|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 650 Records
-
2007 (5) TMI 618
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of excess sale amount as trading receipt.
2. Statutory liability under Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976.
3. Taxability of subsidy received from State Government.
Interpretation of excess sale amount as trading receipt:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred questions regarding excess sale amounting to Rs. 21,57,611 realized by the assessee-company, over and above the levy sugar price fixed by the Government. The Tribunal had to determine if this excess amount was a trading receipt, considering the interim order of the Calcutta High Court. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the amount was not a trading receipt for the year but would become taxable upon final disposal of the case by the competent Court. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 21,57,611.
Statutory liability under Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976:
The assessee claimed a deduction for a liability of Rs. 7,77,654 on account of interest payable under the Levy Sugar Equalisation Fund Act, 1976. The Assessing Officer had previously disallowed this deduction, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decided the issue in favor of the assessee based on the Tribunal's previous orders. Similarly, a liability of interest of Rs. 42,788 on excess realization for the sugar season 1971-72 was also allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) following the Tribunal's previous decisions.
Taxability of subsidy received from State Government:
The assessee received a subsidy of Rs. 20,11,000 against a purchase tax paid of Rs. 20,12,046. The Assessing Officer treated this subsidy as a trading receipt and taxable income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the subsidy was not a capital receipt and was taxable as a trading receipt. The Tribunal also agreed, emphasizing that the subsidy was received to assist the assessee in carrying on its trade or business, making it a trade receipt. The Apex Court's decision in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT supported this view. Consequently, the question referred at the instance of the assessee was answered in favor of the revenue.
In conclusion, the High Court answered all questions in favor of the assessee regarding the excess sale amount and statutory liabilities. However, the taxability of the subsidy received from the State Government was decided in favor of the revenue based on the nature of the subsidy as a trade receipt.
-
2007 (5) TMI 617
Disallowance in respect of Commission - commercial expediency - Payments on account of commission to any person for doing the liaison work - details of services rendered not established - notice sent by the Assessing Officer remained unserved - HELD THAT:- From the record it is apparent that the assessee was required by the Income-tax Authorities to file the requisite particulars and produce the concerned person for verification/examination. The assessee did not submit any confirmation from the DOT and MTNL because DOT and MTNL were not directly involved.
With regard to the names and addresses of the persons with whom the assessee interacted, it was stated by the assessee that there has been a lot of changes in the structure of M/s. SFL Industries Ltd. and details and whereabouts of the employees of M/s. SFL Industries were not available with the assessee. The assessee even did not file the copy of relevant bank account of M/s. SFL. The assessee also failed to explain as to what was the nature of the services provided by M/s. SFL, and no correspondence in this regard has been produced by the assessee in spite of specific opportunities granted.
No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law.
There are concurrent findings of the facts in the present case given by the three statutory authorities and in view of the fact that assessee has failed to provide the requisite information to the Assessing Officer, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the assessee are, hereby, dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 616
Applicability of Limitation Act 1963 - Held that: - the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have no application in relation to proceedings under the Central Excise Act - the Act as a special statute deals with the matter relating to limitation.
The High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in following the judgment of this Court in India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani [2002 (12) TMI 621 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that It is well-settled that by virtue of sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act the provisions of Section 12 are applicable for computing the period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law.
SLP dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 615
The appeal was allowed as the duty was paid before the show-cause notice, leading to the setting aside of the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, following relevant legal precedents.
-
2007 (5) TMI 614
Applicability of u/s 50 and 50A - Slump sale - long-term capital gain - cost of acquisition - disallowance of depreciation as a result of reduction of block of assets - Whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that the sale of Betalactum Division by the assessee company is a slump sale on which ss. 50 and 50A are not applicable and long-term capital gain has to be computed by indexing the cost of acquisition - HELD THAT:- It is evident that for a sale to be termed as a 'slump sale', it is not essential that all the assets and liabilities must be transferred. Even if some assets and liabilities are retained by the transferor, the sale would not lose the character of being a slump sale, if the transfer is of a going concern, on that basis and the transferee is in a position to carry on the business without any interruption. In the present case, the right to use the technical know-how developed by the assessee was granted by the assessee to the transferee against the payment of a separate consideration. The proprietary rights therein were retained till 30th June, 2000.
