|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 420306 Records
-
2024 (11) TMI 1053
Maintainability of Civil suit - bar under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Ownership and possession rights of the Appellant over the disputed land during CIRP proceedings - bar u/s 238 of I & B Code - specific case has been made that the property in question is being used for the industrial purposes of the Corporate Debtor, which is a fact not denied by the appellants and it was falling within the premises of the Corporator Debtor which is already in custody of the Resolution Professional - HELD THAT:- The orders under Section 7 were reserved on 06.02.2023 and the Corporate Debtor itself vide its Diary No. 5214 dated 02.12.2022, had stated that it signifies its willingness to admit the application and the directions for initiation of the CIRP proceedings in view of financial stress. In these circumstances, sale of the said property immediately after reserving of the judgment on 06.02.2023, itself is an avert act, and actions of the Appellant with regard to the aforesaid transaction which is subject matter of the Civil Suit, which has been instituted at his behest together with chronological sequence of transactions in the scheduled land during the pendency of CIRP proceedings shows that the sale was not bonafide and apart from this, since the appellant himself has already questioned the rights of the respondent in a regular Civil Suit, and his rights over the property are yet to be determined by the competent Civil Court, which he himself has invoked at this stage the pendency of the Civil Suit cannot be taken as a reason for interference in the CIRP proceedings. Further, the resolution plan as filed through IA No. 02/2024 in its Clause 5, describes the assets of the Corporate Debtor, which also refers to the ensuing litigation being Suit O.S. No. 16/2024.
The apprehension expressed on the basis of the written submissions is without basis, as the Resolution Plan since it does not in any manner transfer or affect the title of the subject property and there is no immediate change of ownership or the Applicant’s right. In view of the discussions as above, it does not call for any interference at this stage and that too, while exercising the inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016.
Having scrutinised the reasons which has been assigned by the Learned Adjudicating Authority in relation to the status of the property and the effect of the pendency of the Civil Suit filed by the Appellant, the rejection of the two applications of the Appellant by the Learned Adjudicating Authority by the Impugned order does not call for any interference in the exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 61 of I & B Code.
Thus, these appeals lack merit and they are accordingly dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1052
Rejection of application filed by the Appellant under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) of the SARFAESI Act was initiated by the SBI against the Appellant prior to filing of Section 10 Application - main reason for dismissing Section 10 application is that Applicant has filed Section 10 application with malicious and fraudulent intent to delay and halt the recovery proceedings initiated by Respondent Bank - whether filing of an application by the Appellant under Section 10, can be termed as initiation of proceedings with fraudulent and malicious intent? - HELD THAT:- The basis for Section 65 application filed by the SBI is the fact that SBI has initiated proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) of the SARFAESI Act vide notice dated 24.02.2023, prior to filing of the application under Section 10 by the Corporate Applicant. Admittedly, Section 10 application was filed by the Appellant, subsequent to initiation of proceedings under Section 13, subsection (2) by the SBI. The pleadings of the of the SBI in proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) were that 13(2) proceedings were on the verge of being completed, when Corporate Applicant has filed application under Section 10 with malafide and fraudulent intent. From the pleadings in Section 65 application, we do not find any foundation to come to the conclusion that application under Section 10 was fraudulently initiated.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of this Tribunal in Unigreen Global Private Limited vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. [2018 (1) TMI 505 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], where this Tribunal noticing Section 7 and Section 10 of the IBC held that, two factors are common i.e. the debt is due and there is a default - This Tribunal further held that action under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act against Corporate Debtor or proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal, if any, are pending, cannot be a ground to rejection application under Section 10, if the application is complete.
The present is a case where Adjudicating Authority has allowed Section 65 application filed by the SBI principally based on the foundation of the SBI that Section 10 application filed at the time when proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) were on the verge of completion. Whether Section 10 application deserve to be admitted or not, is a decision, which has to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority on facts of each case.
For allowing Section 65 application, fraudulent and malicious intent of CD has to be proved from some materials on record. Merely because proceeding under Section 13, sub-section (2) and (4) has been initiated by the creditor prior to filing of Section 10 application, cannot be a ground to hold that Section 10 application is filed with malicious and fraudulent intent. For proving fraudulent and malicious intent, something more is required to be pleaded and proved apart from initiation of proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) and (4) by the creditor against the Corporate Applicant.
