|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1721 Records
-
2024 (9) TMI 1563
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 24(b) - AO had disallowed the claim on the basis of the Inspector's report that the premises were demolished and the construction work was being done - HELD THAT:- We observe from the record submitted before us that it was found by Ld CIT(A) that the ITI report was submitted after analyzing the position of the property in the year of inspection i.e., during 2011 and the claim made by the assessee during the current FY ie., 2008-09. We cannot rely on the report collected on the existence and occupation of the assessee, when the same was vacated by the assessee due to relocation. It is fact on record that the assessee was incurring interest expenditure for the purpose of taking loan on redevelopment of the house. The issue is whether the assessee has occupied the house during the current AY. The possible evidence which a normal person submits to prove are, electricity bill, land line telephone bills. CIT(A) has accepted the telephone bill as possible claim of the assessee. We do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the Ld CIT(A), accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
GP rate estimation - Rejecting books of accounts - HELD THAT:- We observed from the record that the AO analyzed the financials of the assessee submitted before him and noticed that the assessee has achieved the turnover many fold compared the previous year and there is decline in the GP declared by the assessee. It is relevant to note that he has analyzed the combined financial data of two types of business carried on by the assessee viz., Trading and manufacturing.
The assessee should not have missed the opportunity of retaining the profit of previous year. We noticed that previous year, it has achieved 9.39%, if we remove the manufacturing GP of 7.17% (considering the increase in sales and absolute increase in the GP in Manufacturing activities, the declared results seems to be acceptable), the difference of profit is 2.22%, whereas it has actually achieved 0.50%. We cannot expect to receive similar margin in the trading activities also. The risk factor is very less and hence the expected profit also thin.
Due to increase in volume of sales achieved in trading, the GP achieved is not at mark and in our view, it should have achieved at least 2% of the sales, without going into the intricacies like competition, heavy discounts offered merely to achieve sales target etc., in our view, it could have been at 2%. The difference of GP of 1.5% on trading activities, propose to sustain the addition will meet the ends of justice. We propose the above addition due to the fact that the assessee has not maintained the cash discount offered to customers, this is the grey area otherwise, the trading results cannot be rejected as all the bills of purchase and sales are properly accounted. Therefore, we are inclined to direct the AO to sustain 1.5% of trading sales as additional GP. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed.
TDS u/s 194J on payment of rent - disallowances of rent expenditure made u/s 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- We observe that the assessee utilizes lot of weavers in its business and they are the back bone of the business. It made certain arrangement with the workers and allowed certain allowance by offering them rent and also taken up godowns for its business purpose. It is brought to our notice the submissions made before CIT(A) and the break up of the payments are small and within the limits prescribed under the provisions of section 194J. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Disallowance of Freight expenses and auditors fee u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:-As observed that the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the submissions of the assessee by observing that the amended provisions in section 40(a)(ia) are applicable prospectively and not applicable to AY 2009-10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that it is applicable retrospectively. By respectfully, relying on the above decision, we are inclined to direct the AO to delete the disallowance made in the case of Audit fees. Accordingly, the ground no 2 is allowed.
Addition of Freight expenses - We are inclined to direct the AO to consider the delete the amount relating to the income offered by these two parties. With regard to other disallowances, the assessee accepted that they have not maintained proper records and also paid the freight charges in cash. It is difficult to control this aspect and we are inclined to sustain the above said additions excluding the two parties. Accordingly, ground no.1 is partly allowed.
Addition u/s 40A - expenses incurred in cash exceeding the limit prescribed - We observed that the assessee made a plea before Ld CIT(A) that the payments were made during the year in different occasions but not substantiated with evidence. After considering the submissions of the both parties, we are of the view that in case the payments are made in difference occasions and the amount is not more than Rs. 20000/- in each case, then AO may allow the expenses. The assessee is directed to file the ledger copy and relevant documents before AO. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - As most of the additions proposed by the AO are deleted by the Ld CIT(A) and certain additions were deleted by us in this appeal proceedings. The claim of the assessee relating to the allowability of the expenses. As held in the various cases brought to our notice and the same were reproduced in the above paragraphs, the penalty cannot be levied in the issues raised by the AO in the assessment order and penalty order. Therefore, we are inclined to decided the issues raised by the revenue as well as by the assessee in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied.
Penalty levied u/s 140A(3) - Assessee had not paid the said Self Assessment tax - failure of the assessee to respond to show cause notice - HELD THAT:- We observe that the AO has levied the penalty due to the reason that the assessee could not make the payment towards SAT till the last date of assessment. This is fact on record that the Sec.221(1) penalty is a tool to the assessee to levy penalty in order to force the assessee to comply, however, the assessee is also prone to pay the relevant penal interest till the relevant tax are paid.
In this case, no doubt the assessee was not paid and also reasonable causes to submitted before the authorities that the payments were made as soon as it came to the notice of the assessee and also when he was in a position to make the payment. It was also submitted that the consultant has not brought to the notice of the assessee the relevant tax dues.
