TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
By creating an account you can:
of 45
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
Issues: Whether the assessment order and appellate order could be sustained when the assessee was not afforded a separate date for filing reply and hearing, as required for compliance with the hearing requirement under the GST law.
Analysis: The challenge centred on the absence of a separate hearing date and the consequent denial of an effective opportunity to respond. The Court applied the reasoning of an earlier Division Bench decision on the same point and treated that reasoning as governing the present facts. On that basis, the Court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained and that a fresh decision had to be taken after granting opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was left open for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act - order under Section 73 of the GST Act - opportunity of hearing - quash and remand for fresh consideration - adoption of Division Bench reasoning
Hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act - opportunity of hearing - order under Section 73 of the GST Act - adoption of Division Bench reasoning - quash and remand for fresh consideration - Whether the petitioners were denied the hearing required under Section 75(4) of the GST Act and whether the impugned orders under Section 73 should be quashed and remanded. - HELD THAT: - Petitioners contended that no separate dates were fixed for submission of reply and for hearing, contrary to the applicable circular, and that the hearing mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act was therefore not provided. The Court found the contention to be determinative and adopted the reasoning of the Division Bench in Writ Tax No. 303 of 2024 dated 04.03.2024 as squarely applicable. Applying that precedent, the Court held that the impugned orders could not stand where the requisite hearing opportunity was not accorded. In consequence, the orders passed under Section 73 were quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondents with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. [Paras 3, 4]
Impugned orders under Section 73 quashed; matter remitted for fresh decision after affording the petitioners the hearing mandated by Section 75(4).
Final Conclusion: The petition is allowed to the extent that the orders under Section 73 are quashed and the respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving the petitioners the opportunity of hearing; disposed of accordingly.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ direction for payment of the differential GST amount arising from the enhancement of GST rate and whether the existence of an alternative contractual remedy barred the writ petition.
Analysis: The GST rate applicable to the petitioner's work was enhanced from 12% to 18% with effect from 01.01.2022. The respondent entity had already accepted liability to pay the additional 6% and the record did not disclose any disputed question of fact warranting relegation to the contractual dispute resolution mechanism. In these circumstances, the writ remedy was treated as maintainable and the petitioner's claim for the differential tax component was accepted.
Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded. The respondent was directed to pay the differential GST at 6% for the relevant period within the stipulated time, failing which interest would become payable.
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Seeking to release the admitted liability towards the difference of GST amount - interest on the delayed payment of the GST difference - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on an order Division Bench of this Court in M/S APEX STRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NEELABH SUGANDHI VERSUS STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [2024 (12) TMI 928 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein it is observed 'respondent No.2 is directed to pay the difference of GST amount to the petitioner @ 6% from 01.01.2022 to 30.09.2022 with a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement.'
Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the additional GST amount and interest on delayed payments. The writ petition is maintainable despite the presence of an arbitration clause.
Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions addressed in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: GST Applicability on Fees Received by CERC and DERC
Issue 2: Bifurcation of Adjudicatory and Regulatory Roles
Issue 3: Classification as Business Entities
Issue 4: Exemption under Schedule III
Issue 5: Validity of Notifications and Interpretations
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Levy of GST - Regulatory fees collected by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) - respondents have sought to draw a dichotomy between the “adjudicatory” and “regulatory” functions which these two statutory bodies discharge to essentially hold that the revenue earned from the latter would be subject to tax under the CGST and IGST Acts - HELD THAT:- Whilst the supply of goods or services stands comprised in Schedule II, Schedule III to the CGST Act lists out activities which are neither liable to be treated as a supply of goods nor a supply of services. Schedule III assumes significance since one such genre is prescribed to be services rendered by a tribunal established under any law. The fact that an electricity regulatory commission acts as a “tribunal” cannot perhaps be disputed bearing in mind the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [2010 (3) TMI 1209 - SUPREME COURT] and where it was held that 'the Central Commission is the decision-making authority. Such decision-making under Section 79(1) is not dependent upon making of regulations under Section 178 by the Central Commission. Therefore, functions of the Central Commission enumerated in Section 79 are separate and distinct from functions of the Central Commission under Section 178. The former are administrative/adjudicatory functions whereas the latter are legislative.'.
The respondents, however, seek to discern a distinction between the adjudicatory function performed by a regulatory commission as distinguishable from what they assert to be the exercise of a power to regulate. According to the respondents, any income or receipts derived by those Commissions in the course of discharge of their regulatory function would be exigible to tax under the CGST Act - It becomes pertinent to note that the CGST Act not only deals with the supply of goods or services per se, it also brings within its ambit composite and mixed supplies in terms of Section 8. Composite supplies are those which are spelt out and enumerated in serial 6 of Schedule II. The supply of services generically is dealt with in serial 5. Undisputedly, the regulatory function discharged by Commissions can neither be said to be akin to renting of immovable property, construction of a complex or building, temporary transfer or permissive use or enjoyment of an intellectual property right, development, design of software, transfer of the right to use goods and which are subjects enumerated in serial 5 of Schedule II.
The regulatory power which is wielded by Commissions under the provisions of the Electricity Act would also not fall within the ambit of clause (e) of serial 5 and which speaks of an obligation to refrain from doing an act or toleration of an act or situation.
Whether the power to regulate, as exercised, could be said to be an activity akin to trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, voyager and which are activities enumerated in Section 2 (17) (a)? - HELD THAT:- The expression “local authority” is defined by Section 2 (69) to include local bodies such as Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Committees, Cantonment Boards or Regional Councils and other authorities which may come to be constituted in terms of Articles 371, 371A, 371J or the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. A Commission which is constituted under the Electricity Act would undisputedly not fall within the ken of such authorities - The word “consideration”, in our considered opinion, would necessarily have to draw colour and meaning from Section 2(31) and which speaks of payment made in respect of, in response to or for the inducement of a supply of goods.
When we revert to Section 2 (17), we find that the statute defines the said expression to mean any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity irrespective of whether it be for a pecuniary benefit or not. Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2 (17) are again coupled to clause (a). Clause (d) of Section 2 (17) is concerned with the supply or acquisition of goods, while clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) would also have no application whatsoever considering the nature of activities which are contemplated therein.
The word “consideration”, in our considered opinion, would necessarily have to draw colour and meaning from Section 2(31) and which speaks of payment made in respect of, in response to or for the inducement of a supply of goods. Suffice it to note that it was not even remotely sought to be contended by the respondents that the payments in the form of fee as received by Commissions were an outcome of an inducement to supply goods or services.
More importantly we find that by virtue of Section 7, a supply would necessarily have to be of goods or services not only for consideration but more importantly in the course or furtherance of business. We have in the preceding parts of this decision clearly found that the regulatory function discharged by Commissions would clearly not fall within the scope of the word “business” as defined by Section 2 (17). Thus, even if the fee so received by such Commissions were to be assumed as being consideration received, it was clearly not one obtained in the course or furtherance of business. We are thus of the considered opinion that the view as expressed by the respondents in the SCNs’ impugned before us are rendered wholly arbitrary and unsustainable.
