|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 682 Records
-
2007 (2) TMI 651
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application under Section 130A of the Customs Act.
2. Maintainability of the application under Section 130A of the Customs Act before the High Court.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue A: Territorial Jurisdiction
1. Arguments Presented:
- The respondent's counsel argued that the High Court in whose jurisdiction the original adjudicating authority is located (Trichy) has jurisdiction. The application should have been made to the Madras High Court, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgments in *Suraj Woolen Mills* and *Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-III v. Enkay HWS India Limited*.
- The applicant's counsel contended that the application under Section 130A should be filed in the High Court where the Tribunal is located (Mumbai). The doctrine of merger was emphasized, arguing that the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy merged with the appellate order of the Tribunal at Mumbai.
2. Court's Consideration:
- Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court to hear and determine a cause, which includes territorial jurisdiction.
- The court referred to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to understand the principles of territorial jurisdiction and the doctrine of merger.
- The court noted that the Customs Act does not explicitly specify which High Court should hear a petition under Section 130A.
- The court examined the interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 131C of the Customs Act and the relevant case law, including *Suraj Woolen Mills* and *Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd.*
3. Court's Decision:
- The court held that both the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Bombay have territorial jurisdiction over the Tribunal at Mumbai.
- The suitor has the choice to select the forum convenient to him when the cause of action falls within the territorial jurisdiction of two courts.
- The preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was overruled, and it was held that the application made before the Bombay High Court is maintainable.
Issue B: Maintainability of the Application under Section 130A
1. Arguments Presented:
- The respondent's counsel argued that the issues involved relate to the interpretation of exemption notification clauses, which ultimately relate to the value of goods for assessment purposes. Hence, as per Section 130E, the appeal should be maintainable before the Apex Court.
- The applicant's counsel distinguished the judgments cited by the respondent and relied on other Supreme Court decisions to argue that the application is maintainable before the High Court.
2. Court's Consideration:
- The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs*, which held that questions relating to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes fall within the meaning of the expression used in the Customs Act.
- The court also considered its own judgments in *Primella Sanitary Products* and *Auto Ignation Ltd.*, which followed the Supreme Court's decision in *Navin Chemicals*.
3. Court's Decision:
- The court found merit in the respondent's contention that the issues involved relate to the value of goods for assessment purposes.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in *Navin Chemicals*, the court held that the application filed by the revenue is not maintainable before the High Court.
- The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court overruled the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, holding that the application is maintainable before it. However, it upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application under Section 130A, concluding that the application is not maintainable before the High Court as the issues involved relate to the value of goods for assessment purposes. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 650
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and application of Sections 31, 32, and 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
2. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain a revision application.
3. Legal fiction created under Section 32(3) and its implications.
4. The finality of the Collector's endorsement under Section 32.
5. Applicability of Section 56(4) to Section 32.
6. Relevance of the legislative intent and statements of Objects and Reasons.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation and application of Sections 31, 32, and 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899:
The case primarily deals with the interpretation and application of Sections 31, 32, and 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh and applicable in Chhattisgarh. Section 31 empowers the Collector to determine the stamp duty chargeable on an instrument upon application. Section 32 mandates the Collector to certify by endorsement that the full duty has been paid. Section 56, specifically Sub-section (4), allows the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to revise the Collector's determination.
2. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain a revision application:
The appellants contended that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to revise the Collector's endorsement under Section 32. However, the judgment clarified that Section 56(4) was inserted by the Madhya Pradesh Amendment Act, 1990, to confer revisional powers on the Board of Revenue. This provision allows the Board to examine the correctness of the stamp duty determination by the Collector, irrespective of the endorsement made under Section 32.
3. Legal fiction created under Section 32(3) and its implications:
Section 32(3) creates a legal fiction that an instrument endorsed by the Collector is deemed duly stamped and receivable in evidence. The judgment emphasized that this legal fiction is confined to the instrument's admissibility in evidence and does not render the Collector's endorsement final or binding on the parties. The legal fiction does not preclude the revisional authority from examining the correctness of the stamp duty determination.
4. The finality of the Collector's endorsement under Section 32:
The appellants argued that the endorsement under Section 32 should be final and not subject to revision. The judgment rejected this argument, stating that the absence of a finality clause in Section 32 implies that the endorsement is not conclusive. The revisional power under Section 56(4) allows the Board of Revenue to review the Collector's determination to ensure the correct stamp duty is charged.