Considering the overall situation and mental stress in coping up with the various proceedings initiated on the same time and section 221(1) is leviable only after considering the reasonable cause, in this case, in our considered view, there is reasonable cause brought on record by the assessee and also the assessee has paid the SAT before levy of penalty u/s 221(1) of the Act. Therefore, in our view, the penalty is not justified considering the fact on record. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1562
Deduction u/s 80IA - denial of deduction as assessee failed to maintain separate books of account for each of the four projects under Rule 18BB of the Act and failed to furnish the audit report in Form No.10CCB for each project separately - HELD THAT:- As relying on case of Chirakkal Services Co-operative Bank vs CIT [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] denial of exemption claimed by the assessee under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the assessee has not claimed the deduction in the original return filed but in the revised return, is not justified. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and therefore, no interference is called for in the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We find that the books of account of the eligible projects were separately maintained by the assessee and separate audited financial statements for each project . All the four projects were awarded to the assessee by UPPWD for infrastructure development. All the relevant conditions for claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act are fulfilled. The business activities of all the four projects are covered in the scope of work defined u/s 80IA (4) of the Act and clarified vide CBDT’s Circular No.4/2010 where the assessee acted as a developer in these projects. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified to reject the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. We, accordingly reject grounds No.1 & 2 taken by the Revenue.
Addition due to unverified credit balance - CIT(A) has deleted the addition, relying on the judgment of Jagdish Tiwari [2013 (10) TMI 85 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] observing that where payments are made to creditors through cheque and reflected in books of accounts, then addition cannot be made merely because of non-confirmation. We do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
Disallowances of various expenses and adhoc disallowance of wages/labour charges - We find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the ad hoc disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, relying on various decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in U.P. Corporative Federation [2011 (3) TMI 1820 - ITAT LUCKNOW], Rajmata Devi, Basti [2011 (7) TMI 1385 - ITAT LUCKNOW] and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. D.R. could not point out any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly deleted the ad hoc disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.
TDS u/s 194H - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS - appellant had paid a sum under the head commission but TDS was not deducted u/s 194H - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The observation of the ld. CIT(A) was that since the payments have been made by the assessee to different persons are petty payments and none of the payment exceeds Rs. 5,000/-, the assessee was not under legal obligation to deduct TDS on these payments. We are of the view that the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is in right perspective and no interference is called for.
Assessee opted for Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS) in relation to its cross objection in Form No 1 and Form No 2 - D.R. submitted that since the designated authority has not issued the requisite Form No.5, certifying that the dispute has been resolved for the year under consideration, the same cannot be considered under VSVS - HELD THAT:- As against the identified tax settlement, since the assessee has already paid tax thus the excess payment of taxes resulted into refund of Rs. 1,57,00,465/-. We also find from record that the assessee has written letters to the designated authority for issuance of Form No.5, but the same has not yet been issued. As per Form No.3 dated 23.12.2020, the amount payable by the assessee for the year under consideration under VSVS by 31.3.2021 is only Rs. 5,12,370/- and the amount refundable to the assessee is Rs. 1,57,00,465/-. Therefore, considering these facts, we allow the request of the assessee for withdrawal of the Cross Objection. However, we make it clear that the Revenue will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of this appeal, in accordance with law, if the dispute is not finally settled under VSVS. In that event, the assessee will also be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of its Cross Objection.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1561
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained/unsecured loans - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the loan of Rs. 1.00 crore was received by the assessee from M/s Betala Investment Finance Ltd. during FY 2011-12, which was further carried forward up to FY 2013-14 i.e. year under consideration, wherein the balance of Betala Investment Finance Ltd. was transferred to “Lahoti Holding Ltd.” which is the new changed name of “Betala Investment Finance Ltd Company” as per certificate of change of the name issued by Govt of India- Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai dated 15.12.2011. We find merits in the contention of the AR, which were rightly considered by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, we find substance in the decision of the ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we upheld the same. Resultantly, ground No. 1 of the department stands dismissed.
Addition on account of valuation of the closing stock - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The valuation of stock was computed by the assessee on a consistent method of valuation, AO’s opinion to value the stock at selling price without pointing out any departure from the consistent method of valuation on cost cannot be concurred with. We, therefore, find substance in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, approve the same. Resultantly, Ground of the department in absence of any cogent material to dislodge the observations of Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable.
Addition on account of difference and consumption of raw material - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, from the facts of the issue demonstrated with supporting evidence i.e., annexures to Form 3CD showing quantitative details of consumption of raw materials as well as finished goods and also the quantitative details furnished before the Ld. AO, it can be construed that there was a clerical mistake on the part of assessee, which was duly explained by the assessee and, therefore, the addition made on account of such mistake cannot be allowed to sustain.
CIT(A) have rightly appreciated the facts and deleted the addition, we, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) on this issue to interfere with. Consequently, Ground of the present appeal of the revenue being bereft of substance rendered as rejected.
Addition u/s 41(1) - cessation of liability stating that there were fictitious liability - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Cessation of liability or remission of income could not be established by the revenue, the addition was made only for the reason that the explanation of the assessee are not to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. All material aspects including verification of the facts are dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A), a thorough interpretation of provisions of section 41(1) along with support of guiding principles from the judicial pronouncements, we concur with the observations of Ld. CIT(A) that the cessation of liabilities and benefit from it through unilateral writing of the said liabilities by the assessee, could not be proved by the Ld. AO, therefore, addition invoking provisions of section 41(1) on outstanding liabilities as deemed profit of the year under consideration does not arise. In view of such observations, we do not find any error in the decision of CIT(A) which needs to be modified.