The Adjudicating Authority committed error in allowing Section 65 application filed by the SBI and rejecting Section 10 application. In event a proposition of law is accepted that when a creditor has initiated proceedings under Section 13, sub-section (2) against the CD, he is precluded to file Section 10 application, that proposition will be clearly against the intent and purpose of Section 10 of the IBC - the basis of rejection of Section 10 application is the finding by the Adjudicating Authority that application has been filed with malicious and fraudulent intent to delay and halt the recovery proceedings. There mere fact that application is filed, consequent of which the recovery proceedings may be halted, cannot lead to conclusion that intent and purpose of the application is malicious and fraudulent - Adjudicating Authority committed error in allowing Section 65 application filed by the SBI.
The company petition filed under Section 10 is revived to be considered and decided by the Adjudicating Authority afresh - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1051
Rejection of Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant - pre-existing disputes - dispute existed much before Demand Notice was issued - inflated invoices - HELD THAT:- When the Corporate Debtor is entitled to all rights, interests and has to discharge all liabilities obligations of Transferor under the Principal Agreement, any entitlement or liability of it, which flow from the Master Service Agreement has to be shouldered/claimed by the Corporate Debtor. It cannot be said that inflated invoices which is claimed to have been issued by staff and employees of the Appellant though related to the different Project under the same Master Service Agreement is alien or foreign to claim which has been raised by the Appellant. In the present case, after coming to know about the issue of inflated invoices, Appellant itself has commenced investigation and filed the Police Complaint as well as directed for investigation through Ernst and Young, which is an admitted fact. Appellant in his Appeal has brought on record the Police Complaint which was submitted by Appellant on 24.02.2023.
The correspondence between the Parties which relates to the payments which are subject matter of Demand Notice and Section 9 Application is clear communication by Corporate Debtor that payments have been put on hold indicates that there was dispute raised by Corporate Debtor with regard to entitlement and payment of the invoices which are subject matter of Section 9 Application much before issuance of Demand Notice dated 06.11.2023.
Thus, it is clear that the claim of Appellant for payment of invoices which are subject matter of Section 9 Application was disputed much before Demand Notice was issued - In facts of the present case, Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in refusing to initiate CIRP, there being Pre-Existing Dispute which is reflected with the correspondence which took place between the Parties much prior to issuance of Demand Notice.
Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant.
There is no merit in the Appeal - The Appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1050
Maintainability of the appeal by a shareholder under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - pre- existing dispute between the appellant and Corporate Debtor/Respondent No.1 or not - interpretation of “dispute” under Section 5(6) of the code - HELD THAT:- The disputes related to shareholder oppression or mismanagement under the Companies Act, 2013 are distinct issues governed by separate statutory provisions and fall outside the purview of the Code. As a special statute, the IBC prevails over the Companies Act pursuant to Section 238, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT], which held that the resolution process under the IBC takes precedence over any conflicting laws. Hence, the contention of appellant regarding resolution of Company Petition under Section 241 & 242 of Companies Act, 2013 before the CIRP petition does not hold water.
The NCLT has passed the order after hearing both the parties and it’s an order complying with relevant provisions of the code. The debt and default are on record and there was no pleading of pre-existing dispute in this case.
As owners the equity shareholders are biggest beneficiaries when the company does well. Their capital is multiplied due to increase in share prices and by receipt of dividends. On the other hand, if the company performs badly and goes in liquidation, the equity shareholders loose their entire share capital. The owners of the company have a major role to play in the proper functioning of the company, as equity shareholders are represented through the Board of Directors (BoD) and the BoD holds the management accountable for its proper functioning - As soon as the CIRP petition is admitted and IRP is appointed, the functions of the BoD are taken over by IRP. As a representative of Shareholders erstwhile Directors of CD are allowed to intervene and file appeals under Section 61, but the individual or even majority shareholders are not allowed to pursue derivative action.
The appellant’s argument is that the definition of 'aggrieved person' under Section 61 should include any party whose legal interests are impacted by the outcome of insolvency proceedings, even if not directly named as a party in the original application. The restrictive interpretation conflicts with the broader intent of the IBC to allow for effective appeals by any stakeholder with a demonstrable interest, especially in complex insolvency scenarios where indirect impacts on third-party rights are substantial. Thus, the scope of 'aggrieved person' must not be so narrowly construed as to exclude genuine stakeholders who have a legitimate legal or financial interest in the outcome of the case.