5. Applicability of Section 56(4) to Section 32:
The appellants contended that Section 56(4) does not apply to Section 32. The judgment clarified that Section 56(4) was specifically introduced to provide a mechanism for revising the Collector's determination under Section 31, which subsequently affects the endorsement under Section 32. The revisional power under Section 56(4) ensures that the correct stamp duty is assessed and collected, aligning with the fiscal objectives of the Act.
6. Relevance of the legislative intent and statements of Objects and Reasons:
The High Court referred to the statements of Objects and Reasons to interpret the statute, which the appellants argued was unnecessary. The judgment acknowledged that while the statements of Objects and Reasons can provide context, they should not override the clear and explicit meaning of the statute. The legislative intent behind the amendments to the Act was to prevent stamp duty evasion and ensure accurate assessment, which justifies the revisional powers conferred by Section 56(4).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. It held that the Board of Revenue has the jurisdiction to revise the Collector's determination of stamp duty under Section 31, which affects the endorsement under Section 32. The legal fiction created by Section 32(3) is limited to the instrument's admissibility in evidence and does not preclude the revisional authority from examining the correctness of the stamp duty assessment. The judgment underscores the importance of accurate stamp duty assessment to prevent revenue loss to the State. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000.
-
2007 (2) TMI 649
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax and penalty u/s 73 of Finance Act, 1994.
Issue 1: Maintainability of Show Cause Notice
The applicant argued that the Show Cause Notice issued u/s 73 of Finance Act, 1994 is not maintainable as they are deemed to be a person covered u/s 71A of the Act. The applicant relied on various decisions to support this claim. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Service tax paid on self-assessment basis is valid under the liability arising from Section 71A of the Act. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was cited by the respondent. After considering both arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the case at hand pertained to recovery of Service tax u/s 73 of the Act, where the liability to file return is under Section 71A. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had made a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of tax and penalty, allowing the stay application and waiving the pre-deposit requirement until the appeal's disposal.
-
2007 (2) TMI 648
Issues involved: Appeal against impugned order confirming demand and interest but setting aside penalties on grounds of procedural delays and compliance with Service Tax Law.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI heard an appeal filed by the revenue against an impugned order where penalties were set aside based on procedural delays. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and interest but waived penalties u/s 76, 75A & 79 due to the introduction of a Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for new assessees. The revenue contended that non-payment of Service Tax made the appellant liable for penal action. However, the Tribunal, considering a similar case in CCE v. Bhojpur Club, upheld the waiver of penalties for assessees who complied with paying Service Tax and interest. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
-
2007 (2) TMI 647
Issues involved: Appeal against Central Excise duty demand u/s 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, denial of benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E., imposition of penalty.
Central Excise duty demand: The appellants manufactured transmission line towers supplied to M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. without payment of duty u/s Notification No.108/95-C.E. However, a show cause notice was issued seeking duty payment as World Bank funding did not materialize. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 9.35,96,447 u/s 11A of the Act, but allowed adjustments for amounts already deposited by M/s PGCIL and CVD paid by them. The remaining amount was to be paid by the appellants along with interest u/s 11AB. No penalty was imposed.
Benefit of Notification No. 108/95-C.E.: The appellants argued that they fulfilled the conditions of the Notification as World Bank funding was received later. They cited precedents where similar benefit was allowed post-clearance. The Commissioner acknowledged the World Bank funding received by M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. in May 2004, fulfilling the conditions of the Notification. The absence of a specific time limit in the Notification to fulfill conditions was highlighted, leading to the appeal being allowed based on precedents from Bangalore and Mumbai Benches.
Imposition of penalty: The Commissioner refrained from imposing any penalty on the appellants, considering the genuine belief at the time of clearance that World Bank funding would be received, which was later vindicated. The entire project was under the aegis of the Government of India, Ministry of Power, further supporting the decision not to impose a penalty.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed based on the fulfillment of conditions of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. post-clearance, in line with precedents from other benches, and the absence of a specific time limit in the Notification for fulfilling conditions. No penalty was imposed considering the genuine belief and subsequent receipt of World Bank funding.
-
2007 (2) TMI 646
The appellate tribunal in Mumbai waived the interest amount of Rs. 1,78,153 for a Central Government unit due to a delay in payment of service tax from October 2000 to September 2002. The decision was based on a similar case where interest was waived by the Delhi Tribunal.