Addition on account of excess interest paid on unsecured loan - AO has disallowed the interest over and above paid for more then 12% to various parties, @ 15.6%, 15% & 18%. The basis for disallowance was unreasonableness of interest - HELD THAT:- Admittedly in the present case as the rate of interest on which the assessee had availed loan from various parties and paid interest as mutually agreed by them. Such unsecured loans were availed in the earlier years and the rate of interest paid by the assessee in previous years was allowed by the revenue while assessing the case of assessee u/s 143(3).
CIT(A) had decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the principle of consistency and no adverse inference by the department in the earlier years. Under such facts and circumstances, when the revenue has allowed the assessee to claim interest expenditure on similar rates in the prior year’s then there was no reason for the Ld. AO to make such additions with deviation from his own stand taken in earlier years without any plausible reason brought on record, we, therefore, find substance in the observation of CIT(A) and approve the same. Ground of the revenue’s appeal, thus, have been dismissed.
Addition on account of stock statement submitted to the bank for obtaining CC limit - The assessee tried to explain the reasons for such variations by way of furnishing reconciliation statement before the Ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) had decided the issue referring to judgments of CIT vs. Apcom Computers Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (10) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and similar judgments by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court referred to supra.
As per all the aforesaid judgments the stock statements furnished before the bank for availing higher credit limits cannot be the basis for addition on account of undisclosed investment u/s 69B. In the present case, as the difference detected by the Ld. AO between stock statement furnished before the bank and regular books of accounts of the assessee could not be further established as actual variation on the basis of any cogent evidence, therefore, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) based on judgments of Hon’ble High Courts has the essence to sustain, we accordingly uphold the same
-
2024 (9) TMI 1560
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 69A - Denial of exemption claimed by the Appellant u/s 10(38) in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising from sale of shares as identified as a penny stock by the report of the investigation wing - HELD THAT:- We hold that the finding returned by the CIT(A) while disposing off Ground raised by the Appellant before the CIT(A) is also contrary to material on record and factually incorrect. We note that in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) along with appeal in Form No. 35, the Appellant has reproduced the reasons recorded in writing and the relevant and the relevant extract of objections raised by the Appellant on 25/11/2019.
CIT(A) has returned a finding that “the Appellant has also failed to submit that the objections were filed during the assessment proceedings”. The aforesaid finding returned by the CIT(A) suffers from perversity.
As per the judgment of GVK Driveshaft [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] the objections raised by the Assessee are required to disposed off by the Assessing Officer by passing a speaking order before proceedings with the assessment. Since the Assessing Officer has failed to do the same in the present case, the assessment order, dated 04/12/2019, passed by the Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction.
Our view also draws strength from the decision of Bayer Material Sciences Private Limited. [2016 (3) TMI 179 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], and Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. [2019 (9) TMI 1284 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Even otherwise, we note that in the identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has in the case of the Appellant has accepted the exemption claimed by the Appellant under Section 10(38) of the Act in respect of capital gains arising from the same of same script while allowing appeal preferred by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2011-12 - addition under Section 69A of the Act as well as the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Act are quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1559
Additions made u/s. 68 - unexplained cash credit - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We note that, from the records filed by the assessee and on perusal of the audited financials, the company has been achieving the huge turnover of exports including the current assessment year 2017- 18, wherein the turnover was Rs. 178.81 crores. The assessee has also earned ‘duty drawback’ to the tune of Rs. 2,02,16,297/- during the assessment year, which is paid to the exporters by the Government of India for promotion of exports, in proportion to the export turnovers of the company.
It is pertinent to note that the assessee has more credits in their bank account during the assessment year, which has been shown as business receipts than the amount mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 148 i.e. Rs. 138.83 crores. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the assessee has proved the source of the huge bank deposits made during the assessment year.
We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions made u/s. 68 of as unexplained cash credit - Decided against revenue.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1558
Revision u/s 263 - assessee has arrived at business income after setting of losses - It is seen that the assessee's entitlement to carry forward losses was revised due to application of provision u/s 79 - case was reopened u/s 147 after obtaining prior approval u/s 148 from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, citing the reason that the assessee's entitlement to carry forward losses was revised due to the application of Section 79
HELD THAT:- Claims were duly examined during the original assessment proceedings itself and neither there was any error nor the same was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke the powers enshrined in Section 263 of the Act. The Revenue in the instant case has not been able to make out a sufficient case that the CIT has exercised the power in accordance with law. Rather, in our considered opinion, the facts of the case do not indicate that the twin conditions contained in Section 263 of the Act are fulfilled in its letter and spirit. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1557
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - assessee has earned dividend income and claimed the same as exempt - assessee has also made suo-motu disallowance - whether the assessee has declared this income of dividend as business income or not and in case it has declared as business income whether the assessee was eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 10(34) and consequently, whether any disallowance is to be made by invoking provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) r.w.s 14A?
HELD THAT:- We have gone through accounts filed by the assessee i.e., the financial statements and noted that this income is declared as income under the head ‘Income from Business or Profession’ in Schedule 13 interest earned - ‘income on investments’ in the profit & loss account. We cannot agree with the arguments made by the Ld.CIT DR that dividend income earned from securities held as stock in trade by the assessee bank is not eligible for exemption u/s. 10(34) and consequent disallowance is to be made, while computing expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) r.w.s 14A of the Act.