On facts, in view of the above numerous judicial pronouncements, it cannot be said that what the transferee acquired was not a going concern. Rather, after the transfer, the transferee carried on the business without any disruption therein. In CIT vs. West Coast Chemicals & Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation)[1976 (9) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], CIT vs. F.X. Periera & Sons (Travancore) (P) Ltd[1989 (12) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT], Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr. [2003 (4) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], and Asstt. CIT vs. Raka Food Products [2005 (6) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] amongst others, it has been held that in the case of a sale of an undertaking as a whole, on a going concern basis, if some assets are retained by the transferor or some liabilities are not taken over by the transferee, this fact does not render the slump sale as not a slump sale.
A similar view has been expressed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal for asst. yr. 1999-2000 and 5507/Del/2003, for asst. yr. 2000-01, in the case of M/s ECE Industries Ltd., [2006 (9) TMI 221 - ITAT DELHI-D]. Therefore, the findings of the learned CIT(A) in this regard are upheld.
Further, s. 50B of the IT Act has correctly been held by the learned CIT(A) as having no applicability to a slump sale, as in the present case. It is significant that this section was inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 1st April, 2000. It has not been stated to be applicable retrospectively. In the absence of any such specific statement, it can only apply prospectively.
Thus, we hold that there is no force in the grievance of the Department, by way of ground No. 1, that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the sale of the Betalactum Division of the assessee company was a slump sale and ss. 50 and 50A of the Act are not applicable and that the long-term capital gain has to be computed by indexing the cost of acquisition. Ground No. 1 is therefore, rejected.
Addition on account of expenses incurred for revaluation of the fixed assets - HELD THAT:- The facts are that the revaluation was got done on 31st March, 1997 and the sale took place on 1st July, 1997. It is evident that the assessee got the revaluation done for the purpose of the sale. The assessee has contended that this exercise was carried out in routine in order to secure finance from financers/financial institutions, for the business needs of the assessee. However, it is seen that such revaluation is not a regular feature of the assessee. At least no other such instance of revaluation, at any other point of time, has come on record.
Moreover, the assessee has also not placed on record any material to show that any finance was secured from the financial institutions/financers in pursuance of the said revaluation. Anyhow, the alternative contention of the assessee appears to be right and is accepted as such. This expenditure will be allowed to be deducted in computing the capital gain/loss on the transfer of the Betalactum Division, since this expenditure was incurred in connection with the said transfer. Ground No. 3 is, as such, accepted in the above terms.
Non-compete fee received by company that is "capital or revenue receipts"- HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is correct when it contends that the issue of taxability of non-compete fee being a legal one, even if the assessee did not press it before the AO, it could well have been pressed before the learned CIT(A), as was done. Further, it is also correct that all the facts being before the AO, the CIT having powers co-terminus with those of the AO, was not incorrect in not remitting the issue to the AO for decision. Moreover, evidently, the AO duly represented the case of the Department before the learned CIT(A) and no objection was raised regarding the assessee having not pressed the issue before the AO.
On merits, evidently, there has been no transfer of assets as envisaged u/s. 45 of the Act r/w s. 2(47) of the Act. The AO, pertinently, had agreed that the fee in question represented a capital receipt and not a business receipt. By signing the negative covenant, the assessee undertook not to carry out manufacture or trade of the products for a period of time. That being so, this act amounted only to a self-imposed restriction and not a transfer within the meaning of the Act. It was neither the sale or exchange or relinquishment of the asset, nor was any right therein extinguishable, the right to manufacture or trade remaining intact after the period for which the negative covenants were signed.
Thus, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issue on merits in favour of the assessee. Such finding of the learned CIT(A) is, therefore, hereby upheld. Ground No. 4 is thus rejected.
In the result, the appeal of the Department stands partly allowed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 613
Whether a particular employee comes within the definition of workman has to be decided factually?
Whether it affects the legal rights of individual workers in the context that if they fall within the definition then they would be entitled to claim several benefits conferred by the Act?
