|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 1469 Records
-
2021 (7) TMI 990
Refund of Container Detention Charges - violation of the Detention / Demurrage Waiver Certificate dated 27.10.2017 - unflavoured supari - despite the Detention Certificate, no action has been taken by the 4th respondent / Service Provider - HELD THAT:- Once the imported goods are confiscated by the Customs authorities, they became in possession of the goods and therefore, the Service Provider shall not levy any charges for the said confiscated goods. If at all any deposits are collected in this regard, the said deposits are to be refunded - In the present case, even the goods are not released and the Service Provider is claiming charges, which is in violation of the Detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the writ petition.
In the present case, admittedly, the goods are being maintained by the Service providers. On confiscation, the Customs authorities take possession. However, the goods are still under the custody of the Service Provider. The goods are not taken away from the premises of the Service Provider. Therefore, the grievances of the service provider are also to be looked into and considered, while granting the relief of release of the imported goods or refund of the deposits, if any made - this Court is of the considered opinion that in between disputes, more specifically, with the Service Provider and the importer or exporter has not been considered in any of these judgments relied upon by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Detention certificate issued under the provisions of the Customs Act is reiteration of the legal position, which is binding on the Service Provider. However, such Detention certificate cannot be the sole document for the purpose of grant of relief of refund or release of goods without further adjudication with reference to the disputes or grievances exists between the Service Provider, who is a private party and the exporter or importer.
The contractual relationship between the service providers, who is a private person and the petitioner cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Thus, based on the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs Authorities, the petitioner has to adjudicate the same before the Competent Forum or claiming recovery of refund - this being the nature of the Detention Certificate issued under the Regulations, this Court is of an opinion that mere issuance of Detention Certificate would not confer any right to get refund directly from service provider, who is a private party. The contract between the service provider and the importer and exporter are to be considered and terms and conditions are to be looked into with reference to the facts and an adjudication on the factual aspects, became imminent, and such an exercise cannot be done in a writ proceedings.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 989
-
2021 (7) TMI 988
GST registration - registration was granted but at a later date i.e., 09.03.2018 - inability to comply with the requirements in terms of the statutes for the period from 01.07.2017 to 09.03.2018 - HELD THAT:- There are merit in the submission that the fresh registration on 09.03.2018 having been obtained by the petitioner in terms of the interim order issued, an opportunity for statutory compliance for the period prior to 09.03.20218 ought to be provided. At the same time, there is substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that it is technically impossible to make changes in the GST portal for providing opportunity for an individual assessee to comply with the statutory requirements from a date prior to its registration.
The only possible manner in which the issue can be resolved is for the petitioner to pay tax for the period covered by provisional registration from 01.07.2017 to 09.03.2018 along with applicable interest under Form GST DRC-03 dealing with intimation of payment made voluntarily or made against the show cause notice (SCN) or statement. If such payment is effected, the recipients of the petitioner under its provisional registration (ID) for the period from 01.07.20217 to 09.07.2018 shall not be denied ITC only on the ground that the transaction is not reflected in GSTR 2A. It will be open for the GST functionaries to verify the genuineness of the tax remitted and credit taken.
This writ petition is filed by one of the concerns that had purchased goods from the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17235 of 2020. The grievance is regarding issuance of Ext.P2 intimation in Form GST DRC-01A, despite payment of tax in full for the purchases effected. In view of the directions in W.P.(C) No.17235 of 2020, nothing survives for consideration herein.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 987
Principles of natural justice - matter was adjudicated ex-parte, in the absence of the petitioner - petitioner did not appear before the respondent - levy of service tax in respect of service rendered to members - HELD THAT:- One more opportunity can be extended to the petitioner to present its case before the respondent. It is true that a person who did not avail of the opportunity for hearing cannot later complain about violation of principles of natural justice. However, considering the fact that Ext.p11 request was made citing the COVID-19 pandemic and considering the fact that it the specific case of the petitioner that E-mail dated 03-03-2021 fixing the date of hearing on 25-03-2021 had not come to the notice of any of the office bearers of the petitioner, it is only appropriate such opportunity is extended to the petitioner.