This aspect has clearly explained in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] that the shares and securities held by a bank are stock in trade and all income received on such shares and securities must be considered to be as business income and consequently, provisions of section 14A of the Act would not be attracted to such income. This has been answered clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also approved the decision of State Bank of Patiala [2017 (5) TMI 843 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is law of the land and binding for us and hence, by following the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income in term of Rule 8D(2)(ii) r.w.s 14A of the Act by excluding shares and securities held by the assessee bank as stock in trade. Thus, the first ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking provisions of section 14A r.w.s 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, while computing book profit u/s. 115JB - Since this issue is covered by the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Private Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and thus, this ground is allowed.
Non-grant of deduction u/s 80JJAA - assessee stated that this amount is relating to assessment year 2017-18 is allowable in the assessment year 2018-19 as per amended provisions of section 80JJAA - HELD THAT:- We noted that the facts and details regarding 30% additional employees cost incurred during the financial year 2016- 17 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 is not available on record, so that the effect of amendment can be given. Hence, this issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to first verify 30% of additional employees cost incurred during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 which is allowable in subsequent year also, in view of subsequent amendment by Finance Act, 2017. Hence, this issue is remitted back to the file of the AO for verification and his decision according to law.
Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1556
Classification of imported goods - Solar Pump Inverter - classifiable under CTI 8541 50 00 as claimed by the appellant or under CTI 8504 40 90 as held in the impugned order? - invocation of extended period of limitation u/s 28 of the Customs Act in the same order, when the assessment is finalized through the order-in-original - levy of penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act - eligibility for exemption from payment of additional duty of customs.
Is the Solar Pump Inverter – VFD classifiable under CTI 8541 50 00 as claimed by the appellant or under CTI 8504 40 90 as held in the impugned order? - HELD THAT:- It cannot be denied that the primary function of the device is that of an inverter i.e. one which converts direct current into alternate current. Even the inverters used at homes have chips and semi-conductors and also perform several ancillary functions which enhance their utility. For instance, they sense when there is a power cut in the grid and start converting the direct current from the battery into alternate current and supplying it for household use. When the power is restored, the inverter senses it and reverses the system and starts charging the battery using the power from the grid. High quality inverters used at home also ensure that the sine wave quality of the power is good and there is no adverse affect on the devices at home or their performance. Many inverters used at home also have displays which indicate the voltage, level of charge, etc. All these intelligent functions of the domestic inverters are because of the semi-conductors embedded in them. However, they do not cease to be inverters because of these additional functions. Likewise, the “Solar pump Inverter – VFD” imported by the appellant continues to be an inverter and must be classified as such - the correct classification of the imported goods is as inverter under CTI 8504 40 90 and not as other semi-conductor devices under CTI 8541 50 00 as claimed by the appellant.
When the assessment is finalized through the order-in-original, can a demand be also raised invoking the extended period of limitation under section 28 of the Customs Act in the same order? - HELD THAT:- It needs to be noted that the demand under section 28 of the Customs Act is a mechanism for the proper officer to reopen an assessment which has already been completed. This has to be done within a period of one year, or as the case may be five years from the relevant date. Explanation 1 (b) to section 28 of the Customs Act clarifies that the relevant date in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under section 18 of the Customs Act, is the date of adjustment on duty after the final assessment thereof or re-assessment as the case may be. The finalization in this case was completed through order-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner. Any demand of duty under section 28 of the Customs Act in such a case will arise after the finalizing of this assessment that means after the order-in-original was passed. Until then, the assessment had not yet been completed - while the appellant is required to pay duty as per the final assessment, no demand under section 28 of the Customs Act can be raised. Consequently, any recovery of interest under section 28AA of the Customs Act which follows the confirmation of demand under section 28 of the Customs Act also does not apply to this case.
Is any penalty imposable under section 114A of the Customs Act upon the appellant? - HELD THAT:- As is evident, section 114A of the Customs Act provides for imposition of penalty, where demand is made under section 28 of the Customs Act and such demand arose by reason of collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the appellant. Since section 28 of the Customs Act does not apply in this case neither will section 114A of the Customs Act.
Is the appellant are eligible for exemption from payment of additional duty of customs? - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s claim of the benefit of N/N. 24/2005-CUS dated 01.03.2015, N/N. 12/2012-CE and N/N. 21/2012-CUS are all based on their claim of this classification. Having decided the classification in favour of the revenue, it cannot be held that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of these notifications.
The impugned order is modified to the extent that though the classification of the goods and the finalization of assessment of duty is upheld, the appellant is required to pay duty as final assessment. The demand under section 28, interest under section 28AA and penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act are set aside.
The appeal is party allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1555
Refund of differential duty between the duty already paid and the duty that would have been leviable - benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 - appellant has not produced relevant documents like balance sheet, profit of loss accounts, invoices, cost data and other basic financial records of the relevant periods to rule out unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- This is a case where the refund claim filed by the appellant had been rejected for not having produced relevant / corroborative documents. Certain documents and statements were filed before us along with the appeal. Those documents were found to be not relating to the facts in issue and pertained to Anti-Dumping Duty as against the basic customs duty paid towards the impugned Bills of Entry claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. Ordinarily fresh evidence cannot be entertained at the Tribunal. Rule 23 of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 states that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any additional evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal. Thus, the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the Original Authority, unless the Tribunal itself feels the need to do so.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its judgment in Chittoori Subbanna Vs Kudappa Subbanna [1964 (12) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] recognized that it is possible to include additional grounds in the grounds of appeal by moving a separate application for permission before the appropriate forum for its consideration. No such Miscellaneous Application has been filed in this case.