-
2007 (5) TMI 612
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of imported secondhand photocopying machines without import licence.
2. Enhancement of the value of imported goods by Customs authorities.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties on importers.
4. Adequacy of redemption fine and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Imported Secondhand Photocopying Machines Without Import Licence:
The party-appellants imported old/used photocopiers without the required import licence and filed Bills of Entry claiming clearance under OGL. These imports were made after the amendment of para 2.17 of the EXIM Policy 2004-2009, which required a specific licence for importing secondhand photocopiers. Consequently, the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The Customs officers conducted a 100% examination of the goods and confirmed that they were used photocopiers. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) upheld the confiscation of the goods due to the lack of the required import licence.
2. Enhancement of the Value of Imported Goods by Customs Authorities:
The Customs authorities proposed an enhancement of the value of the goods based on the appraisal by local Chartered Engineers, which was higher than the declared value. The importers waived the show-cause notice but requested a hearing, during which they argued for the acceptance of the declared value certified by the load port Chartered Engineer. The Commissioner rejected the declared value and determined a higher value based on the local Chartered Engineer's appraisal under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner rejected the declared value without valid reasons under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, as established in the cited cases of Eicher Tractors Ltd. and Tolin Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal ordered that the declared value of the goods be accepted for the purpose of duty assessment.
3. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalties on Importers:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods with an option for redemption against payment of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act and imposed penalties under Section 112(a) for rendering the goods liable for confiscation. The Tribunal noted that the value of the goods has a bearing on the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. Since the declared value was accepted, the fines and penalties needed adjustment. The Tribunal reduced the fines and penalties where they exceeded 15% and 5% of the declared value, respectively, and increased them where they were below these limits.
4. Adequacy of Redemption Fine and Penalties Imposed by the Adjudicating Authority:
The Revenue appealed for enhancement of fines and penalties, arguing that the amounts imposed were inadequate. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and adjusted the fines and penalties accordingly. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals to the extent of increasing the fines and penalties on specific importers.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods due to the lack of the required import licence. It ordered the acceptance of the declared value of the goods for duty assessment, rejecting the enhancement based on local Chartered Engineer's appraisal. The Tribunal adjusted the redemption fines and penalties, reducing them where they exceeded the prescribed limits and increasing them where they were below these limits. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the party-appellants to the extent of accepting the declared value and reducing fines and penalties, and allowed the Revenue's appeals to the extent of increasing fines and penalties on specific importers.
-
2007 (5) TMI 611
Issues involved: Challenge to order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on predeposit.
Summary:
The petition was filed against the Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to deposit a specific amount towards duty within a stipulated time frame. The Tribunal's decision was based on the dispute regarding the use of power by the company in question for mercerizing, with the Commissioner relying on statements and evidence to establish duty liability. The Tribunal noted the presence of electric connections and a Diesel Generating set, but the petitioner claimed the power was used for water and lighting purposes, not mercerizing. Despite retractions of statements, the Tribunal found the evidence in favor of the Revenue, indicating no prima facie case to dispense with the predeposit condition.
The Tribunal also considered the financial hardship plea of the petitioner, who submitted unaudited balance sheets. Given the significant duty amount outstanding and the prima facie observations against the petitioner, the Tribunal ordered a deposit of a specific sum within a specified period. Failure to comply would lead to dismissal of all appeals. The High Court, after reviewing the Tribunal's findings and the substantial duty amount owed, upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the petition.
However, the High Court provided an opportunity for the petitioner to have the appeal considered on merits if an immediate partial payment followed by the balance within a set timeframe was made. This conditional provision was made to allow for a review of the appeal by the Tribunal.
-
2007 (5) TMI 610
Issues involved:
The entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.
The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court directed the respondents to refund the amount with interest as per law within a specified period. A subsequent Misc. Civil Application by the Department questioning the petitioner's entitlement to interest on refund was rejected by the Division Bench, and these orders were not challenged further. The Department argued that interest is only admissible when a refund application is made, which the petitioner had not done. However, the petitioner contended that refund applications were indeed submitted before filing the petition, and as these were undisputed and the previous court orders were final, interest should be granted u/s 11BB of the Act. The Court found in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and directing the respondents to pay interest on the refund considering the application submission dates.