It is settled law that when an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - the respondent shall adjudicate Ext.P7 show cause notice afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 986
Violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act - What exact violations raised - HELD THAT:- On going through Exhibit P3 show cause notice issued by the Deputy General manager of SEBI dated 13th March, 2020, we could not locate any such eventuality, apart from the same being explanatory in nature, enabling an aggrieved person to identify the exact violations raised against him and submit a reply understanding the gamut of the issues.
Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that SEBI has power to initiate action against the appellant for violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 - minute intricacies of the issues raised in regard to the power of the Deputy General Manager of SEBI, the question of limitation etc. are all aspects to be considered by the statutory authority in terms of the provisions of Act, 1992 and the regulations thereto discussed above. That said, the issues raised by the appellant in respect of the power of the authority under the Companies Act, 1956 vis-a-vis the Companies Act, 2013 are all matters, which can be raised before the statutory authority. This we say because, from the show cause notice it is clear that the violations are relating to the years 2007-2013 during which period the Companies Act,1956 was in force.
We are also conscious of the fact that when the functions of an authority are regulated and controlled by clear statutory provisions and without any inhibitions created, we have no reason to think that the said authority would not adjudicate the issues in terms of law.
-
2021 (7) TMI 985
Liquidation process - J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. has been asserting rights on the basis of being part of Committee of Creditors and Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- Application by the Adjudicating Authority, the same was dismissed as infructuous and period of CIRP was extended. In 9th CoC Meeting dated 10.09.2018, as plans received were not viable CoC again decided to file for Liquidation and I.A. No. 376 of 2018 was filed by Resolution Professional on 25th September, 2018.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1219 of 2019 read with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1327 of 2019
Direction of refund of money to Dr. Tandon and others - Order/direction as may be issued by Competent Court in pending litigation - it is claimed that when the Adjudicating Authority accepted that Dr. Tandon and others were not financial Creditors and that their claim was time-barred, the Adjudicating Authority could not have directed the Resolution Professional to return the money as has been directed - HELD THAT:- It is claimed in state of Madhya Pradesh in view of Section 17(1) clause ‘f’ added Registration Act, 1908 document which purports or operates to effect any contract for sale of any immovable property is required to be compulsorily registered. Under Section 49 such document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. Dr. Tandon and others did not show copy of registered sale-deed to show that it was executed by authorized representative and thus they were not allottees of Real Estate Project. It is argued that Dr. Tandon and others could not be treated as Financial Creditors.
The Adjudicating Authority erred in not considering such documents and it came to the wrong conclusion that Dr. Tandon and others could not be treated as Financial Creditors. As per the amended definition of Section 5(8) which added the Explanation, Dr. Tandon and others were required to be treated as allottees to Real Estate Project and to have been treated accordingly - It was also error on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to state that agreement of sale was dated 31st March, 2012 and thus the claim was time22 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1176, 1203, 1219 & 1327 of 2019 barred.
Whether or not Corporate Debtor could have ultimately executed Sale Deed is not relevant in the facts of case read with provisions of IBC. Resolution Professional/Liquidator could not have asked Dr. Tandon & Ors. to first show No Objection of HUDCO or show document to prove that Mr. Amresh Pandya had authority without which the Resolution Professional outright refused to look into the document of Agreement to Sell which was coupled with huge amounts admittedly received in accounts of Corporate Debtor and reflected in Audited Returns - The Appellants in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1327 of 2019 are at liberty to request the Liquidator to act on the claim as they had filed during the period of CIRP or they may submit their fresh updated claim with the Liquidator under Regulation 18 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016. The Liquidator is directed to receive the same and act according to law.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1203 of 2019
Refund of the advance given as security deposit - no lease deed was signed between the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant No. 2 even after the expiry of the period and the Corporate Debtor failed to hand over the shop to the Appellant No. 2 - HELD THAT:- Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 claimed to have registered lease deed in their favour executed in 2011 and both of them then claimed that subsequently they executed lease deed in favour of the Corporate Debtor for the same space for which they had entered into lease deed by other documents of leave and licence executed in 2013. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 claimed that the said documents of leave and licence were in the nature of assured returns. Their claims appear to be in the nature of claiming rent. These Appellants have tried to draw parity with the case of Dr. Tandon and others where the document was of the Agreement to Sell. These Appellants cannot seek to be treated similarly with Dr. Tandon and others - Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 cannot be considered as Financial Creditors. As regards the Appellant No. 2, it is only a claim for return of security deposit for which already litigation was raised before the District Consumer Redressal Forum - the Adjudicating Authority rightly directed these Appellants to file their claims before the Liquidator.