-
2007 (2) TMI 645
Issues involved: Contesting penalty u/s 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994 for non-collection of service tax.
Summary:
Issue 1: Contesting penalty under Sections 76 & 78 of Finance Act, 1994
The appellants did not contest the levy of service tax but were aggrieved by the penalty imposed under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. They argued that they had not collected the service tax amount from M/s. BSNL, the recipient of their services, as they believed the tax was only payable if the customer paid it. The appellants had already paid the service tax along with interest and sought waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, asserting that they were not suppressing any facts and acted in good faith.
Decision:
Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had promptly paid the service tax along with interest upon receiving the order. Considering the financial difficulties faced by the appellants and the fact that M/s. BSNL had not paid the service tax amount, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000 each under Sections 76 & 78 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, modifying the penalty imposed in the impugned order.
Separate Judgement:
No separate judgement was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2007 (2) TMI 644
Whether in making appointment of the appellant, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory rules were not complied with?
Whether it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?
-
2007 (2) TMI 643
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the compassionate appointment of the respondent.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in initiating suo motu contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. Validity of the termination of the respondent's appointment by the appellant institute.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Compassionate Appointment of the Respondent:
The respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Chowkidar in Class IV grade on a temporary basis after a gap of about 15 years following the death of his grandfather, Shri B.P. Sinha. However, it was later revealed that the respondent was not the natural grandson but the grandson of Shri B.P. Sinha's cousin brother. The Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule of equality in public employment, meant specifically for the widow or dependent children of the deceased employee to prevent the family from becoming destitute. The Court cited precedents, including *Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh* and *Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao*, to assert that appointments on compassionate grounds must adhere strictly to the constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16. The Court held that the respondent's appointment was illegal as it did not conform to the scheme of the Institute and was granted after an undue delay of 15 years.
2. Whether the High Court was Justified in Initiating Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings:
The High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant institute for allegedly flouting its judgment by terminating the respondent's services without a disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme Court questioned the justification for such proceedings, noting that the appellant institute, being a State under Article 12, is constitutionally obligated to ensure equality in appointments. The Court observed that the respondent's appointment was illegal and obtained through fraud, thus rendering it a nullity. The Court emphasized that principles of res judicata do not apply to orders passed without jurisdiction, as established in *Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu* and *Union of India v. Pramod Gupta*. The Court concluded that the High Court should not have initiated contempt proceedings, especially when the writ petition was still pending and the appellant acted bona fide in compliance with another High Court order.
3. Validity of the Termination of the Respondent's Appointment:
The termination of the respondent's appointment was based on the High Court's directions in a contempt case filed by Mithilesh Kumar, who alleged illegal appointments on compassionate grounds. The appellant issued a show cause notice to the respondent, and after finding his reply unsatisfactory, terminated his services. The Supreme Court held that the appellant acted within its rights and in compliance with the High Court's directive. The Court noted that the termination was justified as the respondent's appointment was illegal, and the appellant had provided an opportunity for the respondent to show cause. The Court concluded that the appellant's actions were bona fide and should not attract contempt proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent's appointment was illegal, the initiation of contempt proceedings was unjustified, and the termination of the respondent's services was valid. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to constitutional principles in public appointments and the limited scope of compassionate appointments.
-
2007 (2) TMI 642
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of judicial dishonesty and dereliction of duty.
2. Validity of granting bail on insufficient grounds.
3. Initiation and conduct of disciplinary proceedings.
4. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Judicial Dishonesty and Dereliction of Duty:
The appellant, a judicial officer, was accused of granting bail to an accused in a double murder case based on extraneous considerations and insufficient grounds. The allegations included the acceptance of illegal gratification, although no specific charge of receiving monetary consideration was framed. The complaint alleged that a sum of Rs. 80,000 was paid to the appellant for granting bail, but this was not substantiated with evidence. The enquiry conducted by a sitting Judge of the High Court concluded that there was no truth in the allegation of illegal gratification, but found that the bail was granted in disregard of judicial norms.
2. Validity of Granting Bail on Insufficient Grounds:
The appellant granted bail to accused Ram Pal, citing reasons such as the filing of the charge sheet, the accused being a student, his father's serious illness, and the fact that the Tehsildar who recorded the dying declaration was an acquaintance of the deceased. The High Court's enquiry found these reasons insufficient, especially considering the heinous nature of the crime and previous rejections of bail applications. However, the Supreme Court noted that co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court and that Ram Pal had been in custody for over a year, making the bail order justifiable.