In conclusion, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that they are entitled to interest on the delayed refund as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. The Court emphasized the importance of timely refund processing and upheld the petitioner's claim based on the submission dates of refund applications and the finality of previous court orders. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal provisions governing interest on delayed refunds and the obligation of authorities to adhere to such provisions.
-
2007 (5) TMI 609
Issues Involved:
1. Remand of the matter to the Prescribed Authority by the High Court.
2. Relevance of subsequent events during the pendency of proceedings.
3. High Court's approach in dismissing the writ petition and granting liberty to file a fresh release application.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Remand of the Matter to the Prescribed Authority by the High Court:
The appellant challenged the judgment of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, which concluded that even if the decisions of the lower courts were erroneous in law, the matter needed to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority. The appellant had filed a release petition under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The High Court's decision to remand the matter was based on the prolonged passage of time since the original release application was filed, suggesting that bona fide need and comparative hardship may have changed.
2. Relevance of Subsequent Events During the Pendency of Proceedings:
The Supreme Court examined the relevance of subsequent events during the pendency of proceedings, citing several precedents. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, it was established that the court must take cognizance of events that occur after the commencement of proceedings if they have a fundamental impact on the right to relief. The court can bend procedural rules to promote substantial justice, provided no specific provision or fairplay is violated. This principle was reaffirmed in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, where the court emphasized that subsequent events should be considered to shorten litigation and enable complete justice.
3. High Court's Approach in Dismissing the Writ Petition and Granting Liberty to File a Fresh Release Application:
The appellant contended that the High Court's approach was erroneous, as it dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to file a fresh release application instead of deciding the matter. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order would unnecessarily prolong litigation. The court highlighted that the High Court should have considered the subsequent events and the prolonged pendency of the case to provide a just resolution. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to dispose of the matter within four months.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration, keeping in view the principles related to the relevance of subsequent events and the need to provide a just resolution without unnecessary prolongation of litigation. The court requested the High Court to dispose of the matter within four months, considering the long pendency of the case.
-
2007 (5) TMI 608
Addition on Undisclosed income - Notice u/s 158BC - search and seizure operation u/s 132 - found incriminating documents - Whether order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 158BC - HELD THAT:- In the present case, during the search, only ownership papers of the property were found and seized. No other incriminating document was found which may show that there was understatement of the purchase consideration or the cost of improvement. The papers with regard to the ownership will always be found with the owner and finding of such documents does not lead to any inference that either the purchase consideration or the cost of improvement has been understated. Since no document was found in the course of search leading to any adverse inference about the understatement. Thus, no computation of undisclosed income could have been made by resorting to the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
Hence, we hold that there is no basis for making an addition on account of undisclosed income in the present case and we do not see any reason to differ with the finding arrived at by the Tribunal.
No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involve a substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is, hereby, dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 607
Issues Involved:
1. Duty Demand and Penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944
2. Time Barred Proceedings
3. Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Goods
4. Process Loss and Production Figures
5. Discrepancy in Sales Figures
6. Penalty and Interest
Summary:
1. Duty Demand and Penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellant challenged the adjudication order dated 24/03/2003, which levied a duty demand of Rs. 17,80,911/- u/s 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with an equivalent penalty u/s 11AC and interest u/s 11AB. The demand was based on allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods (spring leaves) without payment of duty.
2. Time Barred Proceedings:
The appellant argued that the proceedings were time-barred and that the adjudicating authority arbitrarily determined the assessable quantity of excisable goods and their value. The appellant contended that normal process losses were not given due weightage, and there was no malafide intent to evade duty.
3. Clandestine Manufacture and Removal of Goods:
The Department's investigation revealed discrepancies in the appellant's records, indicating that 807.264 MT of finished goods were unaccounted for and clandestinely removed. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant failed to provide supporting evidence to counter the allegations, leading to the conclusion that the appellant suppressed production and removed goods without payment of duty.