It is found that not only has there been no separate prayer for including fresh documents / evidence, even that submitted is not relevant to the facts of this case and hence the lacunae pointed out by the Original Authority and in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to survive. This being so the appeal merits to be rejected.
The lower authority has taken a view which is reasonable, legal and proper - Appeal rejected.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1554
Demand of differential duty - levy of personal penalty - wrongful classification of goods - sawn New Zealand pine logs - to be classified under CTH 4403 or under CTH 4407? - burden to prove on Department - department failed to discharge the burden of reclassification - HELD THAT:- To classify the goods under CTH 44.07, department has to show that goods were found cut in standard length with extremely accurate dimensions. Burden of proof is on the department, as it has sought to re-classify the product.
The photographs taken in presence of panchas that are scanned and reproduced on page 25 to 27 of impugned order reveal that the goods are having dimensions of cuboids but it cannot be considered to be of extremely accurate dimensions, as is the requirement of the note. The terms used by Panchnama of “goods being were not found to be squared logs, but were found to be of standard cut lengths with extremely accurate dimensions” are as per H.S.N. Panchnama also indicates that 10% logs showed presence of bark traces. It was indicated that dimensions were not extremely accurate. Further the photos on records, as under also do not reveal ‘extremely’ accurate dimensions.
Further, logs with traces of bark, in any case cannot be considered as having extremely accurate dimensions. Department has also not shown that process of chipping was used to obtain better surface than sawing. Benefit of conflicting and in complete statements of panchas, C.H.A and A.R of the appellants in the absence of any expert opinion by the department as chipping having been involved also has to be construed in favour of the appellant, as burden of proof in classification matters is on the department.
There are merit in the submissions made that the impugned goods deserve classification under 44.03 and not under T.H. 4407.
Reliance in this regard also is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case BHAIRAMAL GOPIRAM VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA [2000 (6) TMI 474 - CEGAT, KOLKATA], wherein, it was held that 'It is well settled that the burden in such cases is upon the Revenue to show that the goods fell under 4407.'
The department has failed to discharge the burden of reclassification.
There are no merit in holding impugned goods as classifiable under T.H. 44.07. It is found that same have been correctly classified under T.H. 4403.99. Since classification dispute is at the core of the controversy and same has been decided is in favour of the party, other issues for decision are relegated to redundancy.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1553
Seeking grant a relief as part of the IL&FS Resolution Framework for resolution of Category II Companies by permitting writing down of the entire share capital of such Category II Companies upon payment of the bid value/proceeds without the requirement of obtaining any further approvals from the shareholders of such Category II Companies, resulting in the final resolution of the said entities - HELD THAT:- From the facts and sequences of the events, it is clear that for the resolution of IECCL, steps were taken by the IL&FS from January 2021 for issuing an invitation for Expression of Interest dated 13.01.2021. The invitation for Expression of Interest clearly mentions that Expression of Interest are invited for acquisition of 42.25% of the issued, subscribed and paid up share capital of IECCL held by IL&FS and IFIN. The process in pursuance of the above invitation for expression is proceeding as on date. The ICICI Bank being lead lender of the IECCL has also participating in the process including the meetings of the CoC of the IECCL held from time to time.
The submission of the IL&FS is that the process of IECCL has gone too far and which is going for last three years be allowed to be completed and voting which has already been commenced and last date of which voting is 30.09.2024. The instance of ICICI Bank is not interdicted.
Where the revised bid submitted by Howen International Fund SPC requires consideration is not for this Tribunal to assess and it is for the CoC to take a call. Letter sent by Howen International Fund SPC dated 07.07.2024 has extended its validity of fresh EMD till 31.09.2024.
In event, the process of sale of 42.25% shareholding of IECCL is on-going resolution process is completed, the said shall not preclude the lenders including the ICICI Bank to raise objection on extinguishment of its entire debt. Liberty granted to the ICICI Bank to raise its objection on extinguishment of its entire debt for mere payment for 42.25% shareholding of IECCL.
List IA No.5036 of 2023 on 14.10.2024 for hearing and all the objections on the application including the objection filed by the ICICI Bank - It is clarified that the resolution of IECCL which commenced from 13.01.2021 need to be completed irrespective of pendency of IA No.5036 of 2023 and it is clarified that the prayers made in IA No.5036 of 2023, IECCL shall be treated to be excluded.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1552
Depositing 50% amount, as a pre-condition for entertaining the Application for Condonation of Delay - scope of of statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
HELD THAT:- The main proceedings before the DRT u/s 17 would have been registered and the DRT would have then commenced the hearing on the merits of the application filed u/s 17. DRAT only had to consider whether the order of the DRT can be construed to be perverse and erroneous so as to cause interference.
In view thereof and considering the law as is settled by this Court in Dilawar Hakim [2005 (10) TMI 617 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] DRAT could not have directed the Petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount due from him keeping in view that an auction sale had already occurred and the DRT had not determined any amount to be recovered from the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner has deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- with the DRAT.
We, therefore, conclude that in the matters of condonation of delay, unless the delay is condoned, the main proceedings would not be taken up for hearing. Hence the stage of depositing the amount as may be prescribed / engrafted in any statute as a pre-condition for entertaining a substantive proceeding, would not be applicable for dealing with applications for condonation of delay.
Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned DRAT dated 17.10.2022, to the extent of directing the Petitioners to deposit 50% of the amount, stands quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remitted to the learned DRAT.