3. Initiation and Conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The High Court initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant based on a complaint and the enquiry report. The Supreme Court observed that disciplinary actions should not be based solely on judicial orders unless there are strong grounds to suspect malice, bias, or illegality. The Court emphasized that the appellate and revisional courts are established to correct errors, and initiating disciplinary proceedings for judicial decisions could harm the independence and morale of the judiciary.
4. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed:
The appellant was initially punished by withholding two increments with cumulative effect, which was later escalated to demotion to the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division). The Supreme Court found this punishment disproportionate, especially considering the appellant's unblemished record of integrity and honesty. The Court highlighted that the punishment should be commensurate with the alleged lapse and set aside the High Court's judgments, restoring the appellant to his original rank and remitting the matter to the Full Court for reconsideration of appropriate punishment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and the initial order of withholding increments, directing the Full Court to reconsider the appropriate punishment. The appellant was to be immediately reinstated to the cadre of District Judge with all due monetary benefits. The Court emphasized the need for higher courts to protect judicial officers from frivolous complaints and ensure that disciplinary actions are justified and proportionate.
-
2007 (2) TMI 641
Issues involved: Appeal against denial of credit under Modvat Scheme based on investigation findings and validity of credit availed u/s duty paying documents.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order allowing credit of Rs. 2,17,821/- to the respondents who were engaged in manufacturing CR strips under the Modvat Scheme. Investigation in 2000 revealed discrepancies regarding the depot of the supplier, M/s. Majestic Industries Ltd., and the vehicle numbers on invoices. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by denying the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Commissioner found that the respondents had made payments for inputs through legitimate means, used the inputs in manufacturing final products, and had filed necessary returns without objection from the Revenue. The Revenue's contention regarding non-existent transporters and lack of evidence of input receipt was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the findings were unchallenged, and the credit availed in 1996 was valid despite the investigation in 2000. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the allowance of credit to the respondents.
-
2007 (2) TMI 640
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer order dated 4-1-2007.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Authority and jurisdiction under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
1. Legality of the transfer order dated 4-1-2007:
The petitioner, M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., challenged the transfer order dated 4-1-2007 issued u/s 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, transferring its assessment cases from Kanpur to New Delhi. The petitioner argued that the notice dated 10-11-2006 did not disclose the reasons for the proposed transfer, and the order was passed mechanically without independent application of mind by the respondent No. 1, who allegedly acted on the dictates of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-III, Delhi.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The petitioner contended that the lack of specific reasons in the notice deprived it of a fair opportunity to contest the transfer. The Court, however, found that the notice did provide brief reasons for the transfer, namely, the search conducted at the premises of M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd. and the need for coordinated investigation and meaningful assessment. The petitioner was given an opportunity to respond, and its objections were considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur.
3. Authority and jurisdiction under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Court examined the jurisdictional authority under sections 120 and 127 of the Income-tax Act. It held that the power to transfer cases is vested in the authorities, and the requirement of reasonable opportunity and recording of reasons was met in this case. The Court referenced several precedents, including *Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India* and *Ajantha Industries v. CBDT*, to affirm that the transfer order did not materially infringe on the petitioner's rights and was not arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the principles of natural justice were complied with, and the transfer order was legally valid. The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
-
2007 (2) TMI 639
Issues involved: Interpretation of service tax provisions regarding the classification of firms for levy of service tax on Engineering Consultancy services.
Summary:
The appellant, a steel manufacturing firm, prepared a feasibility study and earned income, which the service tax authorities alleged to be an Engineering Consultancy service liable for service tax. The appellant contended that only professionally qualified engineers and engineering firms were covered for the levy during the relevant period, and as a steel manufacturing firm, they should not be treated as an Engineering Firm for service tax purposes.
The appellant cited a Tribunal case where it was held that the levy during the relevant period applied only to Engineering Firms and not other firms. The appellant argued that this issue had been settled in favor of the assessee based on previous judgments.
The revenue, however, relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, which interpreted the term "engineering firm" broadly to include all classes of firms dealing with engineering. The appellant distinguished this case, stating that it concerned a limited engineering company and not all companies or firms providing engineering consultancy services.