The appellant being a shareholder of the company is not the “aggrieved party” as per the provisions of the Code. The appellant has no locus to file this appeal and the same is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1049
Service tax on amounts related to execution of statutory obligations - whether the amounts collected by the appellant from their customers towards KEB, BWSSB and Advocate fees should be treated as taxable value u/s 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules - as argued service tax is not payable by the appellant prior to 01.07.2010 in view of the Board Circular No. 108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 and the amounts related to execution of statutory obligations cannot be levied to service tax
HELD THAT:- The charges collected in dispute referred above are electricity charges, water charges and legal fees. These are statutory charges to be collected by the appellant and to be paid to the respective authorities are in the nature of reimbursable expenses. The issue of inclusion of reimbursable charges in the taxable value is no longer res integra in view of the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. . [2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT]
In view of the above, as rightly claimed by the appellant, the above statutory reimbursable amounts cannot form part of the gross amount on which service tax is to be charged. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1048
Invoking extended period of limitation - Non discharge of service tax on the legal expenses incurred under the reverse charge mechanism - Appellant failed to register themselves under the Service tax since they are providing taxable service namely renting of Samudhaya Bhavana and also towards renting of shops for business purposes - HELD THAT:- As considering the communication made by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirming that the Appellant is not liable for payment of service tax and in the absence of any allegation regarding any other service provided by appellant and without any amendment of relevant provision of law, no finding can be made that the Appellant who had registered under the Societies Act and filing income tax return regularly had suppressed the facts regarding service provided by them. Since the entire demand is made by invoking the extended period of limitation and no demand is falling under normal period, the demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1047
Service tax liability - rendering of service - sale/ transfer as a going concern by way of slump sale as defined under the Income Tax Act 1961, amounts to service - exemption from service tax under Sr. No. 37 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST - demand for Service Tax under the Proviso to Section 73 (1) with interest u/s 75 and imposed penalty equal to the said amount of service tax u/s 78.
HELD THAT:- As per entry in Notification No. 25/12–ST dated 20.06.2012 Services by way of transfer of the going concern as a whole or an independent part thereof is exempted.
Revenue, in the impugned order has denied the aforesaid exemption on the ground that in the present case the transfer of business is not an independent part of the appellant for the reason that the appellant is involved in the business of Software Development and the transfer of business is also nothing but a business of software development. Therefore, it is not an independent part of the appellant’s overall business.
Appellant before transfer of as going concern, they were providing a software solution of a product exclusively developed for the buyer of the business in the present case i.e. M/s ZeroChaos Workforce Solutions Private Limited. Therefore, the activity of software development, which was sold to M/s ZeroChaos was exclusively being done for ZeroChaos, therefore, it is clear that the software solution business which were earlier provided to ZeroChaos was absolutely independent, than their other software development business meant for other customers. Therefore, it is clear that the transfer of business as per the business agreement dated 30.10.2014 an exclusive part of the business of the appellant was out rightly transferred to ZeroChaos. The term used in the exemption entry that “ an independent part thereof” indicates that there should not be any situation where even though a business is transferred but the same is not independent and consequently the same is still continued by the transferor.
In the present case, the business related to ZeroChaos was exclusively being done for M/s. ZeroChaos and the entire business which was being done for M/s. Zero Chaos has been transferred. As per the agreement, it is clear that the same business is not subsequently continued by the appellant, which is also otherwise not possible, since, software solution was made and carried out exclusively for M/s ZeroChaos, the same business cannot be retained by the appellant for some other customer.
Appellant has transferred an exclusive part of their business to the transferee M/s. ZeroChaos, therefore, it is clearly an independent part. In this position, we do not find any doubt about the eligibility of the exemption to the appellant.
Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for the exemption under Sr. No. 37 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Since, we decide that the demand is not sustainable only on the ground that the appellant is eligible for exemption Notification 25/2012-ST, we are not addressing the issue that whether the transfer of business as slump sale as going concern, is service or otherwise.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1046
Classification of services - demand service tax under the category of ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy Services’ on RCM basis on the expenditure in foreign currency declared under the head ‘Professional fees’ and ‘Sampling charges’ in the Profit & Loss Account (‘P&L’)
As submitted the demand confirmed in the instant case on the expenditure in foreign currency recorded under the head ‘Professional fees’ and ‘Sampling charges’ in the P&L A/c for the relevant period does not tantamount to ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ service defined under Section 65(92) of the Finance Act, 1994 as applicable prior to 01.07.2012 inasmuch as the said category covers services provided by a scientist or a technocrat, or any science or technology institution or organization unlike the instant case -
HELD THAT:- A perusal of the definition of ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ reproduced above indicate that any service rendered by them is classifiable under the category of ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ only when such service is provided by a scientist or a technocrat, or any science or technology institution or organization.