Appeal stands disposed with direction to the Liquidator to receive the claims made by these Appellants (if not already made) and treat the same appropriately under the provisions of law.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1176 of 2019
Seeking direction to set aside Liquidation order - HELD THAT:- Impugned Order shows that Section 7 of IBC Application in the matter was admitted on 14.09.2017. The Liquidation Order has been passed on 20th September, 2019. Clearly much more period than what Section 12 of IBC prescribes was consumed. The prayer of the Appellant to set aside the Liquidation Order for reasons stated against the Resolution Professional/Liquidator cannot be granted as in the set of facts Liquidation is the necessary consequence if in the time prescribed under Section 12 of IBC Resolution Plan has not become possible - As regards, averments made against the Resolution Professional/Liquidator, as IBBI which is the regulatory authority for Resolution Professionals has already been ceased of the matter we need not deliberate over those issues and leave them for IBBI - the appeal cannot be allowed.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 984
Addition u/s 36 - Excess of the provision for bad and doubtful debts - provision for non-performing asset but actually with the provision has been created for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36 - HELD THAT:- Profit and loss account assessee debited being provision for non-performing assets and being provision for standard assets this shows that the excess of the provision has not been claimed by assessee under section 36(1)(viia) has not been claimed. We therefore do not find any reason for the disallowance to be upheld.
Accordingly these grounds raised by assessee stands allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 983
Assessment u/s 153C - no order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed - assessee submitted that proceedings u/s 153C of the Act can be initiated only if incriminating material is found in the case of a searched person belonging to the other person against whom proceedings u/s153C of the Act are sought to be initiated - HELD THAT:- The assessment for the relevant AY was open assessment not having been concluded pursuant to the original return of income filed by the Assessee either by an order u/s.143(3) or by non issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, within the time period prescribed for issue of such notice before the date of search. In this regard, we also notice that in the present case, the assessee filed return of income on 15.10.2007 and no order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed.
The search in the case of Shri. N. Krishna based on which proceedings under section 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee took place on 26.08.2008. The time limit for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08 was available to the AO till 30.09.2008. Since the search was conducted on 26.08.2008 in the case of Shri. N. Krishna, the proceedings against the assessee would not be hit by the proviso to section 153A of the Act and the proceedings can be initiated and additions can be made even in the absence of any incriminating material because such proceedings will be considered as abated proceedings in which scope of making additions will be much greater.
The issue with regard to validity of initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act has to be held in favour of the Revenue.
-
2021 (7) TMI 982
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under section 85 (3) of the Finance Act - Rejection of refund claim - HELD THAT:- Initially the appellant was advised to file a representation before the Chief Commissioner against the order dated 26.10.2009, but subsequently, the counsel who was contacted, after the Range Officer informed the appellant that no appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), advised that an appeal was required to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), that an appeal was filed on 13.05.2010.
We are satisfied from the averments made in the delay condonation application that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The delay, is, accordingly condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed within time before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as is possible since the Adjudicating Authority had passed the order in 2009 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 981
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We find that during the year, no exempted income was received by the assessee and therefore, following the finding of case of Cheminvest Ltd.[2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT]the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. The ground of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed.
Prior period expenses disallowance - CIT(A) has allowed relief in respect of expenses of store and spares and expenses in respect of the contract holding that same were crystallised in the year under consideration - assessee has demonstrated that liability has been crystallised in the year under consideration and therefore, the Learned CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance - HELD THAT:- We uphold the finding of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 980
Addition u/s 41(1) - HELD THAT:- The contention of the assessee merits consideration that the provisions under section 41 (1) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. This view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Vardhaman Overseas [2011 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly applied the law to the facts of the case and reached an unassailable conclusion.