4. Process Loss and Production Figures:
The appellant claimed that normal process losses occurred during manufacturing, but the adjudicating authority found these claims unsubstantiated. The authority noted that the appellant did not maintain proper records to prove stock positions and failed to demonstrate the stages of loss during production.
5. Discrepancy in Sales Figures:
The investigation found discrepancies between the sales figures submitted to the Excise, Income Tax, and Sales Tax authorities. The appellant's explanation for these discrepancies was deemed unsatisfactory. The adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant suppressed sales figures and actual manufactured goods, leading to the evasion of duty.
6. Penalty and Interest:
The adjudicating authority imposed an equal amount of penalty as the duty demand. However, the tribunal found that a penalty of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs would meet the ends of justice, while interest would be realizable according to law. The appellant's appeal was partly allowed to this extent, and the cross-objection by the revenue was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the adjudication order's findings on duty demand and clandestine removal of goods but reduced the penalty amount. The proceedings were deemed within the extended period and not time-barred. The appellant's claims of process loss and discrepancies in sales figures were rejected due to lack of evidence.
-
2007 (5) TMI 606
Issues involved: Challenge to grant of refund of duty, applicability of Supreme Court decision in Ram Body Builders case, unjust enrichment.
Challenge to grant of refund of duty: The Revenue challenged the grant of refund of duty to the Respondents by the Lower Appellate Authority. The Respondents were engaged in body building on chassis of vehicles, and duty of Excise became leviable on this activity post an amendment in April 1986. The duty payments made by the Respondents were "under protest" and registered under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Collector v. Ram Body Builders clarified the classification under Heading 87.07 of the CETA Schedule and the availability of SSI exemption to body-builders. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of this decision to the Respondents, holding they were not liable to pay duty during the disputed periods due to SSI exemption, leading to the Revenue's appeals.
Applicability of Supreme Court decision in Ram Body Builders case: The Revenue contended that the benefit of the Apex Court's decision in Ram Body Builders case was not available to the Respondents based on a Tribunal's previous decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the High Court had stayed the operation of the previous decision, making the applicability of Ram Body Builders to the Respondents open for consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the Apex Court's classification in Ram Body Builders was binding on all authorities and would apply to manufacturers of identical goods like the Respondents. Therefore, the Revenue's challenge on this ground was deemed unsustainable.
Unjust enrichment: The issue of unjust enrichment was also considered. The lower authorities had examined and decided on this question, with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluding that the refund claims were not affected by unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Appellant to counter this finding. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 605
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Procedural fairness in the valuation process.
4. Constitutionality of the Review Committee's powers and composition.
5. Impact of amendments on taxpayer rights and remedies.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994
The Supreme Court reviewed the amendments brought by the West Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994, which altered the process of valuation of lands and buildings for municipal tax purposes. The amendments removed provisions for the publication of draft valuation lists and the hearing of objections, making the Board's valuation final, subject to review under Sections 14 and 15 of the 1978 Act. The Court found that the amendments deprived citizens of a pre-decisional hearing, which is essential for procedural fairness.
2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
The amendments were challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, arguing that they deprived citizens of the right to be heard, which is a core principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that any order with civil consequences must be preceded by an opportunity of being heard. The Court cited several precedents, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, to highlight that arbitrariness in administrative actions is violative of Article 14.
3. Procedural Fairness in the Valuation Process
The Court scrutinized the procedural changes introduced by the Amendment Act. It noted that the valuation process conducted by casual employees, without proper expertise or oversight, was arbitrary and unscientific. The Court highlighted that the drastic increases in property valuations, ranging from 137% to 3954%, indicated arbitrariness and procedural unfairness. The lack of a pre-decisional hearing and the delegation of valuation tasks to unqualified personnel were deemed unacceptable.
4. Constitutionality of the Review Committee's Powers and Composition
The amendments altered the composition and powers of the Review Committee, making it less independent and more aligned with municipal interests. The Court found that the Review Committee's power was limited to modifying valuations by only up to 25%, and its decisions had to be unanimous, which diluted its effectiveness. The Court held that the Review Committee, being controlled by the Municipality and the Board, lacked the necessary independence to ensure fair and unbiased reviews. This structure was found to be in contravention of the principles of natural justice.