In the instant case, from the agreements entered into by the appellants with the foreign vendors reveals that the service providers cannot be called as a science or technology institution or organization. They are merely experts conducting site visits for assisting the Appellant in taking informed decision on the viability of acquisition of coal mining assets situated outside India. Accordingly, we hold that the service received by the appellant from the experts cannot be classified under the category of ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’.
Appellant has placed their reliance on the TRU Circular dated 09.07.2001 bearing F.No.B.11/1/2001-TRU, wherein it has been clarified that the scientific or technical consultancy service envisages expert opinion/ advice in one or more disciplines of science or technology.
We observe that the activities under taken by the experts involves review and validation of the data pursuant to site visits, meetings and discussions w.r.t. estimated resources and reserves of the mines; geological data; geotechnical and hydrological conditions effecting mining etc. These activities performed by the Foreign Service providers evidently do not fall within the ambit of scientific or technical consultancy services. Thus, the Circular issued by the Board cited above also supports the view that the service rendered by the appellant can be categorized as ‘Scientific or Technical Consultancy’ only when such service is provided by a scientist or a technocrat, or any science or technology institution or organization.
All services provided in relation to mining of minerals, including the then existing taxable service of ‘survey and exploration of mineral services' were also brought under the taxable service of ‘mining of mineral, oil or gas services’. Thus, we observe that w.e.f. 01.06.2007, the service rendered by the appellant would fall under the taxable category ‘mining of mineral, oil or gas as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzy) and 65(105(zzv) of the Act.
We hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order under the category of ‘scientific or technical consultancy services’ is not sustainable.
Demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order on 'sampling charges' - We observe that the payment in foreign currency has been made to third party inspection agencies for carrying out inspection w.r.t. the quality of iron ore exported by the Appellant as per the requirements of the export orders. Hence, the same is classifiable as ‘Technical Inspection and Certification Service’ as defined under Section 65(108) of the Act. The services are not provided by a science or technology institution or organization and are merely in the nature of technical inspection and certification service. However, we observe there is no demand made under the category of ‘Technical Inspection and Certification Service’ as defined under Section 65(105)(zzi) of the Act. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order confirming the demand under ‘scientific or technical consultancy services’ is not sustainable.
In respect of services covered under Section 65(105)(zzi) and 65(105)(zzv) of the Act, the taxability shall arise when the services are performed in India. In the instant case, we observe that the mines are immovable property, which are situated outside India. Thus, we observe that the mining as well as technical inspection services have been performed outside India.
Service tax liability w.r.t. Professional Fees - demand of service tax confirmed for the Negative List period, in terms of Section 66B of the Act - As in terms of Guidance Note 5 –POPOS Rules, 2012 of Service Tax Education Guide, services connected with oil/gas/mineral exploration or exploitation relating to specific sites of land or the sea bed are specified as land-related services.
In the instant case, we observe that the place of provision of service is outside India, as the service is provided by team of experts deployed by the foreign services providers to identify mines (immovable property) situated outside India. Accordingly, we hold that the same shall not be chargeable to service tax at the hand of the appellant, on RCM basis.
Service Tax liability w.r.t. Sampling Charges - Para 5.4.1 of the Service Tax Education Guide specifies technical testing/ inspection/ certification service to be performance-based service covered under Rule 4 of the POPOS Rules. Hence, the place of provision in the instant case is the place where the services are actually performed (outside India). Accordingly, we hold that the same shall not be chargeable to service tax at the hand of the appellant, on RCM basis.
We hold that the taxability does not arise in India in respect of either of the services and set aside the demands of service tax confirmed in the impugned order.
Since the demand of service tax itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise.
The impugned OIO has confirmed the demand post 01.07.2012 based on provisions of the Act that are not applicable post 01.07.2012. Since the order does not make reference to the provisions pertaining to the Negative List regime under the Section of ‘Discussion and Findings’, which were applicable for the period post 01.07.2012, therefore, in the absence of such reference, we hold that the service tax demand confirmed for the period post 01.07.2012 is not sustainable on this ground also.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1045
Demand sustainability on the ground of limitation - Service tax demand under the category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services - mainly based on income tax data, form 26AS and balance sheets of the appellant’s business of transportation of goods - HELD THAT:- As demand of service tax is raised and confirmed solely based on data received from income tax department viz. from 26AS and admittedly there was no independent examination carried out even considering such recorded income whether related to consideration received towards taxable services provided and leviability of service tax thereon.