Role and Functions of Electricity Commission - HELD THAT:- The Electricity Act makes no distinction between the regulatory and adjudicatory functions which it vests in and confers upon a Commission. Those functions are placed in the hands of a quasi-judicial body enjoined to regulate and administer the subject of electricity distribution. Electricity, undoubtedly, is a natural resource which vests in the State. There are no hesitation in observing that the SCNs’ infringe the borders of the incredible and inconceivable - A notification would neither expand the scope of the parent entry nor can it be construed as taking away an exemption which stands granted under the CGST Act. There cannot possibly be even a cavil of doubt that a Schedule constitutes an integral part and component of the principal legislation.
Conclusion - The regulatory function discharged by Commissions would clearly not fall within the scope of the word 'business' as defined by Section 2 (17).
Petition allowed.
Issues: Whether, where a rectification application under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is filed against an assessment order and is subsequently rejected, the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the original assessment order begins from the date of the original order or from the date of disposal of the rectification application.
Analysis: Rectification under Section 161 is a statutory post-assessment remedy, and its disposal may either alter the original order or leave it untouched. If rectification is allowed, the resulting order merges with the original order; if it is rejected, the rejection order becomes the relevant subsequent order for computing limitation. In such a situation, the time to challenge the assessment order cannot be treated as running from the date of the original assessment alone, because the rectification proceedings are part of the same statutory process and directly affect the finality of the assessment order for appellate purposes.
Conclusion: The limitation period for filing an appeal against the original assessment order starts from the date on which the rectification application is rejected, not from the date of the original assessment order.
Challenge to impugned order - Seeking direction to respondent to reconsider and rectify based on the petitioner's explanation dated 18.11.2024 in the light of the provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - time limitation - HELD THAT:- After assessment order has been made, Section 161 of the GST Act provides for an application to be made for rectification. Such rectification can be disposed either in favour of the assessee or against him. If any rectification is made as prayed for, the same would get merged into the original order. Just because the rectification application has been rejected, the period of limitation to challenge the original assessment order cannot be said to begin from the date on which the original order was passed, it would only count from the date on which the order of rectification has been passed.
In the present case, the original order of assessment was made on 19.08.2024 and the order in rectification was made on 22.11.2024. Therefore, the period of limitation for challenging the order of assessment dated 19.08.2024 shall start ticking from the date of rejection of the rectification application i.e., from 22.11.2024. It is made clear that when the appeal is filed by the assessee as against the original order of assessment, the period of limitation shall be calculated from the date on which the rectification had been dismissed.
Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment primarily revolves around the following core issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Order and Notice
Issue 2: Opportunity to Present the Case
Issue 3: Remand for Reconsideration
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Natural justice / opportunity of hearing - service by uploading on GST Portal - setting aside of impugned assessment order - treatment of assessment order as show cause notice - remand for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of part tax
Service by uploading on GST Portal - natural justice / opportunity of hearing - setting aside of impugned assessment order - Impugned assessment order and consequential notice set aside on account of lack of effective service and consequent denial of opportunity to participate in adjudication. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the show cause notices and the impugned order were not served by tender or RPAD but uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal, owing to which the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and did not participate in adjudication. In those circumstances, the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2023 and the consequential intimation dated 25.01.2024, observing that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to put forth objections and be heard before final adjudication. The Court noted the petitioner's contention regarding a communication misunderstanding and its willingness to participate if given an opportunity, and took into account the respondent's counsel not having a serious objection to granting a final opportunity. [Paras 4, 7]
Impugned order dated 09.10.2023 and intimation dated 25.01.2024 set aside and matter directed to be reconsidered after affording opportunity of hearing.
Remand for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of part tax - treatment of assessment order as show cause notice - opportunity of hearing - Matter remanded for fresh consideration with specific conditions including deposit of 25% of disputed tax and treating the assessment order as a show cause notice for filing objections. - HELD THAT: - Relying on analogous relief previously granted by this Court, the petition was remanded on specified terms. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receipt of the order; upon such deposit the impugned assessment order will be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner may file objections with supporting documents within four weeks. The respondent is required to consider any objections filed and pass orders in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. If the deposit is not made or objections are not filed within the stipulated periods, the impugned assessment order shall stand revived. These directions effectuate remediation of the denial of opportunity while preserving the respondent's authority to adjudicate on the merits. [Paras 5, 7]
Proceedings remitted to the adjudicating authority on conditions: deposit of 25% within two weeks; filing of objections within four weeks; reconsideration and fresh orders after hearing; revival of impugned order if conditions not complied with.
Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed of by setting aside the impugned assessment order and consequential intimation; matter remanded to the respondent for fresh adjudication on specified conditions (deposit of 25% and opportunity to file objections), with revival of the impugned order if conditions are not complied with; no order as to costs.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Issuance of Show Cause Notice Without Prior Intimation
Issue 2: Failure to Consider the Reconciliation Report
Issue 3: Non-Speaking Order
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - respondent's failure to consider the petitioner's reconciliation report - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had not responded to the said notice and therefore a reminder was sent on 06.07.2024. The petitioner had sent a reply to the show cause notice on 06.07.2024 through online portal clearly stating that according to the comparison sheet under the GST system between GSTR 3B Vs. GSTR-2A, the petitioner had excess credit of Rs. 1,40,684/-. He had also attached the reconciliation report. A perusal of the reconciliation report clearly shows that after adjusting the amount towards IGST, CGST and SGST, an amount of Rs. 1,40,684/- was still available. This reconciliation statement has not been taken note of by the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent would simply state that the reply is not accepted. The reason for not accepting the explanation has not been spelt out in the impugned order. The impugned order is a one line non-speaking order. Such an order cannot be sustained.
The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent to consider the afresh the demand in the show cause notice and the reply - Petition allowed by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Jurisdictional Fact for Invoking Section 122(1A) of CGST Act
Issue 2: Premature Nature of the Writ Petition
Issue 3: Validity of the Show Cause Notice Without a Statement
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Jurisdictional fact for invoking Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act - Challenge to show-cause notice - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - interference at show cause stage - Requirement to exhaust alternative remedies / not to entertain premature writs - Right to file reply and to be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing
Jurisdictional fact for invoking Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act - Challenge to show-cause notice - Writ petition challenging show cause notice at the pre adjudication stage is premature and not ordinarily maintainable; however, the recipient may file objections and the authority must consider them. - HELD THAT: - The court accepted the settled principle that High Courts should ordinarily not quash or entertain challenges to show cause notices at the stage of issuance under Article 226, except in exceptional cases where the notice is totally non est or there is absolute want of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on precedent emphasising that taxation proceedings should proceed by filing replies and pursuing statutory remedies, and that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be used to stifle investigative or adjudicatory processes. The petitioner's contention that a statement was a condition precedent to issuance of the notice was not supported by any statutory provision. In the circumstances the court refrained from inquiring into the merits of the allegation that the jurisdictional fact under Section 122(1A) was absent, and directed that the petitioner may file objections to the notice which the authority shall consider after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Writ petition dismissed as premature; petitioner permitted to file objections within four weeks and the authority directed to consider the same in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice as premature and declined to examine merits, permitting the petitioner to file objections within four weeks and directing the respondents to consider them and proceed with adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Mandatory Personal Hearing
Issue 2: Requirement of Detailed Reasons
Issue 3: Maintainability of Writ Petition
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Cancellation of petitioner's registration under the CGST Act - Failure to grant personal hearing which according to the petitioner is mandatory in terms of the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court is conscious of the fact that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be entertained normally if statutory remedy is availed. However, existence of alternate remedy is not an embargo or an absolute bar to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but a self-imposed restriction and the following circumstances viz., violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction or error apparent on the face of the record are some of the exceptions carved out to the rule of alternate remedy for exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion - This Court is of the view that failure to grant a personal hearing is contrary to the mandate contained under Section 75(4) of the GST Act and also results in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Thus the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 is set aside.
Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment from the Delhi High Court addresses the following core legal issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts
Issue 2: Seizure and Return of Assets
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Freezing the bank account - legality of seizure u/s 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 during the search and seizure operations - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 67 (3) of CGST Act, all documents, books or things seized under Section 67 (2) of CGST Act, are required to be returned to the person from whom the same are seized within the period not exceeding 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice.
In these circumstances, the Commissioner may retain the documents, records, laptops, CPUS and Mobile Phones which were seized but only till the time, the same are required and in any event not later than 30 days after issuance of notice, as required under Section 67 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - In the meanwhile, the Commissioner shall ensure that copies of the documents and data on devices available in the mobile phones, CPUs, laptops and other records, which were seized are made available to the petitioners.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that although the petitioners have provided a hard disk of 01 Terabyte, the respondents are compelling the petitioners to give further hard disks - Commissioner is requested to examine this aspect and ensure that the copy of the data is not withheld from the petitioners.
List for hearing on the aforesaid aspect on 20.08.2024, the date already fixed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order dated 25.11.2021
Relevant legal framework and precedents:
Under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an eligible assessee who is aggrieved by a Draft Assessment Order must file objections with both the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. The case references a similar situation in W.P.No.7369 of 2024, where the court intervened due to procedural lapses.
Court's interpretation and reasoning:
The court noted that the petitioner was unable to file objections with the Assessing Officer due to technical glitches. The court emphasized that procedural fairness requires the Assessing Officer to await the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel before finalizing the assessment.
Key evidence and findings:
The petitioner filed objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel, but due to technical issues, failed to file with the Assessing Officer. The court found this procedural lapse significant enough to quash the Assessment Order.
Application of law to facts:
The court applied the principles of procedural fairness and determined that the issuance of the Assessment Order while objections were pending was prejudicial to the petitioner.
Treatment of competing arguments:
The respondents argued that the petitioner should have informed the National Faceless Assessment Unit about the objections filed. However, the court found that the procedural error warranted quashing the order.
Conclusions:
The court quashed the Assessment Order dated 25.11.2021 and directed the Assessing Officer to await the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel before issuing a new order.
Issue 2: Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 13.06.2022
Relevant legal framework and precedents:
The Dispute Resolution Panel's role is to provide directions on objections filed against Draft Assessment Orders. The court referenced its decision in W.P.No.7369 of 2024 to support its reasoning.
Court's interpretation and reasoning:
The court reasoned that since the Assessment Order was quashed, the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, which were based on the impugned order, must also be set aside.
Key evidence and findings:
The Dispute Resolution Panel had rejected the petitioner's application due to the procedural lapse. The court found this rejection unjustified in light of the quashed Assessment Order.
Application of law to facts:
The court applied the principle of fairness, determining that the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel should not stand when based on an invalid Assessment Order.
Treatment of competing arguments:
The court did not find any compelling arguments to uphold the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel given the procedural context.
Conclusions:
The court set aside the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 13.06.2022 and remitted the matter back for a fresh order on merits.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:
"The issuance of the impugned Assessment Order while the objections of the petitioner are pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel causes great prejudice to the petitioner."
Core principles established:
Final determinations on each issue:
Validity of assessment order passed - Proceedings/directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel pursuant to a Draft Assessment Order - Certain technical glitches which disabled the petitioner to comply with the second requirement of filing an objection with the AO - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner was disabled from forwarding the objection to the AO, the order has been now passed by the AO without awaiting for the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Therefore, the impugned Assessment Order dated 25.11.2021 is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.
Since the Dispute Resolution Panel has rejected the application filed by the petitioner, in view of the impugned Assessment Order dated 25.11.2021, directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 13.06.2022 is also liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Dispute Resolution Panel to pass a fresh order on merits.
Issues: (i) Whether receipts from maintenance, support and training services were taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether receipts from software implementation and migration related additional services were taxable as fees for technical services, or as business receipts taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
Issue (i): Whether receipts from maintenance, support and training services were taxable as fees for technical services under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The services consisted of remote maintenance, support, troubleshooting, training and updates connected with the software sublicensed to Indian customers. The decisive question was whether the services satisfied the "make available" condition under Article 12(4)(b), namely whether technical knowledge, experience, skill or know-how was transferred so that the recipient could independently apply it. The recurring nature of the services, the absence of onsite support, and the nature of the assistance showed that the customers were only receiving help in using and maintaining the software, not acquiring technical capability to perform the services on their own.
Conclusion: The receipts from maintenance, support and training services were not fees for technical services and were not taxable in India on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether receipts from software implementation and migration related additional services were taxable as fees for technical services, or as business receipts taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
Analysis: The additional services were confined to migration of software from an old version to a new version. No material was brought to show that any technical knowledge, know-how, skill or technical plan was made available to the Indian customers. The burden to prove satisfaction of the treaty's make available test lay on the Revenue and was not discharged. Once the receipts were not taxable as fees for technical services, they assumed the character of business receipts, and in the absence of a permanent establishment in India they could not be taxed in India.
Conclusion: The receipts from additional services were not taxable in India.
Final Conclusion: The additions treating the impugned service receipts as taxable income were deleted, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive issues, subject to dismissal of the non-pressed and consequential grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: For treaty purposes, technical or consultancy services are taxable as fees for technical services only when they satisfy the "make available" condition by transferring an independently usable technical capability to the recipient; mere maintenance, support, troubleshooting, training or software migration assistance does not meet that test absent such transfer.
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - taxability of receipts towards maintenance, other support and training services and received on account of additional services as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) - assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated under the laws of Singapore - Scope of India-Singapore Treaty DTAA - HELD THAT:- The facts of the present appeal reveal that the assessee is providing identical nature of services year on year basis. Had it been the case that the assessee has made available technical knowledge, knowhow, skill etc. to the service recipient, there would not have been any requirement for the assessee to provide such services on recurring basis.
This is so because, once the technical knowledge, know-how skill etc. is made available to the service recipient, it enables the service recipient to independently perform such services without requiring the aid and assistance of service provider.
Pertinently, while considering identical nature of dispute in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2018-19 [2023 (5) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI] had examined the nature of services provided by the assessee in terms with the agreement and concluded that the receipts are not in the nature of FTS.