5. Impact of Amendments on Taxpayer Rights and Remedies
The amendments imposed a pre-deposit requirement for taxpayers seeking a review, which the Court found to be an unreasonable barrier to justice. The Court also noted that the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred, leaving judicial review as the only remedy, which is limited in scope. The Court emphasized the need for an independent and impartial body to address taxpayer grievances effectively. The lack of procedural fairness and the imposition of civil consequences without a proper hearing were deemed unconstitutional.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of the West Bengal Central Valuation Board (Amendment) Act, 1994, were unconstitutional as they violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The amendments were found to lack procedural fairness, deprive citizens of their right to be heard, and create an arbitrary and biased valuation process. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had declared the Amendment Act unconstitutional, was restored. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned Act was declared unconstitutional.
-
2007 (5) TMI 604
Levy of tax - whether tax can be levied only on actual sale consideration and not assessable value? - Held that: - The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the tax is leviable on actual sale consideration and not on assessable value of goods nor it can be based only on the sale consideration which might have been accepted by the Excise Department in the proceedings under the Excise Act. The appellate authority also held that the assessing authority merely on the basis of price shown in the excise proceedings, levied the tax whereas there is no material available on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the assessee has disclosed wrong consideration in his returns - sales tax revision dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 603
Issues Involved:1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acted arbitrarily and illegally. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing contrary orders for different assessment years. 3. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Summary:Issue 1: Arbitrary and Illegal Action by Tribunal The petitioner sought a review of the order dated 1.4.2004, which disposed of the appeal without addressing the framed questions. The assessment for the year 1993-94 included an amount of &8377; 53,82,059 collected as Central Sales Tax but not paid to the State Exchequer. The Assessing Officer included this amount in the petitioner's income, disallowing the deduction u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this amount, but the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, treating the amount as part of the trading receipt. Issue 2: Justification of Contrary Orders The petitioner argued that the Tribunal acted contrary to the High Court's previous judgment for the assessment year 1984-85, where it was held that Section 43B could not be invoked if no deduction was claimed. The petitioner cited similar decisions for subsequent years, which were not considered by the Tribunal. The High Court had previously ruled that the question of unpaid sales tax forming part of the trading receipt was not before it. Issue 3: Exceeding Jurisdiction The petitioner contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing issues not arising from the Commissioner's order. The Revenue argued that the amount was part of the trading receipt and taxable, regardless of the deduction claim. The Court acknowledged that it lacked the power of review u/s 260A of the Act but could exercise inherent power to correct fundamental errors. Judgment The Court recognized its inherent power to recall orders that overlooked fundamental judicial principles or previous decisions. It noted that the order dated 1.4.2004 overlooked earlier decisions of the Court and addressed a question not before it. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent power to recall the order dated 1.4.2004, allowing the review application and directing the appeal to be re-heard.
-
2007 (5) TMI 602
Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Petitioners
2. Enforceability of Contractual Liability under Article 226
3. Arbitrariness of Price Revisions
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue (a): Locus Standi
The respondents argued that the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not directly affected parties and had no privity of contract with the FCI. Specifically, in the case of Vaas Exports, it was noted that the buyer, M/s. Crossland Marketing (2000) Pte. Ltd., had already filed a writ petition which was dismissed. The court agreed, stating that the impact on Vaas Exports was remote and that it lacked locus standi. For the other two petitions, the court found that while the associations may advance the cause of their members, they failed to disclose specific details about the exporters they represented, making it difficult to ascertain the nature of the grievance. Despite these findings, the court proceeded to hear the submissions at length and did not dismiss the petitions solely on the ground of lack of locus standi.
Issue (b): Enforceability of Contractual Liability under Article 226
The petitioners sought a declaration that the FCI's circulars revising the prices were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that this dispute required interpretation of the contract clauses and determination of an enforceable contractual liability, which involved assessing whether there had been a breach of contract by the FCI. The court concluded that such matters, including the quantification of losses, involved disputed questions of fact and were inappropriate for resolution under Article 226. Therefore, the objection to the maintainability of the petitions on these grounds was sustained.