DRAT would consider whether the impugned order of the DRT, refusing to condone delay, is sustainable or not. All contentions to this extent, are kept open.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1551
Legality of the bail granted to the respondent - Large-scale money laundering - public money was looted through apps such as Power Bank App, Tesla Power Bank App, Ezplan, etc., by luring people with the promise of doubling their money in a short period - proceeds of crime - Petitioner have emphatically argued that the learned trial court has not discussed the entire material on record and has made certain observations which are contrary to the facts - violation of principles of natural justice.
HELD THAT:- To start with the order granting bail is only a prima facie view being expressed by the court and such observations are not taken into consideration while deciding the matter finally. Generally, any observations made at the stage of bail are not taken into account after the parties lead their evidence and the matter is appreciated by the learned trial court. The case of the ED is based on the fact that the entity of the respondent has received the funds from the first, second and third layer entities.
It is to be kept in mind that even as per Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] it has categorically been held that ingredients constituting the offence of money laundering needs to be construed strictly. It is also no longer a matter of debate that the probative value of statement under section 50 of PMLA is to be considered at the stage of trial. The bail cannot be denied merely on the assumption that the property recovered from the respondent must be proceed of crime.
The ED has also sought cancellation of bail on the ground of certain WhatsApp chat of Mr. Saurin Shah another director in M/s Sagar Diamond Ltd. indicates that he was in touch of Vaibhav Shah for preparing legal declaration/affidavit of Akash Corporation. The criminality regarding transfer of funds is something which is to be considered at the stage of trial. The least discussion at the time on the merits of the case is desirable so as not to prejudice either of the parties.
The apprehension of the ED that if the petitioner is allowed to be remain on bail he may derail the investigation or is a flight risk are mere apprehension and no substantial reason has been given. The E.D. may always move the court for imposing more stringent condition. The facts of the case may be very serious in nature but that has to be tested and examined during the course of trial. The defence being put up is that all the transactions between the firm of the respondent with other entities are the genuine sale transactions in the normal course of business. It is also a matter of record that alleged proceeds of crime of Rs.7.10 crore has already been deposited by Mr. Vaibhav Deepak Shah.
The frequent rotation of funds disproportionate to the nature of business of Mr. Akash Panchal and the authenticity of statement under Section 50 of PMLA is required to be examined during the trial. The investigation has already been completed and the complaint has already been filed - there is no material on record to allow the application of ED for cancellation of bail. This Court considers that there is nothing on record to indicate that the bail has been granted on the irrelevant considerations.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1550
Money Laundering - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - gravamen of the prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that he influenced the Bank and got loans sanctioned to Kiran.P.P, out of which the petitioner took Rs.14/- Crore - HELD THAT:- Section 45 of PMLA starts with a non- obstante clause, which has an overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C). There is a specific embargo to grant of bail to a person accused of an offence under the Act, which are: (i) that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail, and (ii) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while he is on bail.
Section 65 of the Act mandates that the provisions of the Cr. P.C shall apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Also, Section 71 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of the Act have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. Consequently, the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of Cr. P.C., but also subject to the rigour imposed by the twin conditions under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of Act.
In Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement [2015 (12) TMI 1133 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the compliance of Section 45 of the Act is mandatory to grant bail to an accused person.
In Directorate of Enforcement Versus Aditya Tripathi [2023 (5) TMI 527 - SUPREME COURT] the Honourable Supreme Court has held that merely because the chargesheet is filed, it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the Act. Investigation for the predicate offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offence under the PML Act are different and distinct.
The petitioner has raised a specific ground that the written grounds of arrest were not served on him. On an appreciation of the materials on record, it is found that in the arrest order dated 04.09.2023, the Authorised Officer has specifically recorded that he has reason to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under the Act. The grounds of arrest were duly prepared, served, read over and understood by the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Hence, it is concluded that the said contention is untenable.
Whether this Court is convinced that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and he is not likely to commit any offence while he is on bail? - HELD THAT:- The essence of the accusation is that, out of Rs.24.56/- Crore obtained by Kiran P.P as loan from the Bank, Rs.14/- Crore was paid to the petitioner both through bank transfer and in cash. In the statement recorded on 04-09- 2023, the petitioner has stated that he had received only Rs.2,15,50,000/- from the Bank through Kiran P.P. Conversely, Kiran.P.P has asserted that he handed over Rs.1.25/- Crore to the petitioner in cash in 2014, and an additional Rs.3/-Crore in 2016. Kiran P.P has further stated that cash loans of Rs.14/- Crore were given to the petitioner and to other persons as instructed by the petitioner on multiple occasions. Jijor has corroborated these cash transactions in his statement. Furthermore, the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant had noticed an additional capital of Rs.4,08,65,254/- in the financial statement of the petitioner’s proprietary concern, which was not reflected in his income tax returns. Although the petitioner submitted a letter of Jayarajan P, claiming that he had invested Rs.4/- Crore in cash in the petitioner’s business, Jayarajan. P has denied making such a payment. This prima facie shows that Rs. 4/- Crore is unaccounted money. Additionally, a total of Rs.44.50/- lakh was deposited and Rs.15.50 lakh was withdrawn in the petitioner’s Bank account No.103100010035463 at the Varadliam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner was maintaining forty-four accounts in various Banks. The cash credits in the petitioner’s ten bank accounts for the financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is Rs.1,35,87,612/-, Rs.1,52,92,407/- and Rs.87,93,532/-, respectively. These materials, particularly the above cash credits, prima facie lends support to the prosecution allegation against the petitioner regarding layering of the proceeds of the crime. Collectively, these factors prima facie appear to substantiate the prosecution case.