Whether the receipts from additional services can be treated as FTS under the Treaty provisions? - assessee provide service relating to migration of software from old to new - HELD THAT:- If the Department seeks to invoke Article 12(4)(b) of the treaty the burden is entirely on the department to demonstrate the fulfillment of make available condition through cogent evidence. Unfortunately, the Department has failed to do so.
Allegation of the AO that the assessee has offered similar income to tax in A.Y. 2018-19 does not stand to reason in view of the fact that in A.Y. 2018-19, the assessee offered it as business income in view of the fact that it had a service PE in India. Whereas, it is the assertion of the assessee that in the impugned assessment year there was no PE in India. Even, in the assessment order, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer regarding existence of PE in India. In that view of the matter, once the receipts are not in the nature of FTS under Article 12(4) of the Treaty, they have to be treated as business receipts and in absence of PE in India, cannot be made taxable.
Assessee appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involves the following core legal questions:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Rectification of Orders Regarding Securities Losses Recoveries
Issue 2: Verification of CPA Certificate and Allocation Key for Transfer Pricing Adjustment
Issue 3: Tribunal's Power to Remand Issues for Verification
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment demonstrates the Tribunal's careful consideration of contingent liabilities, the necessity of a complete factual record for final determinations, and the appropriate exercise of discretion in remanding issues for further verification. These principles are crucial in ensuring fair tax assessments and adherence to legal standards.
Rectification of mistake - recovery of securities losses made during the relevant previous year should not be brought to tax in view of the fact that the losses incurred pertained to AY 1993-94 and the issue of deductibility of said losses had not attend finality - HELD THAT:-Tribunal has specifically stated that Ground No. 6 raised by the Assessee is kept open. The directions being sought are clearly dependent upon the outcome of the appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in order to redress the grievance of the Assessee, it is clarified that subject to judgment/direction of the Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appellate proceedings arising from the order, passed by the Tribunal in appeal for the Assessment Year 1993-1994, the recoveries of securities losses would not be taxed during the Assessment Year 2002-2003 in case the Revenue succeeds its appeal for the Assessment Year 1993-94 before the Hon'ble High Court/Hon’ble Supreme Court and the deduction for securities losses in disallowed.
Tribunal erred in directing the verification of the CPA Certificate and allocation key for the TPA related to the Assessment Year 2002-03 - TPO had proposed Transfer Pricing Adjustments on the ground that the Assessee had failed to satisfy the benefit test. Since the TPO had rejected the claim at the very threshold, there was no occasion for the TPO to benchmark the cost allocated by taking into account the CPA Certificate furnished by the Assessee. Further, perusal of Assessment Order clearly shows that the TPO/Assessing Officer had clearly taken a stand that in absence of relevant documents/details the benefit derived from the Indian operations could be determined and therefore, benchmarking of cost allocation could not be done. Thus, we reject the contention of the Assessee that the authorities below had verified the CPA Certificate furnished by the Assessee for benchmarking the cost allocation.
We are alive to the fact that the Tribunal being the final fact-finding Authority is required to return finding of fact. However, for doing so all the relevant material/facts should be available on record. In case the material facts/information are not available on record and the Tribunal may, in its discretion, remand the issue back to the file of the authorities below. While it has been submitted on behalf of the Assessee that all materials/fact relevant for adjudication of the issue of transfer pricing adjustment were available on record, the same was rejected. We do not find merit in the aforesaid submission in view of the facts narrated hereinabove. We have already rejected the submission of the Assessee that the authorities below had taken cognizance of the CPA Certificate. In our view, the authorities below did not object to the allocation policy or computation of cost allocation solely for the reason that the contention of the Assessee that the cost allocated resulted in benefit to Indian operations/branch was rejected at the threshold by the authorities below on account of failure of the Assessee to furnish supporting documents.
Tribunal had accepted the contention of the Assessee that the entire cost allocation cannot be rejected on account of non-submission of original vouchers and agreement/invoices, and thereby provided another opportunity to the Assessee to establish that the cost allocation was at ALP. Equity also required that Revenue should also be granted opportunity to verify the allocation/computation of the cost said to have been incurred outside India for the purpose of Indian operations. Thus, we reject the contention of the Assessee that the directions issued by the Tribunal in paragraph 56 of the order, dated 15/03/2024, constituted mistake apparent on record.
The remand of the issue back to the file of the authorities below can, at best, constitute error of judgment (and not mistake apparent on record as contended by the Assessee) which may be subjected to judicial review in appellate proceedings under Section 260A of the Act and the same does not fall within the ambit of powers vested in the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent on record.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty on account of the activities and presence of expatriate employees at the Indian subsidiary's premises. (ii) Whether the secondment and interaction of expatriate employees with the Indian subsidiary showed that the assessee's global business was being carried on in India or that a deemed permanent establishment had otherwise come into existence.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee had a fixed place permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Korea Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty on account of the activities and presence of expatriate employees at the Indian subsidiary's premises.
Analysis: A fixed place permanent establishment requires a place of business through which the enterprise's own business is carried on, and the place must be at the enterprise's disposal and under its control in a meaningful sense. Mere presence of expatriate personnel, exchange of information, and discussion of product preferences, marketing plans, stock status, or market strategy does not by itself establish that the foreign enterprise is carrying on its business from the Indian premises. The record showed that the secondees were placed in India to support the Indian subsidiary, not to conduct the assessee's core business in India.
Conclusion: The fixed place permanent establishment was not established against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the secondment and interaction of expatriate employees with the Indian subsidiary showed that the assessee's global business was being carried on in India or that a deemed permanent establishment had otherwise come into existence.
Analysis: Secondment in a multinational group is not enough unless the deployed personnel are shown to be performing the foreign enterprise's own business activities in the source State. The statements and surrounding material showed that the employees were engaged in facilitating the business of the Indian subsidiary, with communications relating to consumer preferences, product development, sales strategy, and logistics. The activities were treated as reporting and coordination in aid of the subsidiary's functions, not as conduct of the assessee's business in India. The treaty's deeming provisions were therefore not attracted on the facts found.
Conclusion: No deemed permanent establishment arose from the secondment arrangement.
Final Conclusion: The treaty-based permanent establishment case set up by the Revenue failed on facts and law, and the Tribunal's view rejecting taxability on that basis was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign enterprise does not acquire a permanent establishment merely because secondee employees or group personnel work at an Indian subsidiary's premises; the Revenue must show that the foreign enterprise's own business is carried on through a fixed place at its disposal or through personnel acting for it in a manner that satisfies Article 5.
Accrual of income in India - Fixed Place Permanent Establishment [“PE”] in India or not? - DTAA between India and Korea - deemed PE having come into being merely on account of the secondment of employees as per DRP - Whether business decisions such as decisions relating to the product to be manufactured, pricing of the product and decisions relating to launch of new products were being taken in India? - Tribunal held that the activities of the assessee in India were of the nature specified in Article 5 (4) of the DTAA and consequently there was no PE in India.
