
The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions. The applicants' claim that the interest amount was incorrectly calculated at Rs. 12,813.00 instead of Rs. 9,772.00 was not substantiated. It was noted that the late filing of returns could not be excused by the claim of being unaware of the tax levy, especially when the first return was filed after the introduction of service tax. The argument that they did not collect service tax from customers was deemed irrelevant as tax filing and payment are not contingent on tax collection. Consequently, the Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the applicants/appellants. They were directed to deposit reduced penalty amounts of Rs. 20,000.00 and Rs. 7,000.00 within four weeks, with the remaining penalties waived and recovery stayed during the appeal.
The matter was scheduled for compliance verification on 8-9-2003, with the appeal set for final disposal pending compliance.
-
2003 (8) TMI 4
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata confirmed demand of Service Tax with interest but set aside personal penalty due to retrospective re-validation of tax liability. The Tribunal held that no penalty can be imposed due to retrospective amendment not bringing penal consequences. Revenue's appeal was rejected.
-
2003 (8) TMI 3
Registration and payment of service tax - Contract Carriage operator covered under service tax? - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that the questions such as contract carriage, stage carriage, tourist vehicle, as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and tour operator as per the Finance Act, 1994 have been elaborately considered in Secy Federn of Bus-operators Assn. of T.N. v. Union of India [2001 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
After considering all the contentions relating to recovery of service tax on tour operators, the Division Bench dismissed all the writ petitions upholding the legislative competence as well as the merits and applicability of the provisions of the Finance Act to the stage carriage operators, contract carriage operators, cab/maxi cab operators except spare buses vide para 36. Though Mrs. Radha Gopalan has argued that as per the Division Bench decision, the petitioner, who is a contract carriage operator, since their vehicle is not a tourist vehicle, the payment of service tax does not apply to the petitioner's case, in the light of the elaborate discussion by the Division Bench covering all the aspects, including the claim of the petitioner, I am unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons.
In the light of the conclusion/observation of the Division Bench, I am of the view that as per Section 65(52) of the Finance Act and as interpreted by the Division Bench, the contract carriage vehicles are also covered under service tax. Since the petitioner is covered under the definition of 'tour operator' and doing the said business, the respondent is fully justified in issuing the impugned communication requesting the petitioner to register and pay service tax. I am also satisfied that the issue is already settled in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, referred to above and I hold that the petitioner herein is liable to pay the service tax.
Thus, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 2
Issues:
- Confirmation of service tax demand for two periods
- Imposition of penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
- Additional demand of service tax and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Concealment of correct taxable value by the assessee
- Legality of penalties imposed exceeding the demands of service tax
Analysis:
1. The appeals were against a common order by the Commissioner (Appeals) on two separate appeals filed by the assessee against two orders of the Assistant Commissioner confirming service tax demands and imposing penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) demanded an additional service tax amount for a specific period and enhanced the penalties based on the finding that the assessee concealed the correct taxable value from the Department.
2. The learned Consultant for the appellants argued that the tax liability enhancement and penalties imposed were illegal. They contended that the Department had no objection to the original authority's decision on tax liability for a particular period. The Consultant emphasized that the assessee did not deliberately conceal the correct taxable value, as evidenced by their ST-3 returns and covering letters, where they specified paying tax on service charges only due to pending legal matters.
3. The Department's representative argued that the additional tax demand was based on data provided by the assessee and highlighted the assessee's attempt to challenge the legality of service tax on certain components. The Department maintained that the assessee's actions indicated an intention to evade tax, especially considering their legal challenges and selective disclosure of gross values.
4. The Tribunal examined the submissions and rejected a preliminary objection regarding the imposition of penalties under Section 78, as the Assistant Commissioner's orders had the Commissioner's approval. The Tribunal noted that no appeal was filed against the original tax demands, leading to the dismissal of the additional tax demand. However, considering the deliberate non-payment of tax on certain components, the Tribunal upheld the finding of concealment by the lower authorities but reduced the penalties imposed, taking into account the circumstances and the statutory limits.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals to the extent of reducing the penalties imposed on the assessee for the two disputed periods. The Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of the case, balancing the deliberate non-payment with the assessee's legal challenges and beliefs regarding the applicable tax base, resulting in a reduction of the penalties to Rs. 1.5 lakh each for the respective periods.
This detailed analysis covers the issues of service tax demands, penalties, concealment of taxable value, and the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalties based on the specific circumstances of the case.
-
2003 (8) TMI 1
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore ruled that charging 'Padakanika' for religious functions like marriages is not taxable under the Service Tax Act, 1994. The tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision that the activity undertaken is not a taxable activity.
....
|
9911796707