As seen from the records that appellant has filed ST-3 returns for the disputed period and maintained records which were furnished by the appellant during inquiry, in that view, nothing prevented department from verifying returns and raising query within normal period of limitation. It is further observed that there is no such specific finding in the show cause notice of wilful suppression of facts by the appellant except contending that it would not have come to the knowledge of department if the data from income tax returns were not received from income tax department. In this background, it cannot be alleged that appellant has wilfully suppressed facts from department with intention to evade tax. Therefore the demand is not sustainable on the ground of limitation.
Without prejudice to the above finding, we further find that the transport in the present case was undertaken by the owners of the transport vehicles and no consignment note was issued.
The transportation in the present case not being under GTA is not liable to service tax in terms of the above specific item in the negative list. Therefore for this reason also the transportation service in the facts of the present case is clearly not taxable. As per our above discussion and finding, the demand is not sustainable.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1044
Request for adjourning the matter beyond three times - HELD THAT:-The reason for seeking adjournment is that the fire took place in the office of Counsel in the year 2021 i.e. more than three years from today. Even from 2021 this matter has been listed five times in the year of 2024, as stated in para-1 above.
If Counsel for the appellant was really serious about the matter, there was enough time to reconstruct the file or get the relevant documents from registry or from the appellant, for this reason also this request cannot be considered.
No justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1043
Rejection of refund claim - refund of the amount which was collected during investigation - refund of amount paid without liability whether permissible or not? - scope of assessee's substantive right to refund of the illegally recovered tax - HELD THAT:- The new judicial thesis instead rests on the principles of "economic and distributive justice" enshrined in the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It also attaches significance to the unethical consequences which would flow and the fiscal and financial chaos which would follow if no bar of "unjust enrichment" is applied by the courts before ordering refunds.
Article 265 and Section 72 should all be read and understood, says the majority view, in the light of "the philosophy and the core values of (the Indian) Constitution" and in keeping with "equity and good conscience".
As discussed decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court Mafatlal Industries Ltd [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] are sufficient to clarify that seeking the refund is not a matter of right and the procedure as discussed in the decision has to be followed. In the present case, apparently none of the said procedure has been followed. Though there had been an earlier order of this Tribunal sanctioning the refund, however, the Tribunal remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the refund application as per law. In compliance thereof, adjudicating authority has invoked section 11B of Central Excise Act. We do not find any infirmity in the same. We hold that the refund claim of appellant is not maintainable in the light of Mafatlal (supra) decision. Thus the order under challenge is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1042
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - mobile service providers (MSPs) can claim CENVAT Credit on excise duties paid on mobile towers and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) or not - whether the credit so claimed can be used to pay service tax for the output services rendered by the MSPs? - HELD THAT:- Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Rules enables a provider of taxable service to claim CENVAT credit on duties paid on any “capital goods” or “input” received in the premises of the service provider. Thus, if the mobile towers and prefabricated buildings, which are the items in issue here, qualify as “capital goods” or “inputs” received in the premises of the mobile service provider, the mobile service provider will be entitled to claim CENVAT credit which can be further used for paying service tax for the output services rendered by the mobile service provider.
In the light of the provisions of the CENVAT Rules, if it is held that towers and/or parts thereof and prefabricated buildings (PFBs) are “capital goods” or “inputs” used for providing output service within the meaning of the aforesaid CENVAT Rules, then CENVAT credit can be claimed on these items.
It appears that the definition of “goods” under the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 seems to be the basis of the term “goods” in other Statutes. Hence, we would primarily rely on the definition given in the Sale of Goods Act - the items in consideration viz., towers and prefabricated buildings are neither actionable claim nor money, nor do they come within the inclusive clause of the definition, viz., stocks, shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under contract of sale.
In order to determine whether any property is movable or immovable, this Court, in the light of the statutory provisions has applied certain principles. It has also been noted that such determination may be done not based on a single test but after applying several criteria on the facts of each case.
In TRIVENI ENGINEERING & INDUS. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2000 (8) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT], this Court applied the marketability test, in which it took the view that if the goods in question are capable of being taken into the market and sold, the same cannot be treated to be as immovable but movable property - This Court observed that “marketability” itself indicates movability of the property in issue.
In the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT], this Court again applied the test of marketability. The issue which arose for consideration in the said case was whether paper machines assembled at site were liable for duties under the Excise Act. It was the plea of the Assessee that since the machine was embedded in concrete base, it became an immovable property though embedding was for providing a wobble-free operation of the machine. This Court rejected the plea and held that merely because the machine was attached to the earth for efficient working and wobble- free operation, it did not per se render the said property immovable since the said machine can be sold in the market.