HELD THAT:- As is manifest from the principles that we had identified in Progress Rail, a PE would be deemed to have come into existence if one were to find a Fixed Place through which the business of the enterprise seated in the other Contracting State was being carried out. Those premises must be found to be at the disposal of that enterprise and under its control. We had quoted, with approval, the test formulated by Klaus Vogel who had explained control over premises or space to answer the test of “considerable extent” and the premises being “an instrument (equalling or resembling an operating asset) for his entrepreneurial activity”. It is these tests which would qualify the benchmark of “virtual projection” as evolved by courts.
In Hyatt International [2024 (9) TMI 1202 - DELHI HIGH COURT-[LB]] Court had explained that PE itself was a concept based upon an enterprise undertaking economic activity in a particular State irrespective of its residence. The taxability of business profits, we had explained, is itself dependent upon a PE existing in the Contracting State notwithstanding that establishment being a constituent of a larger enterprise which may be domiciled in the other Contracting State. However, and as the Tribunal itself has noticed, the DRP had not concurred with the opinion of the AO that a Fixed Place PE, DAPE or Service PE of the respondent-assessee had come into existence. While the DRP had disagreed with the AO on those aspects, it ultimately came to hold against the respondent-assessee, taking the view that by virtue of secondment of employees, a deemed PE had come into being. It is this view that the Tribunal has proceeded to overturn.
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal, since the secondment of employees has not been found to be for the furtherance of the business or enterprise of the respondent. Those seconded employees were not discharging functions or performing activities connected with the global enterprise of the respondent. Their placement in India was with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL. Collection of market information, collation of data for development of products, market trend studies or exchange of information would not meet the qualifying benchmarks of a PE.
The secondment of employees which may consist of technically trained personnel or persons with experience is an arrangement not uncommon in today’s world of business. What however needs to be considered is whether the deployment of such employees is in furtherance of the business of their formal employer or intended to be utilized for the business of the enterprise with whom they are placed. In the facts of the present case, the weight of evidence which was collated unerringly leans towards their engagement being viewed as one which was for the benefit of SIEL.
We thus find no error in the view expressed by the Tribunal in this regard.
Tribunal was justified in interfering with the opinion formed by the DRP and which had spoken of a deemed PE having come into being merely on account of the secondment of employees. Absent any material that would have even tended to indicate that the functioning of the seconded employees was concerned with the business or the generation of income of the respondent in India, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Decided in favour of assessee.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered in this judgment is:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents
Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act pertains to the computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on companies. The provision mandates that if the income tax payable on the total income of a company, as computed under the Act, is less than a specified percentage of its book profit, then the book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the company, and tax shall be payable on such total income. The Kerala High Court's decision in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was pivotal, as it ruled that Section 115JB did not apply to electricity companies prior to the 2012 amendment.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning
The Delhi High Court considered the applicability of Section 115JB to the assessee, an electricity generation and distribution company. The court noted that the ITAT had relied on the Kerala High Court's precedent, which found that the MAT provisions under Section 115JB were not applicable to electricity companies before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. The Delhi High Court upheld this interpretation, agreeing that the legislative intent was to exclude electricity companies from the purview of Section 115JB until the amendment.
Key Evidence and Findings
The court's findings were primarily based on the legislative history and judicial precedents regarding the applicability of Section 115JB to electricity companies. The ITAT's reliance on the Kerala High Court's decision was a significant factor, as it provided a judicial basis for excluding the assessee from Section 115JB's application.
Application of Law to Facts
The court applied the legal principles established in prior judgments to the facts of the case, determining that the assessee, being an electricity generation and distribution company, was not subject to the MAT provisions under Section 115JB for AY 2008-09. This conclusion was consistent with the legislative framework prior to the 2012 amendment.
Treatment of Competing Arguments
The Revenue argued for the applicability of Section 115JB, citing the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the book profits of the assessee. However, the court found that the ITAT's decision to exclude the assessee from Section 115JB's application was supported by judicial precedent and legislative intent, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Conclusions
The court concluded that Section 115JB was inapplicable to the assessee for the relevant assessment year, affirming the ITAT's decision to delete the additions made by the AO on account of book profit under Section 115JB.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning
The court stated, "Finding parity of facts with facts of the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court [supra], respectfully following the finding of the Hon'ble High Court, we hold the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the appellant company."
Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue
The court upheld the ITAT's decision, concluding that the additions made to the assessee's book profit under Section 115JB were unjustified, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The court's decision in ITA 687/2019, which addressed the same legal question for a different assessment year, was also referenced to support this conclusion.
MAT/Section 115JB applicability to an electricity generation company - HELD THAT:- By way of judgment M/S TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. [2025 (1) TMI 822 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we have answered the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and held that Section 115JB of the Act would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company, prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered in this judgment is:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue: Applicability of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act to the Assessee
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:
Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act pertains to the computation of book profits for the purpose of levying Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). The legal question revolves around whether this section applies to companies engaged in the business of electricity generation and distribution, particularly before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2012.
The ITAT relied on the precedent set by the Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that Section 115JB did not apply to electricity companies.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:
The court examined whether Section 115JB applied to the assessee, a company involved in electricity generation and distribution, for the assessment year 2007-08. The court noted that the ITAT had relied on the Kerala High Court's decision, which found that Section 115JB did not apply to electricity companies. The High Court reiterated that the legal position prior to the Finance Act, 2012, was that electricity companies were not subject to the provisions of Section 115JB.
Key Evidence and Findings:
The ITAT's decision was based on the precedent from the Kerala High Court, which provided a legal basis for excluding electricity companies from the ambit of Section 115JB. The court found that the ITAT's reliance on this precedent was appropriate and applicable to the facts of the case.
Application of Law to Facts:
The court applied the legal principles established in the Kerala High Court's decision to the facts of the case, concluding that Section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee for the assessment year in question. The court emphasized that the legal framework prior to the 2012 amendment did not encompass electricity companies within the scope of Section 115JB.
Treatment of Competing Arguments:
The Revenue argued that the additions made under Section 115JB should be upheld. However, the court found that the ITAT correctly applied the legal precedent from the Kerala High Court, which supported the assessee's position. The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision to delete the additions.
Conclusions:
The court concluded that the ITAT's decision was correct and that Section 115JB did not apply to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The court upheld the ITAT's order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:
"The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board 329 ITR 91 [has answered the question of applicability of provisions of section 115JB] in favour of the assessee and against the revenue."
"We hold the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the appellant company."
Core Principles Established:
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
MAT/Section 115JB applicability on the assessee engaged in the business of electricity generation and distribution - additions made on account of Book Profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- By way of judgment [2025 (1) TMI 822 - DELHI HIGH COURT] answered the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and held that Section 115JB of the Act would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company, prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012.
We are of the opinion that the order of the ITAT does not suffer from any infirmity or error and, is, therefore upheld.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Liability for Interest and Late Filing Fee
Issue 2: Exemption Status of BDA
Issue 3: Entitlement to Relief from Demand Notice
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Petitioner liability to pay interest and late filing fee for the belated remittance of TDS under the Income Tax Act, 1961 - petitioner has vehemently contended that the information available in the website of the Income Tax Department denotes BDA as an exempted institution - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has paid the entire balance sale consideration to the BDA without deducting any TDS on the ground that the BDA was an exempted institution. However, subsequently, the BDA has sought Form 16B and Form 26QB to complete the registration process and the petitioner has paid the TDS amount to the tax authorities, resulting in the tax authorities issuing the demand dated claiming interest and late filing fee. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner himself having done various acts i.e., non deducting of TDS while making the balance sale consideration and thereafter, belatedly remitting the TDS, the question of favourably considering the reliefs sought for in the present petition does not arise. Question framed for consideration is answered in the negative.