We accordingly hold that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) do not suffer any illegality or irregularity and they cannot be disturbed. Consequently grounds of appeal of Revenue are found devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. In view of our findings in the appeal of the Revenue, the cross objections become infructuous and are also liable to be dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 979
Dissolution of the Corporate Person - voluntary liquidation - Section 59(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- On the Petition filed by the Liquidator under sub-section 7 of Section 59 of the Code for dissolution of this Corporate Person, it is noticed that the affairs of the Corporate Person have been completely wound up and its assets are liquidated. This Corporate Person, through its Liquidator, voluntarily liquidated itself so as to get dissolved, therefore, this Corporate Person is dissolved directing the Liquidator to file this order with concerned Registrar of Companies and IBBI within 14 days thereof.
This Company Petition is allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 978
Addition u/s 68 - related party transaction - CIT(A) has returned a finding of fact that, provisions of section 68 are in applicable, as assessee has proved the identity of the creditor capacity as well as the genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- Manpower supply service charges paid by assessee, CIT(A) notes that as long as M/s. LDC Holding Pvt. Ltd. is genuine, no addition could be made in the hands of assessee under section 68 - assessee had filed ledger accounts showing the payments made to LDC Holdings Pvt. Ltd., in respect of manpower supply service charges and that in the subsequent financial year the entire amount outstanding was paid by assessee. It is also been recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that provisions of section 68 of the Act would not have any application to the said liability shown by assessee to M/s. LDC Holding Pvt., for the year under consideration.
No-fault could be profound in the view taken by the Ld. CIT (A). Merely because M/s. LDC Holding Pvt. Ltd., outsourced solar plant installation work to a third-party, would not make the transaction to be bogus. Similarly, in respect of manpower supply charges paid by assessee, except for the allegation by the Ld. AO that the employees who rendered services to assessee were related to the director of assessee would not lead to a conclusion that the necessity of such services were not required by assessee. In any case there is no evidence brought on record by the Ld. AO that assessee was not in requirement of any manpower supply services or that the solar plant machine was not installed by assessee.
Application of section 68 - The amount under consideration are expenses in the hands of assessee. Section 68 cannot be applied in the present facts of the case as there is no cash credits in the books of account of assessee. Thus in our view addition made in the hands of assessee by invoking provisions of section 68 are misconceived and has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2021 (7) TMI 977
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of residuary balance of peak credit in foreign bank account with HSBC, Geneva - HELD THAT:- Once the addition in dispute has been set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh, the penalty levied in respect of the addition cannot be survived and it would be at the discretion of the Assessing Officer to re-initiate the penalty proceedings as per law. Accordingly, penalty levied in the case of the assessee is deleted. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 976
Deduction u/s 54B - Agriculture land purchased in the name Individual on behalf of HUF - Sale of agriculture land owned by HUF - Rejection of claim in respect of purchase of agricultural land against the LTCG eligible for deduction u/s.54B - Assessee is Hindu Undivided Family - HELD THAT:- Entire purchase consideration for agricultural land was paid by utilizing money of HUF. We note that Purchase Deed is in the name of the Coparcener ( one of the HUF members). However, the property (land) is owned by HUF. The property (land) is shown in the Balance Sheet of HUF. The Co-parcerner of the HUF may hold property on behalf of the HUF. The HUF money was utilized to purchase the said agricultural land.
HUF is doing agricultural activities - in case of a company, a property may be registered in the name of the Director, because company is an artificial person which can not talk, walk and think, however, the Directors do all the activities on behalf of the Company, therefore, just because property is registered in the name of director does not mean that director is owner in substance. In substance, the Company will be treated as owner of the property. Likewise, HUF is also an artificial person which can not talk, walk and think, however, the Coparceners (member of HUF) do all the activities on behalf of the HUF.