In Manish Sisodia’s case [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT], the Honourable Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant in that case, considering the prolonged period of incarceration, the trial in the case had not commenced despite the assurance given by the respondents in the earlier round of litigations and the Trial Court had not followed the directions in paragraphs 28 and 29 of its first order regarding the right of the appellant to speedy trial - In the case on hand, the principles laid down in Manish Sisodia’s case are not applicable. Therefore, the petitioner cannot draw analogy or parallels to the precedent set forth in the said case.
On a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the materials placed on record, the rival submission made across the Bar, and on considering the parameters under Section 45 of the Act, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and that he is not likely to commit the offences if he is enlarged on bail.
In the light of the serious nature, gravity and severity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage - the bail application is dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1549
Levy of service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the commission paid to Directors which was given treatment as part of salary as per the books of accounts and TDS deduction status as per 26AS of Income Tax - HELD THAT:- As per the sub clause (b) of sub-Section (44) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that provision of any service by an employee to the employer in case of his employment does not fall under the definition of service. As per the facts in the present case, the Directors to whom the commission was paid by the appellant are employees of the Company as per the Board’s resolution. The Directors in the capacity of employees provided service to the employer i.e. present appellant Company. Therefore, the service whatsoever provided by the Directors to the appellant is in the course of their employment with the appellant Company. Therefore, the same is out of the purview of service in terms of Section 65B(44) (b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The appellant have also booked the payment made to the Directors as salary in their books of accounts and the same has been accepted by the Income Tax department. The TDS was also deducted under the head salary under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act. All these facts go on to prove that the considerations paid to the Directors are in course of employment of the Directors. Therefore, the same is not taxable being not a service as per definition of service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
From CBEC vide Circular No. 115/9/2009-ST dated 31.07.2009 it is clear that any commission paid to the Directors of the Company is not a commission i.e. within the scope of Business Auxiliary Service hence service tax would not be leviable on such amount. This Circular is binding on the departmental authorities therefore, the lower authorities ought not to have confirmed the demand taking a view against the view taken by Board vide Circular dated 31.07.2009.
Thus, it is settled beyond any doubt that the commission paid to the Directors by the Company does not fall under the service as Business Auxiliary Service accordingly, not liable to service tax. Therefore, impugned order is set-aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1548
CENVAT Credit - common input services - non-maintenance of separate records - period 1.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 - extended period of limitation - Short payment of Service Tax under the category of Repairs and Maintenance services - .
CENVAT Credit - common input services - non-maintenance of separate records - period 1.10.2014 to 30.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant is providing two different services, one that of servicing of motor vehicles and another one is on account of running of Amusement park. These two services are being rendered from two different locations. As per the Agreement copies submitted by the appellant, the appellant is running the Amusement park since the year 2010. Prior to 1.7.2012, the services were exigible to Service Tax only when the particular Service was within the services defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994. Admittedly, this service was not under the Service Tax bracket at that time. Subsequently, from 1.7.2012, all the services except those which are listed in the Negative List under Section 66D or those services, which are exempted under Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012, are taken as services on which Service Tax is required to be paid - in view of the service coming under Negative List even after 2012, the appellants were not paying the Service Tax. The Negative List after amendment with effect from 1.6.2015, omitted (j) of Section 66D. Therefore, from 1.6.2015, the Amusement park activity are no more covered under the Negative List, nor is it being claimed by the appellant that they are covered under the provisions of exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012 as amended.
It can be observed that this clause (a) of Section 66D provision is specifically applicable for the services rendered by the Government or local authority. In the present case, the Amusement park is not run by the Municipality. Though the appellant would have taken permission from the Municipal Corporation to operate the same, it cannot be by any stretch of imagination be taken as a service being rendered by the Govt. or Local authority. Without dispute, the Amusement park is being run by the appellant who is a commercial entity and not any Govt / local authority. Hence, it cannot be accepted that the arguments of the appellant on this count. Thus it is clear that after 1.6.2015, the appellants are neither covered under Negative List nor are they covered under any exemption Notification.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- There are no allegation of the Revenue that they are charging the Service Tax or collecting the same from the visitors to the Amusement park. Admittedly right from the beginning of their operations in 2010, they were enjoying complete exemption from payment of Service Tax, which became taxable only with effect from 1.6.2015. Generally, when any new service becomes eligible to Service Tax, or any prior exemption is withdrawn, it is for the Revenue to immediately undertake investigation and verification of providers of such service so as to ensure that such persons are made to pay the Service Tax - The fact that there is no allegation that they were collecting the Service Tax, would lend credence to the appellant’s submission about their bonafide belief that they are not required to pay the Service Tax. In the case of the appellant, they were already operating under the jurisdiction of Service Tax authorities and were filing their ST 3 Returns and their turnover as per the P&L accounts and Balance Sheet could have been checked for proper compliance. There is nothing to indicate that any scrutiny was being undertaken for the ST 3 Returns being filed.