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the stay application was liable to be set aside and the application directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.
Analysis: The rejection of the stay application was assailed on the ground that it rested solely on administrative office memoranda. The authority exercising stay jurisdiction was required to apply its own independent mind and take a quasi-judicial decision on the application. In view of the limited prayer and the absence of objection from the revenue side, the impugned order could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The rejection order was set aside and the stay application was revived for fresh decision by the appellate authority.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained procedural relief by way of remand of the stay application for reconsideration in accordance with law, without any adjudication on the merits of the tax dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial authority deciding a stay application must exercise independent judgment and cannot base its decision solely on administrative circulars or office memoranda.
Rejection of stay application - rejection order shows that it is solely based on CBDT OMs - HELD THAT:- Apex Court had an occasion to consider this aspect in M/s.LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., [2018 (7) TMI 1905 - SC ORDER] and this Court in APR Jewellers Private Limited[2022 (5) TMI 1067 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] and M/s.Zoos and Parks Authority of Telangana [2023 (10) TMI 1139 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] considered that the Courts opined that respondent No.1 being a quasi judicial authority should apply its independent mind and shall not be bound by the administrative circulars
Prayer that the said rejection order may be set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to decide the stay application afresh within the stipulated time accepted.
Stay application is revived. The petitioner shall appear before the appellate authority on 13.01.2025. The appellate authority shall decide the stay application afresh, in accordance with law, within 15 days therefrom.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the declaration/application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 could be sustained when the rejection remarks were cryptic and non-speaking, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the authority.
Analysis: The rejection order was tested only on the reasons contained in it, and additional reasons supplied in the counter could not be used to validate the order. The reasons in the rejection remarks were found to be unclear and insufficiently reasoned. The Court applied the settled principle that administrative and quasi-judicial orders affecting rights must disclose cogent reasons, and that reasons are integral to the validity of the decision-making process. In judicial review, where the impugned decision suffers from non-application of mind and lack of adequate reasons, the appropriate course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
Conclusion: The rejection remarks were set aside, and the matter was restored to the authority to afford personal hearing and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioners succeeded on the procedural challenge, without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying tax claim.
Ratio Decidendi: A cryptic or non-speaking rejection order affecting statutory rights cannot be sustained in judicial review, and its validity must be judged solely on the reasons recorded in the order itself.
Withdrawal of liberty to avail the remedy under theDirect Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024(Scheme of 2024) - whether Scheme of 2024 override the Scheme DTVSV of 2020 (Scheme of 2020)? - rejection order handed over captioned as “rejection remarks” - HELD THAT:- First line of “rejection remarks” is not happily worded. It is difficult to gather exact meaning of the first line. It is incomprehensible. However, the first line gives an impression as if something is settled pursuant to Scheme of 2020 cannot result into refund of taxes paid.
The second reason in the “rejection remarks” is that the Scheme of 2024 does not override the Scheme of 2020. This reason is also required to be relooked in the light of language employed in Section 90 reproduced hereinabove. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is too sketchy, too short and too cryptic in nature. The ‘reasons’ are held to be heart beat of the ‘conclusions’.
In the absence of reasons, conclusions cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT] emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders.
If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of principles laid down in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. (supra), it cannot sustain judicial scrutiny because of its cryptic nature and non-disclosure of reasons. Thus “rejection remarks” in all the matters are set aside. The matters are restored back in the file of respondent No.1, who, shall give personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, without getting mechanically influenced by previous order and counter filed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment presented involves the following core legal questions:
(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner's invocation of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee company is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite there being no real income from the Captive Power Plant, Debari, and no profit therefrom included in the gross total income.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (i): Invocation of Section 263 Powers
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to revise any order passed by the AO if it is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court analyzed whether the order by the AO was indeed erroneous and prejudicial. It was considered that the Commissioner had valid reasons to invoke Section 263, as the AO's order lacked proper inquiry into the quantum of deduction under Section 80-IA.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the AO allowed deductions under Section 80-IA without sufficient verification, prompting the Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of Section 263, emphasizing the need for thorough inquiry by the AO, which was found lacking.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued against the invocation of Section 263, but the court found the Commissioner's actions justified due to the AO's insufficient inquiry.
Conclusions: The court upheld the invocation of Section 263, agreeing with the Commissioner's decision to direct a fresh assessment.
Issue (ii): Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80IA provides deductions for profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings, including power generation units.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined whether profits from captive consumption of power qualified for deductions under Section 80IA. It referenced precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Abrassive Ltd., supporting deductions for captive consumption.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's power plant was newly established, fulfilling the conditions for deductions under Section 80IA. The court found no evidence of machinery transfer exceeding 20% from other businesses.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 80IA, determining that the assessee's captive power generation qualified for deductions, as it met all statutory requirements.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that only profits from sales to third parties qualified for deductions. The court rejected this, citing the broader interpretation of "derived" profits, including captive consumption.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the assessee was entitled to deductions under Section 80IA for profits from captive power generation.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:
"The expression derived used in the said section 80-IA(1) in the beginning as well as in the last part of sub-section (4) makes it abundantly clear that such profit or gain could be obtained by one's own consumption of the outcome of any such undertaking or business enterprise as referred to in sub-section (4) of section 80-IA."
Core Principles Established:
- The court established that profits from captive consumption of power generation qualify for deductions under Section 80IA.
- The interpretation of "derived" in Section 80IA includes profits from captive consumption, not limited to third-party sales.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
- The court upheld the invocation of Section 263 for a fresh assessment due to the AO's insufficient inquiry.
- The court affirmed the assessee's eligibility for deductions under Section 80IA for captive power generation profits.
In conclusion, the court allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order, while dismissing the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decisions favoring the assessee's deduction claims.
Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA - determination of term “derived” - profits derived by assessee’s power generation unit - HELD THAT:- As the electricity generation is an eligible business and in light of the interpretation of word ‘derive’, the profits and gains generated by the captive consumption of electricity, as involved herein, fall within the purview of eligible deductions u/s 80-IA. Therefore, this Court holds that the finding of the Tribunal that the profits derived by the assessee’s power generation unit would be eligible for deduction as a separate undertaking under Section 80-IA of the Act of 1961 is justified.
ISSUES:
RULINGS / HOLDINGS:
RATIONALE:
Validity of the jurisdiction exercised u/s.154 -disallowance of expenses claimed as a provision for expenses - HELD THAT:- FAA has recorded a categorical factual finding that the provision for expenses was made not on estimate basis, but were made on the basis of the actual estimation of liability.
Having recorded a clear factual findings that the provisions were not made on estimate basis, but were made on the basis of actual liability and also the fact that the expenses pertain to the current financial year, the learned first appellate authority could not have treated the expenses as contingent liability.