In the present case, while mobile tower cannot be shifted to another location without dismantling it, it is to be noted that mobile tower itself was bought and brought in a completely knocked-down (CKD) or semi-knocked-down (SKD) condition and it was erected and installed at the site after assembling the parts. If the said mobile tower is to be shifted to another location, it obviously has to be dismantled and restored to its SKD or CKD condition and thereafter re-erected, which however, would not entail any damage to it.
There can no dispute that if the newly set up BTS/BSC is relocated to another site it may entail certain damages. However, what is important to be noted is that the damage is qua the BTS/BSC or cables connecting the various components, but not the tower itself or PFB with which we are concerned. If the tower or the PFB can be dismantled and relocated in another site without causing any damage to either the tower or PFB, the mobility or the marketability of these items is retained. Thus, as far as the tower and PFBs are concerned, these exhibit the character of a movable property.
Thus, merely because certain articles are attached to the earth, it does not ipso facto render these immovable properties. If such attachment to earth is not intended to be permanent but for providing support to the goods concerned and make their functioning more effective, and if such items can still be dismantled without any damage or without bringing any change in the nature of the goods and can be moved to market and sold, such goods cannot be considered immovable.
The PFB houses other BTS equipment and alternative electricity source in the form of diesel generators and other equipment to provide alternative and uninterrupted power supply to the antenna so that in the event of failure of main power supply, the generator can instantly provide backup electricity supply to the antenna and BTS. The PFBs house electric cables, other equipment related to antenna, BTS and generator. Thus, PFBs enhance the efficacy and functioning of mobile antenna as well as BTS and accordingly, PFBs can also be considered as accessories to the antenna and BTS which are “capital goods” falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff.
Having held that the tower and pre-fabricated buildings (PFBs) are “goods” and not immovable property and since these goods are used for providing mobile telecommunication services, the inescapable conclusion is that they would also qualify as “inputs” under Rule 2(k) for the purpose of credit benefits under the CENVAT Rules - Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1041
Eligibility of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - clubbing of clearance value of two units - failure to consider various submission - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From the finding of this Tribunal, it can be seen that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to particularly, look into the financial transaction, day to day management etc. to arrive at conclusion of relationship between the two units.
It was also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) is supposed to reassess the evidences as brought out on record and also referred to specifically in the grounds of appeal and thereafter, applying the principles of natural justice reconsider the eligibility of SSI exemption Notification No.08/2003-CE. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appellant have made multiple submissions such as limitation, discrepancy in issuance of the show cause notice and various records showing that there is no financial flowback and both the units are working separately and particularly, after certain stage, one factory was shifted to the different location. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered all this aspects in the proper perspective and passed the order without considering the various submissions and evidences produced by the appellant.
The request of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant for remanding the matter is just and proper. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a fresh order.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1040
Liability to pay 6% duty on by product namely Ammonium Sulphate - contravention of condition of Notification No.01/2011- CE - availment of Cenvat Credit on the inputs used in the Ammonium Sulphate - HELD THAT:- It is found that in the present case the demand of differential duty of 5% i.e. as against the 1% duty paid by the appellant and 6% duty was demanded on the ground that appellant have availed the Cenvat Credit on the input and used in the Ammonium Sulphate, hence, the Ammonium Sulphateis liable to duty at the rate of 6% instead of 1%.
It is found that in the facts of the present case, Ammonium Sulphate is generated unavoidably as by product, in case of by product it cannot be said that any input stage credit was availed even if, the by product is cleared at nil rate of duty Cenvat credit cannot be demanded only on the pretext that the entire input on which the credit was taken has been used in the manufacture of the final product and not in manufacture of by product. Therefore, the exemption Notification No.01/2011which carries the condition of non availment of Cenvat Credit on input cannot be denied.
This issue is no longer res-integra, in the appellant’s own case, HINDUSTAN CHEMICALS COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.E. & S.T. -SURAT-II [2024 (5) TMI 459 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] it was held that 'since the issue has been settled that Ammonium Sulphate being a by-product arising in the course of manufacture of final product, the demand under Rule 6(3) is not applicable. Accordingly, In the present case also being a similar issue, demand is not sustainable.'
In view of the above decision in the appellant’s own case, it has been held that the reversal under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of Ammonium sulphate being by product is not required to be made. This has been held with a view that Cenvat Credit on the input cannot be said to have been availed when any by product is cleared. Therefore, in view of the above settled position, the demand of excise duty on the Ammonium Sulphate which was made on the basis that the Cenvat Credit was availed on the inputs is not sustainable.