The Tribunal found that the appellant's case was covered by a previous decision and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the judgments cited by the revenue did not apply to the present case, as they did not address the specific issue of whether firms rendering Engineering Consultancy services automatically became Engineering Firms for service tax purposes.
-
2007 (2) TMI 638
Issues involved: Pre-deposit of service tax amount along with penalty, liability of sub-contractor for service tax on stevedoring activity, waiver of pre-deposit, direction to main contractor regarding payment of service tax.
Pre-deposit of service tax amount: The appellants, providing service under C & F Agents Service, were also involved in the activity of stevedoring as a sub-contractor. Despite the main contractor having already discharged the service tax on this activity, the Department proceeded to recover the service tax from the appellants. The appellants contested this requirement of pre-depositing the service tax amount of Rs. 20,69,269/- along with penalty.
Liability of sub-contractor for service tax on stevedoring activity: The Tribunal observed that the main contractor had already paid the service tax on the stevedoring activity. Referring to relevant Tribunal rulings and a Trade Notice, it was concluded that the sub-contractor, in this case, the appellants, was not liable to discharge any service tax on the same activity. Therefore, the appellants were granted a waiver of pre-deposit based on the strong merits of their case as per the cited judgment and Circular.
Waiver of pre-deposit and direction to main contractor: The Tribunal allowed the stay application by granting a waiver of pre-deposit of the amount and staying its recovery until the appeal's disposal. Additionally, the Tribunal directed that the Revenue should not prevent the main contractor from making payment to the appellants in terms of the contract. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on 28th March 2007, with the Commissioner instructed to file a counter to the 'Grounds of the Appeal'.
Direction to main contractor regarding payment of service tax: The Assistant Commissioner had directed the main contractor not to make any payment of service tax to the appellants. However, considering that the appellants had been granted a full waiver of pre-deposit, the Tribunal granted consequential relief by allowing the main contractor to make payments to the appellants as per the contract terms. The matter was set to be heard finally on 28th March 2007.
-
2007 (2) TMI 637
Whether the order passed by the State of Maharashtra on June 21, 1995 in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') holding that no sufficient opportunity had been given to the land-owners before declaring their land to be excess and vacant land under the Act valid?
-
2007 (2) TMI 636
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal after condoning the delay. (Citation: 2007 (2) TMI 636 - SC)
-
2007 (2) TMI 635
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the agreement (whether it was an agreement for sale or a loan agreement).
2. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Agreement:
The primary issue was whether the agreement dated 11.05.1979 between the appellant and Respondent No. 1 was an agreement for sale or merely an agreement for a loan. The appellant contended that the agreement was a loan transaction, supported by similar agreements with other parties, and the default clauses indicated it was not meant to be acted upon as a sale agreement. The appellant cited Dadarao and Another v. Ramrao and Others [(1999) 8 SCC 416] to support this contention.
The Court, however, held that the agreement was indeed an agreement for sale. The agreement explicitly described the property, the consideration amount, and the terms of payment. The document was signed by both parties and attested by witnesses. The Court emphasized that a document must be read in its entirety to determine the intention of the parties. The default clauses, which stipulated damages for breach, did not negate the nature of the agreement as a sale contract. The Court distinguished the present case from Dadarao, noting that the agreement in Dadarao had different terms and was not a binding precedent due to its failure to consider relevant statutory provisions and earlier precedents.
The Court also referenced P.D'Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu [(2004) 6 SCC 649] and Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and Others v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Others [(2006) 7 SCC 756], which clarified that stipulations for damages in case of breach do not imply that the agreement was not for sale. The Court found no uncertainty or vagueness in the agreement and concluded that the parties intended to sell the property.
2. Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
The appellant argued that the courts below should not have exercised their discretionary jurisdiction to grant specific performance, especially considering the rise in property prices in Bangalore. The Court rejected this submission, stating that the rise in property prices is not a valid ground to refuse enforcement of a lawful agreement. The Court noted that the appellant had entered into multiple agreements for the same property, including one with his son-in-law, which was never acted upon. This indicated an attempt to defeat the lawful claim of Respondent No. 1.
The Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court, which had both decreed specific performance of the agreement. The appellant's failure to contest the agreement as a sham or nominal one at the earliest opportunity further weakened his case. The Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, holding that the agreement dated 11.05.1979 was an agreement for sale and not a loan agreement. The Court also upheld the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to grant specific performance, dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (2) TMI 634
Issues involved: Stay application and appeal regarding levy of service tax on technology transfer fee under Consulting Engineer Services.