Thus, in our view, not only the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 154 of the Act is invalid, but on merits also the disallowance made is unsustainable. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. Grounds are allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Justification of Rejection of Registration under Section 12AB
Issue 2: Charitable Nature of Activities under Section 2(15)
Issue 3: Benefit to General Public vs. Members
Issue 4: Delay in Filing the Appeal
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Rejection of application for grant of 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and also cancelled the provisional registration - no Charitable activity undertaken - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that from the perusal of the objects, it is clear that the applicant/appellant is not working for the benefit of general public at large but to the specific section of the society.
The objects as per memorandum of association of the Ahmedabad Engineering Manufacturing Association submitted by the applicant/appellant.
CIT(E) has rightly rejected the registration u/s.12AB of the Act. Beside this, the decision submitted by the applicant are also not identical to the present applicant’s/appellant’s case as in all the other cases, there was a specific object for working towards the welfare of the general public but the same is absent in the clause of the present applicant.
A.R.’s contention that the proviso to section 2(15) was not invoked by the CIT(A) is not proper as section 2(15) and proviso thereto is a definition clause/section and thus the same get imbibed while deciding the application for registration u/s.12AB as the charitable purpose is the definition and how to deal with the charitable institute has to be determined by section 12AB and registration of the said trust accordingly. The decision relied by the DR in case of Truck Operators Association [2010 (8) TMI 210 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is relevant to that effect. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment addresses several core issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Jurisdiction under Section 144C
Issue 2: Reassessment Proceedings under Sections 148A and 148
Issue 3: Additions under Section 69A
Issue 4: Applicability of Section 115BBE
Issue 5: Imposition of Interest under Sections 234-A, 234-B, and 234-F
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - unexplained nature of bank deposits - HELD THAT:- AO himself has categorically mentioned that the assessee has filed copy of fixed deposit summary, copy of bank accounts statements with the HDFC and SBI, copy of investment in time deposit HDFC and copy of SBI life Insurance company and in fact the first remand report has also been reproduced and in the remark column related to the transactions where the assessee has explained the source of the funds.
AO has filed bank statements of various accounts and has also given the details of fixed deposits held by SBI and summarized explanation of credit and debit entries in his NRE/NRI held by SBI and HDFC bank. From the remark column thereon it can be seen that only one entry of 63,133/- was not explained but the rest of the entries and the transactions were totally explained and verified by the Assessing Officer.
Once, the assessee has submitted all the credit entries along with debit entries and also that of the submission of employment verification letter, doubting the genuinely of the said documents without any basis is not justifiable on the part of the Assessing Officer as well as by the DRP.
AO as well as CIT(A) except the entry of 63,133/- should not have made addition u/s. 69A as unexplained money because the assessee has explained all the details of rest of the entries - Decided in favour of assessee partly.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment addresses several core issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Justification of Penalty under Section 271BA
Issue 2: Procedural Lapses and Validity of Orders
Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Penalty u/s. 271BA - failure to file report u/s. 92E of the Act before the due date - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed form 3CEB before the TPO during the reference once the search took place. Both the requirement of furnishing report appears to be mandatory and filing thereof is a procedure and in fact form 3CEB was obtained by the assessee on 16.10.2016 which is prior to the search in assessee’s case i.e. search date under Section 132 is 19.11.2019.
AO as well as the CIT(A) has totally ignored the fact that the assessee inadvertently could not file Form 3CEB but the same was already compiled by the assessee as per the procedure of Income Tax Act and Income Tax Rules.
Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee has deliberately not filed/furnished the Form 3CEB. Therefore, penalty levied under section 271BA of the Act will not survive. This finding should not be taken as precedent as in the present case the Form 3CEB was prepared prior to the search, only thing the assessee has not furnished the same during the original assessment. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year was valid; (ii) whether the interest earned on fixed deposits created out of land acquisition compensation was exempt under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or taxable as income from other sources.
Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year was valid.
Analysis: The reassessment was founded on information that substantial receipts had not been disclosed in any return of income, and the assessee had not filed a return for the relevant year. The recorded reasons referred to escaped income, and the addition ultimately made was found to arise from the inquiry carried out on the same compensation-related facts. In such circumstances, the failure to file the return was treated as non-disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment, and the reassessment was held to have a valid jurisdictional basis.
Conclusion: The reassessment challenge failed and the initiation of proceedings was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the interest earned on fixed deposits created out of land acquisition compensation was exempt under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or taxable as income from other sources.
Analysis: The record did not clearly reconcile the compensation amount, the fixed deposit proceeds, and the manner in which the money reached the assessee. The flow of funds and the respective assessments of the co-owners required verification before the tax character of the receipt could be determined. Since the factual reconciliation was incomplete, the merits of the exemption claim and the alternate claim for deduction under section 57(iv) were not finally adjudicated.
Conclusion: The matter was remitted for fresh assessment after verification of the reconciliation and the nature of the receipts.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment was sustained, but the merits of the addition were sent back for fresh examination, leaving the ultimate taxability to be redetermined by the Assessing Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has not filed a return and the addition made in reassessment emerges from inquiry linked to the recorded reasons, reassessment beyond four years is sustainable on the basis of failure to disclose material facts; however, incomplete factual reconciliation on the merits justifies remand for fresh adjudication.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Proceeding initiated beyond four years - interest accrued on fixed deposits as created from compensation amounts due to a legal dispute - HELD THAT:- As per settled law, even if the AO obtains information from external sources, the reassessment proceedings remain valid if they are based on new facts that the assessee failed to disclose.
We also observe that while the reasons for reopening referred to Rs. 4,32,36,000/-, the inquiry revealed that Rs. 7,11,37,986/- was interest income accrued on FDs created from the compensation amount. Since this discovery was directly linked to the reassessment inquiry, the addition was incidental to the primary reason and not a new issue unrelated to the recorded reasons.
We are guided by the principle that the AO has the jurisdiction to reassess not only the income mentioned in the reasons recorded but also related components that emerge during the course of inquiry. We hold that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the interest income as added by the AO arose from the compensation-related inquiry. The failure of the assessee to file a return and disclose material facts justified the initiation of proceedings beyond four years.
Appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings are dismissed.
Exemption u/s 10(37) - interest accrued on the fixed deposits maintained by the Principal Civil Judge formed part of the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land or not? - We note that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) do not clearly explain the distribution of the total compensation and its reconciliation with the amounts withdrawn and distributed among the parties involved. The flow of funds—particularly the cash withdrawn by the original landowner and the manner in which it was handed over to the assessee—requires detailed verification. The question of the taxability of the amounts in the hands of the ultimate recipient must also be examined to ensure the correct determination of taxable income.
Given the complexities and the need for proper verification of the reconciliation submitted by the assessee, we are of the view that a fresh assessment is necessary to address these issues comprehensively.
We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(37) or the alternate claim for a deduction under Section 57(iv) at this stage.
AO is directed to:
1. Verify the reconciliation of the compensation and interest amounts, including the cash withdrawals by the original landowner and their subsequent distribution to the assessee and other parties.