The impugned order is set aside - the appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1039
Levy of purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 during the Assessment Year 1994-1995 - defective parts that were collected from the customers by providing maintenance services to the customers / clients on behalf of the head office - HELD THAT:- A reading of sub-section (1) to Section 7-A of the Act makes it clear that the question of subjecting the respondent to purchase tax would arise only if there was a purchase of defective spare parts by the respondent from the customers / clients, question of involving Section 7-A of the TNGST Act, 1959 will apply.
In the present case, it cannot be said that the respondent was purchasing the defective spare parts from the customers / clients. All that, the respondent did was to replace the old defective parts with the new parts and gave a discounts on the replaced new parts to the customers.
Since there was no purchase of defective parts, question of levying purchase tax at the rate mentioned in Section 3 or Section 4 of TNGST Act, 1959 under Section 7-A of TNGST Act, 1959 does not arise - there are no merit in the challenge to the impugned order of the Tribunal - tax case dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1038
Dismissal of appeal of the petitioner - dismissal mainly, on the ground that against the assessment order, the petitioner preferred online appeal without filing certified copy of assessment order in physical form, whereas, downloaded copy of assessment order was filed along with the appeal memo - HELD THAT:- The view taken by all the High Courts agreed upon, wherein it was held that amendment in Rule 108 with effect from 26.12.2022 is procedural in nature and being procedural, will have retrospective effect - reliance can be placed in Indian Potash Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner [2024 (8) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Oaknorth (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2023 (9) TMI 781 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT].
The view of the High Courts agreed upon that rejection of appeal on hyper technical ground cannot be countenanced, more so, when appeal was admittedly filed within time along with the downloaded copy from the portal.
Thus, the impugned appellate order dated 19.07.2024 is set aside. The appeal is restored in the file of learned appellate authority. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal, in accordance with law, on merits - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1037
Eligibility for GST exemption on hostel accommodation services - whether the hostel accommodation being provided by the Applicant to students and working women qualify to be a residential dwelling for use as residence as described in the above entry and thus eligible for exemption or not? - HELD THAT:- The term 'residential dwelling' has not been defined either under CGST Act or under Notification No. 12/2017. However, under the erstwhile service tax law, in paragraph 4.13.1 of the Taxation of Services: An Education Guide dated 20.06.2012', issued by the CBIC, the expression residential dwelling' has been interpreted in terms of the normal trade parlance as per which it is any residential accommodation, but does not include hotel, motel, inn, guest house, campsite, lodge, house boat, or like places meant for temporary stay.
It is clear that the purpose and objective of the notification is nothing but to avoid taxing residential properties taken on rent by family or individuals and the benefit of exemption is not extended to the premises which do not qualify as residential dwelling for use as residence. Further, unless the twin conditions of 'renting of residential dwelling' for 'use as residence,' being inter-twined and inseparable, are not met, the exemption is not available. As per settled position in taxation laws, especially when exemptions or concessions or benefits are to be availed, the interpretation is to be literally and strictly construed and not in liberal terms. In effect, the place rented out is neither a residential dwelling nor being rented out for use as residence.
It is clear that hostel accommodation is not equivalent to residential accommodation and hence the services supplied by the Applicant would not be eligible for exemption under Entry 12 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and under the identical Notification under the TNGST Act, 2017, and also under Entry 13 of Exemption Notification No.09/2017-IT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.
Requirement for GST registration based on turnover - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Applicant's service of providing hostel accommodation is not eligible for exemption under Entry 12 of Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended, the Applicant is very much be required to take registration under the GST Enactments, as the arrangement between the Applicant and the hostel occupants is liable to be classified as transaction in the course of furtherance of business and hence, as per Section 7(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Entry No. 2(b) of the Second Schedule to the CGST Act, the said transaction constitutes "supply" - the Applicant is required to get themselves registered in the state of Tamil Nadu, if their aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees.
Taxability and applicable GST rate for hostel accommodation services - HELD THAT:- It is observed that hotels are meant for a temporary stay (2-5 days) and have lot of facilities and staff, but hostels are used for a longer period and have basic facilities with minimal staff required by the inmates to stay at a reasonable rate. Therefore, hostel services cannot be equated to a hotel accommodation and hotel GST rates cannot be applied to a hostel. Therefore, the supply of hostel accommodation services (Tariff heading 9963) is taxable @ 9% CGST + 9% SGST under Sl. No. 7(vi) of the above Notification (Sl.No. 7 (ix) as per original notification).