Issue (c): Arbitrariness of Price Revisions
The court noted that the scope of its powers under Article 226 in the realm of price revision was limited. It found no specific clause prohibiting the FCI from revising prices and concluded that the price was not intended to be fixed permanently. The price revision was based on the recommendation of a High Power Committee, and there was no evidence that this body lacked expertise or acted arbitrarily. Consequently, the court was unable to conclude that the price revisions were arbitrary or unreasonable.
Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel
The petitioners argued that the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel should apply as they had entered into further contracts with foreign buyers based on the initial prices. The court referred to precedents explaining these doctrines and emphasized that the expectation must be reasonable and based on previous practice or past conduct. The court found that the contract envisaged price fluctuations and that the buyers should have anticipated this risk. Therefore, the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel were not applicable in this case.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that no grounds for interference had been made out. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 each to the respondents within four weeks.
-
2007 (5) TMI 601
Whether the State Government can make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by Planning Authority or not?
Whether the constructions mentioned in categories 1 to 4 will not be treated to be in violation of clause (b) of D.C.R.-2.4.11?
-
2007 (5) TMI 600
Valuation - Transportation charges - the decision in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MANGALORE [2006 (7) TMI 495 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested, where it was held that the delivery charges should not be included for the purpose of Central Excise duty - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (5) TMI 599
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Compliance with Section 50 of the Act.
3. Examination of independent witnesses.
4. Voluntariness and reliability of confessional statements.
5. Chemical Analyst's report on the substance.
6. Sufficiency of evidence against the accused.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Compliance with Section 42 of the Act:
The appellants argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act were not complied with. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 42 was not applicable to the facts of the case as the arrest and seizure occurred at a bus stand, not in a building, conveyance, or enclosed place. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Section 43 of the Act, which does not require written information or reporting to a superior officer, was applicable. The Court found no substance in the argument regarding non-compliance with Section 42.
2. Compliance with Section 50 of the Act:
The appellants contended that the provisions of Section 50, which are mandatory, were not followed. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant was carrying a plastic bag, and according to the precedent set in State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, Section 50 does not apply to bags or containers. Therefore, the Court held that Section 50 was not attracted to the facts of this case. Additionally, the argument that the appellant was not informed of his legal right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was dismissed, as Section 50 was deemed inapplicable.
3. Examination of Independent Witnesses:
The appellants argued that the failure to examine the two independent witnesses who were present during the search was fatal to the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court held that while the non-examination of independent witnesses might require the evidence of official witnesses to be scrutinized with caution, it does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case. The Court found that the evidence had been critically scrutinized and found no reason to disagree with the lower courts' findings.
4. Voluntariness and Reliability of Confessional Statements:
The appellants claimed that their confessions were not voluntary and had been retracted. The Supreme Court reviewed the material on record and the concurrent findings of the lower courts, concluding that the confessions were voluntary and supported by other reliable evidence. The Court found no merit in the argument that the confessions were involuntary.
5. Chemical Analyst's Report:
The appellants challenged the Chemical Analyst's report, arguing that it did not specify the proportion of Diazepam in the sample. The Supreme Court noted that the quantity of Diazepam found (1.528 kilograms) was well above the threshold for a commercial quantity (500 grams), making the exact proportion irrelevant for sentencing purposes. The Court dismissed this argument.
6. Sufficiency of Evidence Against the Accused:
For appellant Ravindran, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no merit in any of the arguments presented. For appellant Peter John, the Court noted that his conviction was primarily based on his own retracted confession and the confession of a co-accused, Hiralal, who had been acquitted. The Court held that the benefit of doubt extended to Hiralal should also apply to Peter John, as there was insufficient reliable evidence to uphold his conviction. Consequently, Peter John's appeal was allowed, and his conviction and sentence were set aside.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of appellant Ravindran, upholding his conviction and sentence. However, the appeal of appellant Peter John was allowed, and he was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence.
........
|
9911796707
