TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether excise duty was includible in the 'total turnover' for computing deduction under section 80HHC(3); (ii) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147 and 148 were valid when the original assessments had been completed under section 143(3) and the notices were issued after four years.
Issue (i): Whether excise duty was includible in the 'total turnover' for computing deduction under section 80HHC(3).
Analysis: The deduction under section 80HHC is computed by applying the proportion of export turnover to total turnover. The Tribunal noted that statutory levies such as excise duty do not represent business profit and are collected on behalf of the State. It followed the view that the expression 'total turnover' in this context should be read in a manner consistent with the object of the provision, namely encouraging exports, and that including such levies would distort the statutory formula. The Tribunal relied on the line of authority holding that excise duty is not part of total turnover for section 80HHC purposes.
Conclusion: Excise duty was not includible in the total turnover, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147 and 148 were valid when the original assessments had been completed under section 143(3) and the notices were issued after four years.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the notices were issued beyond four years and, therefore, the proviso to section 147 applied. It held that the assessee had disclosed the relevant accounts and turnover figures in the original proceedings, and there was no statutory obligation to separately highlight that excise duty had not been included in total turnover. The reopening was based on reappraisal of the same material already on record, which amounted to a mere change of opinion. In the absence of any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the reopening could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the reassessment and sustained the assessee's claim under section 80HHC by holding that excise duty did not form part of total turnover and that the reopening was impermissible on the facts.
Ratio Decidendi: For reopening an assessment beyond four years, the Revenue must show a failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment; where reopening is founded only on a change of opinion on material already disclosed, it is invalid, and excise duty is not to be treated as part of total turnover for section 80HHC computation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