Tax treatment of in-house food supply as part of hostel services - HELD THAT:- The natural bundle has the characteristic of where one service is the main service and the other services are ancillary services which help in better enjoyment of the main service. Further, there is a single price for the combined services. The principal activity of the Applicant is supply of accommodation Services. While providing such services, the charges are being realised in a consolidated manner for the value of food and other like services rendered. The Applicant has stated that they do not charge separately for the other services provided by them. Thus, the services provided by the Applicant are composite in nature - As per Section 8 of the CGST Act, 2017, for a Composite supply, the tax rate on the principal supply will be treated as the tax rate on the given composite supply. Since the Applicant provides a number of services in a composite manner, the hostel accommodation services provided by the Applicant, being the principal supply, which is taxable @18%, will be tax rate for the composite supply provided by them.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1036
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - procedure prescribed for reassessment - intra Court appeal by the Revenue against the order of this Court - Non furnishing of reasons - Without passing the preliminary order, AO has passed the final assessment order - As decided by HC [2023 (1) TMI 1261 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] after receipt of the letter A.O. has called the assessee for final hearing keeping in view the paucity of time. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the reasons were not furnished, though it is an admitted position that reasons were sought as back as in April 2018. The order sheet and assessment order clearly indicate that entire proceeding has been hurriedly completed between 18.12.2018 and 28.12.2018 in order to complete the same within the time limit i.e. 31.12.2018.
This is an intra-court appeal. There is no patent error to interfere with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge more so, when a Division Bench of this Court following an authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that provision is mandatory in nature. Decided against revenue.
HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 380 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, we have gone through the Special Leave Petition and do not find any merit in the same.
Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1035
Assessment u/s 144C - TP adjustments were not received in time and the AO has confirmed the draft assessment order and the same is in violation of Section 144C - Delay filling SLP - As decided by HC [2023 (9) TMI 1575 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] assessee is right in his submission that u/s 144C AO is bound by the directions issued by the DRP and required to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions issued within one month from the end of month in which such directions are issued. ITAT has recorded that impugned order is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 144C of the IT Act and barred by time. Revenue appeal dismissed.
HELD THAT:- There is a gross and unexplained delay of 294 days in filing the Special Leave Petition.
We see no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2024 (11) TMI 1034
Computation of undisclosed income of the block period - Scope of section 158-BB of the Income Tax Act for assessment of undisclosed income in search cases - HELD THAT:- We find that the words which have been added are rightly interpreted by the Tribunal to include two types of material which may be considered by the assessing officer. First, the material found during search and relatable to such evidence and the second part is such other materials or information as are available with the AO.
Thus, apart from the evidence which may be collected and noticed during search, if the assessing officer has any other information and such other material with him, which is relatable to such evidence, the same can also be looked into for the purpose. Therefore, an assessment u/s 158-BC of the Act is required to be made both on the basis of result of search as well as post search enquiry and other proceedings which are in the nature of consequences of the evidence found as a result of search.
Affidavit of the employees have not been considered - It is argued that the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity and fair hearing has not been provided to him - Large number of documents relating to correspondence with Excise Department, police cases, court cases relating to the firms carrying out liquor business, which were not in the name of the assessee, have also been found from his premises.
Copies of number of maps of godowns and vends, which were operated by various companies were also recovered from his premises. There were 7+9+7 truck loads recovered from three different places. Stock position of various liquor vends was also found. During the courses of search, statements of number of persons were also recorded, who stated that they were salesmen working in those vends. The assessee was their employer and real owner of the vends. Merely because the license was issued by the Excise Department for various liquor vends, income from which the learned assessing officer has found to be undisclosed income of the assessee cannot absolve the concerned assessee. We agree with the Tribunal that the assessing officer is not flattered by the technical rule of evidence and if he reaches to the conclusion that the vends are all being owned and managed by the concerned person singularly through employees, merely because the licenses are not in the name of the concerned assessee, it would not make any difference to reach to the conclusion that there is undisclosed income.
There is cross-examination of almost all persons, whose statements were relied upon, was afforded to the assessee and after the cross-examination was conducted when nothing contrary to the earlier statements was emerged and in some cases the assessee did not even come forward to cross-examine, the inference could be drawn.
There was also a document of rent agreement for premises taken on record in the name of one M/s Chander Bhan Om Parkarsh and Company, which was signed by the assessee as a contractor. Thus, the Tribunal has found that there was undisclosed income of the assessee which he was earning through ghost and benami companies, which were running on the properties taken on rent by him. The assessment order was found to have been correctly re-assessed by the three Judges Bench of the Tribunal. Decided against assessee.
............
|
9911796707