In substance, the HUF is owner of the said agricultural land though it is registered in the name of the Coparcener, as the HUF is enjoying all the fruits of the said agricultural land. Thus, the HUF is entitled to claim exemption/deduction under section 54B - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (7) TMI 975
Disallowance on interest expenditure - Suffiecny of own funds - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled proposition of law that the interest disallowance is not called for when the own funds available with the assessee is more than the amount of interest free advance given. In the instant case, we have already seen that the own funds available with the assessee is in excess of the value of the amount of investment and interest free loan. Hence, the tax authorities are not justified in disallowing the interest claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance.
-
2021 (7) TMI 974
Levying penalty u/s 271D - Accepting loan / deposits in cash from relatives - assessee failed to comply with the provisions of section 269SS - HELD THAT:- We notice that assessee has taken loan from her relatives in various dates in cash in order to meet her higher education expenses. We notice that all these loans were taken from close relatives for the purpose of higher education.
As held in CIT versus Balaji Traders [2006 (12) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] that when there is an immediate need of money the person cannot get it immediately from a nationalized bank. To satisfy such immediate requirement of money a person normally approaches the moneylender or a friend or relative who could lend money immediately. In those circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee has entered into a transaction to avoid the payment of tax or to defraud the revenue. Even in this case, the assessee has taken loans from relatives to finance her higher education. We do not see any reason to impose a penalty in the circumstances of this case where the assessee has taken loan from her relatives without approaching any banking institution. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the revenue authorities are deleted. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 973
Classification of supply - supply of services or not - pallets, crates and containers leased by CHEP India Private Limited located and registered in Karnataka to its other GST registration located across India - Valuation for calculation of GST - GST charged on lease charges or the value of equipment in terms of Section 15 of the CGST Act and KGST Act read with relevant Rules - documents that should accompany the movement of goods from CUPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Kerala - movement of equipment from CIPL, Kerala to CIPL, Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL, Karnataka - movement of goods or not.
Whether the transfer of assets on lease to his own branches having separate registrations in other States could be termed as “Lease” and accordingly taxable as supply of services? - HELD THAT:- Section 9(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 mandates that the levy of tax on the intra-State transactions of supply and Section 22 and 24 requires all taxable persons who are located in a State to obtain registration in that State. Since GST is a tax within the State and registrations are State-specific, the transactions of interstate nature are brought under the IGST Act and the Centre is liable to collect the tax and apportion the same to the Centre and States based on the destination of such goods or services as GST is a consumption based tax. Therefore all stock transfers from one State to another state are treated as supplies and would be covered under the term “transfer”. Since the registrations are state-specific, the transactions between the two entities of the same concern would be covered under deemed supplies between two deemed distinct persons.
Since the applicant states all the goods are purchased in the account of CIPL, Karnataka, as per the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, the goods are held to be in the account of CIPL, Karnataka as owned assets and in the account of CIPL, Kerala as leased assets, for which CIPL, Kerala is liable to pay consideration for the lease transactions - Further, since the two entities are deemed to be distinct persons, and the transfer of goods are effected from CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Kerala without any transfer of ownership of such goods, the same amounts to supply of service as per entry no. 1(b) of the Schedule II to the CGST Act which states that “any transfer of right in goods or of undivided share in goods without transfer of title thereof, is a supply of services.”
Valuation of supply - HELD THAT:- The transaction value which is the price actually paid cannot be treated as the value of supply as the supplies are between the related persons, i.e. the branches of the same company - the recipient, CIPL, Kerala who is the recipient of the goods is eligible for full input tax credit on the transaction between the applicant and the CIPL, Kerala and hence the value declared in the invoice would be the value of supply of goods or services or both as per the second proviso to Rule 28 and hence would be treated as the value of such supply.
What documents should accompany the movement of goods from CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Kerala? - HELD THAT:- In the pertinent case, as the goods are moving out of the State as a consequence of a lease transaction which is a service, the applicant has the option of issuing the tax invoice either before the provision of service or after the provision of service and in case the applicant opts to issue the tax invoice after the provision of service, the time limit in terms of Rule 47 is applicable. This means to say, that there is a possibility that the invoice may not be issued at the time of provision of service.
It is seen that the applicant is not supplying goods, but services which involve the movement of such goods given on lease/ rent and hence they are liable to issue a delivery note as per Rule 55 at the time of removal of such goods for the purposes of renting. Further, they shall also generate an e-way bill for movement of such goods as per Section 138(1) based on the details of such delivery note before the movement of such goods and consignment value of the goods shall be the market value of such goods and not the value of supply of services involved in such transaction.