Short payment of Service Tax under the category of Repairs and Maintenance services - HELD THAT:- It is found that the data has been gathered by the Revenue from the Balance Sheet figures and after reconciliation with the ST- 3 Returns. Even here, without taking up any scrutiny of the Returns periodically, this demand has been raised and confirmed after 5 years. In respect of Manpower Supply, since the Service Tax payable would be eligible for cenvat to the appellant himself, it is found that this would result in a revenue neutral situation, wherein no suppression can be alleged - no case of suppression has been made out against the appellant - even in respect of the confirmed demand of Rs.19,32,214/- towards the Maintenance and Repairs Services and Rs.4,68,928/- towards the Manpower Services cannot be legally sustained on account of time bar.
Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts of Telangana and Kolkata, wherein it is held that the Revenue cannot directly demand the reversal @ 6/8% of the exempted turnover, without asking the assessee to reverse the cenvat credit on proportionate basis, we set aside the confirmed demand of Rs.72,94,797/- on merits. As per observations in the earlier paragraphs that no case has been made out towards suppression, read with the cited case laws on limitation, it is held that the confirmed demand of Rs.72,94,797/- is not legally sustainable even on account of time bar.
The total confirmed demand of Rs. 1,73,60,105/- is set aside on account of limitation - The confirmed demand of Rs.72,94,797/- on account of CENVAT availment is set aside both on account of merits and on account of limitation.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1547
Failure to discharge due Service Tax liability - Late payment fees - penalties - extended period of limitation.
HELD THAT:- Undisputedly appellant has paid service tax on the entire value of the service provided under the category of cleaning services. In respect of the remaining services they have paid service tax on the margin money i.e the value of the service provided after deducting the expenses made by them towards the provision of such service. This fact has been reflected in the profit and loss account of the appellant. Commissioner (Appeal) has siught to disallow the expenses incurred for provision of this service by stating that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to the effect that they have not received any amount over and above the value shown as receipt for provision of this service.
During the period of dispute appellant has incurred the expenditure towards the provision of services other than the cleaning services. However these expenses could not be called as amounts received as "Pure Agent". The value of the taxable service as has been rightly held by the first appellate authority shall be the gross amount received for the provision of service as per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence claiming deduction of these amounts from the gross amount received could not be a permissible deduction as per the Section 67 or Rules made there under. These cannot be said to be reimbursable expense also as claimed by the appellant. Hence on merits there are not much force in the submissions made by the appellant.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order or order in original/ show cause notice, nothing has been stated as to how the mere fact of not disclosure of certain amounts in the ST-3 return would have constituted suppression with the intention to evade payment of service tax - no reason put forth in the show cause notice or the orders of lower authorities for holding that the appellant has suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of service tax - there are no merits in the impugned order to the extent it uphold the demand by invoking extended period of limitation. As entire demand has been made by invoking the extended period of limitation, the same cannot be upheld.
Late payment fees - HELD THAT:- It is found that appellant had filed the ST-3 return after delay of about 65 days for which late payment fees has been imposed. The fact of delay in filing the ST-3 return has not be countered by the appellant. Imposition of late payment fees is a legal obligation and has no relation with the evasion of tax - the demand made towards the late payment fees as prescribed by statute is upheld.
The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the demand of service tax, interest and penalties imposed under Section 78 on the ground of limitation. However, the penalty imposed for late filing of return is upheld.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1546
Failure to discharge service tax - Photography Services - printing and sale of various stationery items and printing and sale of photo albums, photo books, photo calendars etc; on conducting an investigation - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal has already held that the activity undertaken by the appellants amounts to manufacture and is exempt from payment of Central Excise duty and therefore, service tax cannot be demanded - The Bench observed in the case of Venus Albums Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (11) TMI 754 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] held that 'the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and classifiable the Chapter 4911, therefore, no service tax is payable by the appellant.'
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1545
Short payment of service tax - Availment of benefit of abatement on tax payable on the value of GTA services in terms of N/N. 32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 - appellant is a GTA and not consignee or consignor of the goods - HELD THAT:- The SCN in the present case was issued on the ground that the appellant is not a GTA and therefore they are not entitled to the exemption in terms of N/N. 32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004. It is also found that the impugned order and the Order-in-Original passed by the authorities below have gone beyond the allegations in the show cause notice because in the show cause notice there is no allegation regarding the non-fulfillment of conditions for claiming benefit of Exemption Notification. Any evidence beyond the show cause notice is not sustainable as held in the case of Suzuki Motorcycle India Private Limited [2023 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], therefore, on this account, the demand is liable to be set aside.
It is found that the benefit of exemption notification has been denied on the ground that the conditions are not satisfied in terms of exemption notification for claiming the abatement the following conditions are satisfying, namely, (a) the Cenvat credit should not be availed on the inputs or capital goods used for transport service; and (b) the benefit of N/N. 12/2003-ST should not be availed in respect of the goods transport agency service - the department has failed to prove that the conditions mentioned in the notification are not satisfied in the present case. The department has not brought any evidence to prove that the GTA has taken CENVAT credit or availed of the benefit of the N/N. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 and therefore, the benefit cannot be denied on the basis of circular dated 27.07.2005 prescribing the procedure for declaration.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law therefore, set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 1544
Lifting of the attachment on the third account of petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioners stated that once the attachment expires by virtue of operation of law in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, there is no provision or jurisdiction vested with the Department to once again attach an account. In the circumstances, the attachment made on 30.08.2024 insofar as the third account is concerned is without authority of law and therefore, a direction may be issued for lifting of the said attachment.
The application made by the petitioners herein is allowed. It is directed that the attachment made of the third account by the respondent-State (Department) on 30.08.2024 be lifted and the account be defreezed.
Application disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