Summary:
Issue 1: Levy of service tax on technology transfer fee
The appellants entered into agreements with foreign companies for technology transfer, paying fees exceeding &8377;1 Crore. Revenue levied service tax under Consulting Engineer Services u/s 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994. Appellants contested, citing the services under technology transfer agreements do not fall under consulting engineer's service. Tribunal noted various rulings supporting the appellants' position.
Issue 2: Commissioner's view
Original authority accepted Tribunal rulings and dropped proceedings. However, on revision, the Commissioner disregarded the judgments and took a different view. Tribunal held that the Commissioner should have followed the Tribunal's decisions, as he was bound by them. The Commissioner's independent view without considering the judgments was deemed incorrect in law. It was also pointed out that the Commissioner had dropped proceedings for another unit in a similar situation, indicating inconsistency in decision-making.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay application and appeal, providing consequential relief, as the issue was already covered by previous Tribunal decisions, and the Commissioner was expected to adhere to those precedents.
-
2007 (2) TMI 633
Whether the appellants have an equally efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit and thus the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked?
Whether the allotment was cancelled having regard to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as the subject allotment was illegal?
-
2007 (2) TMI 632
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of short-term capital loss on sale of SPNs.
2. Disallowance of foreign travel expenditure.
3. Disallowance of guest house expenses.
4. Disallowance of interest on interest-bearing funds advanced to subsidiary companies.
5. Disallowance of interest on the ground that interest-bearing funds were utilized for non-business purposes.
6. Taxation of reimbursement as perquisites.
7. Computation of book profit under Section 115JA of the IT Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Short-Term Capital Loss on Sale of SPNs:
The first issue relates to the confirmation of disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,60,84,408 arising from the sale of 4,08,960 partly paid secured premium notes (SPNs) of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (BDMC). The assessee company, engaged in the export and trading of clothes and chemicals, claimed a short-term capital loss on the sale of SPNs. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the loss, reasoning that the price paid for SPNs included the cost of detachable warrants, relying on accounting guidelines and a Supreme Court decision. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal, referencing multiple cases, concluded that the loss on the sale of SPNs should be allowed as a business loss, as the cost of SPNs could not be attributed to the warrants. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenditure:
The second issue involves the disallowance of foreign travel expenditure amounting to Rs. 21,28,441. The AO disallowed 2/3rd of the total foreign travel expenses incurred by key personnel, following the pattern of previous years. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 50% of the expenses incurred. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar disallowances had been confirmed in previous years.
3. Disallowance of Guest House Expenses:
The third issue pertains to the disallowance of guest house expenses. The assessee admitted that this ground is covered against them by the Supreme Court's judgment in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order disallowing the guest house expenses.
4. Disallowance of Interest on Interest-Bearing Funds Advanced to Subsidiary Companies:
The fourth issue concerns the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 99,128 on the grounds that interest-bearing funds were advanced to subsidiary companies without interest. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO to re-examine the commercial expediency of the advances.
5. Disallowance of Interest on Grounds of Non-Business Utilization:
The fifth issue relates to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 21,575, arguing that interest-bearing funds were used for non-business purposes, such as payment of advance tax and donations. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that interest on money borrowed for payment of income tax is not an allowable deduction.
6. Taxation of Reimbursement as Perquisites:
The sixth issue involves the taxation of Rs. 9,000 received as reimbursement for Goa property as perquisites under Section 17(2)(iv) of the IT Act. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1990-91, confirmed the CIT(A)'s order treating the reimbursement as perquisites.
7. Computation of Book Profit under Section 115JA of the IT Act:
The seventh issue pertains to the computation of book profit under Section 115JA. The AO increased the net profit by provisions for advances and debts considered doubtful. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's adjustments. The Tribunal, referencing the Special Bench decision in Jt. CIT vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd., concluded that provisions for doubtful debts and advances are not provisions for liabilities but for diminution in the value of assets. Therefore, such provisions should not increase the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JA. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to re-compute the book profit accordingly.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss on SPNs and the computation of book profit under Section 115JA. It upheld the disallowance of foreign travel expenditure, guest house expenses, and the taxation of reimbursement as perquisites. The issue of disallowance of interest on advances to subsidiaries was remanded to the AO for re-examination. The disallowance of interest for non-business utilization was confirmed.
........
|
9911796707