Movement of goods from CIPL, Kerala to CIPL, Tamil Nadu on the instruction of CIPL, Karnataka - HELD THAT:- CIPL, Kerala would be acting in two capacities, first as an independent entity under the CGST Act for the leased goods while the lease contract of the specific goods is in force and next as a bailee of CIPL, Karnataka. Once the lease contract is over and the goods are no more under the control of CIPL, Kerala. If the goods are to be transferred immediately after the contract of lease is over, the CIPL, Karnataka should enter into the lease transaction with the CIPL, Tamil Nadu and raise a delivery note and e-way bill with ship from address as “CIPL, Kerala” and Ship to address as “CIPL, Tamil Nadu” for those specific goods which are given on lease or rent and in effect, it would amount to CIPL, Karnataka picking the goods and sending to CIPL, Tamil Nadu.
It cannot be said that the goods are moving not as a result of supply under section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. It cannot be termed as a mere movement without any involvement of supply and the said transaction of supply of goods on rental or lease basis by CIPL, Karnataka to CIPL, Tamil Nadu and is liable to tax in the hands of CIPL, Karnataka if the transaction is between CIPL, Karnataka and CIPL, Tamil Nadu. Further the services provided by CIPL, Kerala to CIPL, Karnataka in facilitating the transportation of goods to CIPL, Tamilnadu are exigible to GST - from the applicant's point of view, his lease contract with CIPL, Kerala is continuing and the goods leased should ultimately come back to the applicant from CIPL, Kerala and CIPL, Kerala is liable to pay lease rentals to CIPL, Karnataka.
Documents needed to be carried - HELD THAT:- The documents to be carried for the movement is a delivery note and e-way bill issued by CIPL, Karnataka if the movement is as a result of supply by CIPL, Karnataka or a delivery note and e-way bill issued by CIPL, Kerala is the movement is as a result of supply by CIPL, Kerala.
-
2021 (7) TMI 972
Seeking grant of Bail - illegal transfers of valuable foreign exchange - allegation of transmission of more than ₹ 518 Crores to the alleged exporters from Hong Kong - HELD THAT:- Without going into the question whether the rigor of Section 45 of the Act would still apply as a result of the amendment, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of bail principally for the reasons:
a. The length of custody undergone by the appellant as against the maximum sentence that could be visited upon the appellant under the offences in question.
b. The fact that the investigation in the matter is complete and draft charges have been circulated.
c. All other three co-accused have been released on bail.
Subject to the appellant furnishing cash security in the sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the appellant shall be released on bail, subject to other conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose - appeal allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 971
Compounding of offence - Price rigging and insider trading in the scrip of the Company - IPO issues - SEBI’s Investigation and the criminal complaint - HELD THAT:- The nature of the allegations against the appellant are such so as to preclude a decision to compound the offences. We have adverted, in a considerable amount of detail, to the circumstances which have been narrated in the counter affidavit filed by SEBI.
We find merit in the submissions which has been urged before the Court by learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of SEBI that the allegations in the present case involved serious acts which impinged upon the protection of investors and the stability of the securities’ market. The observation in the order of adjudication of the Chairperson of the SEBI dated 22 September 2000, that no loss has been caused to the investors as a result of the proposal which was submitted by the promoters to purchase the shares at the rate of ₹ 12 per share, would not efface the element of alleged wrong doing.
Such alleged acts of price rigging and manipulation of the prices of the shares have a vital bearing on investors’ wealth and the orderly functioning of the securities market. SEBI was, therefore, justified in opposing the request for the compounding of the offences. The matter was referred to the HPAC constituted by SEBI and presided over by a former judge of the Bombay High Court, which denied the request for compounding. This decision which has been taken by SEBI is not mala fide nor does it suffer from manifest arbitrariness. On the contrary, having due regard to the nature of the allegations, we are of the view that an order for compounding was not warranted. Judgment of the High Court of Delhi Affirmed.
............
|
9911796707