2. Assess the nature and taxability of the amounts received by the ultimate recipient in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
3. Ensure that there is no double taxation by cross verifying the assessments of the co-owners and reconciling their respective claims.
Appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Condonation of gross delay of 130 days in filing the appeal which has not been satisfactorily explained - Classification of imported goods - Small Form-factor Pluggable (SFP)-25G-SR Optical Transceiver - SFP-10G-SRL Optical Transceiver - QSFP-10G-UNIV Optical Transceiver, etc. - classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 6290 or not - exemption/ duty concession under Notification No.57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (Sl. No.20), as amended - it was held by CESTAT that 'The product under consideration i.e., ‘Small Form-factor Pluggable Optical Transceiver’ of various models are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 7090, and not under CTH 8517 62 90, as claimed by Revenue. Accordingly, the impugned goods are eligible for exemption/duty concession under Serial No. 5(a) of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017, as amended.'
HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question in this judgment is whether the word "and" in the exclusion entry (iv) of Serial No. 13 of the amended Notification No. 24/2005 should be interpreted in a conjunctive manner, referring to products that combine both MIMO technology and LTE standards, or disjunctively, referring to products using either MIMO technology or LTE standards.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue: Interpretation of "and" in Exclusion Entry (iv)
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:
The legal framework involves the Customs Act, 1962, and the amended Notification No. 24/2005, which specifies exemptions from customs duty. The relevant precedents include the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co., which emphasizes that exemption notifications should be construed narrowly.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:
The court interpreted the word "and" in the exclusion entry (iv) as conjunctive, meaning that the exemption applies only to products using both MIMO and LTE technologies. The court reasoned that if the intention was to exclude products with only MIMO technology, the word "products" should have been used after both "MIMO" and "LTE".
Key Evidence and Findings:
The court noted that the respondent imported Wireless Access Points (WAPs) that utilized MIMO technology but not LTE standards. The court also considered the fact that similar exemptions had been granted for identical products under subsequent notifications.
Application of Law to Facts:
The court applied the narrow interpretation principle to conclude that the WAPs imported by the respondent, which operated solely on MIMO technology, were entitled to the exemption from customs duty. This interpretation aligned with the intention of the exemption notification and international agreements like the Information Technology Agreement.
Treatment of Competing Arguments:
The Revenue argued that "and" should be read as "or" to include products with either MIMO or LTE technology. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the conjunctive nature of "and" and the absence of the word "products" after "MIMO".
Conclusions:
The court concluded that the phrase "MIMO and LTE Products" refers to products combining both technologies, and therefore, the WAPs imported by the respondent are eligible for the customs duty exemption.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:
"The sole dispute in this appeal is whether this exclusion clause covers products having only MIMO technology and not working on LTE standard. Exclusion clause (iv) uses the conjunction 'and' and, therefore, it can be urged that the scope of clause (iv) can be restricted to those products that have MIMO and LTE both."
Core Principles Established:
The court established that the interpretation of exemption notifications should be narrow and that the conjunctive "and" in legal texts typically means a combination rather than alternatives.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
The court determined that the WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not LTE standards, are entitled to the exemption from Basic Customs Duty. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the learned CESTAT was upheld.
Interpretation of statute - word "and" in the exclusion entry (iv) of Serial No. 13 of the amended Notification No. 24/2005 - classification of imported goods - Wireless Access Points (WAPs) - whether the WAPs, which work on MIMO technology, imported by the respondent would qualify for an exemption from Basic Customs Duty?
HELD THAT:- By way of judgment dated 13.01.2025 delivered today in CUSAA 38/2023 [2025 (1) TMI 797 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the question of law answered in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue, and it is held that the phrase “MIMO and LTE Products” in Serial No. 13(iv) of the amended Notification No. 24/2005 applies solely to products combining MIMO technology and LTE standards, and thus, the WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not the LTE standards, are entitled to the exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
Conclusion - The court established that the interpretation of exemption notifications should be narrow and that the conjunctive "and" in legal texts typically means a combination rather than alternatives. The WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not LTE standards, are entitled to the exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered in this judgment is:
Whether the word "and" as appearing in Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 (iv) should be read in a disjunctive manner, thereby referring to separate products, or as a conjunctive, referring to products combining both technologies.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents
The case revolves around the interpretation of exclusion entry (iv) under Serial No. 13 of the amended Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, which pertains to customs duty exemptions. The notification was amended by Notification No. 11/2014, specifying that products with "MIMO and LTE" technologies are not entitled to exemptions. The key legal framework includes the Customs Act, 1962, and relevant notifications under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The court also referenced the principles established in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. and Ors., which emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning
The court examined whether the conjunction "and" in the phrase "MIMO and LTE Products" should be interpreted as conjunctive or disjunctive. The court leaned towards a conjunctive interpretation, meaning that the exemption exclusion applies only to products that incorporate both MIMO and LTE technologies. The court emphasized the dictionary definitions of "and" as a conjunctive term, used to connect and join elements, supporting the interpretation that both technologies must be present in a single product for the exclusion to apply.
Key Evidence and Findings
The court considered the language of the notification and the absence of the word "products" after "MIMO" as indicative that the exclusion applies to products combining both technologies. The court also noted that similar exemptions had been granted in other cases and subsequent notifications, suggesting a consistent interpretation favoring the respondent's position.
Application of Law to Facts
The court applied the strict interpretation principle to the notification, concluding that the Wireless Access Points (WAPs) imported by the respondent, which solely utilized MIMO technology, were eligible for the customs duty exemption. The court found that the respondent's interpretation aligned with the notification's language and intent, and that the Revenue's interpretation would unjustly broaden the exclusion's scope.
Treatment of Competing Arguments
The Revenue argued for a disjunctive interpretation, suggesting that the exclusion should apply to products with either MIMO or LTE technology. The court rejected this argument, noting that the language of the notification did not support such an interpretation. The court also dismissed the Revenue's reliance on the decision in Sree Durga Distributors v. State of Karnataka, finding it inapplicable to the present case.
Conclusions
The court concluded that the WAPs imported by the respondent, which operated solely on MIMO technology, were entitled to the customs duty exemption. The court upheld the decisions of the Adjudicating Authority and the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which had both ruled in favor of the respondent.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning
"The sole dispute in this appeal is whether this exclusion clause covers products having only MIMO technology and not working on LTE standard. Exclusion clause (iv) uses the conjunction 'and' and, therefore, it can be urged that the scope of clause (iv) can be restricted to those products that have MIMO and LTE both..."
"What needs to be remembered is that MIMO is a technology and cannot be treated as an independent product. If the intention was to exclude even products having only MIMO technology, then the word 'products' should have been used after MIMO as well as after LTE."
Core Principles Established
Final Determinations on Each Issue
The court determined that the WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not LTE standards, qualify for the customs duty exemption under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the amended Notification No. 24/2005. The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CESTAT's interpretation and findings.
Interpretation of statute - word “and” as appearing in CTI 8517 (iv) is to be read in a disjunctive manner and thus be viewed as referring to separate products - whether the WAPs, which work on MIMO technology, imported by the respondent would qualify for an exemption from Basic Customs Duty? - HELD THAT:- It is apposite to note that the present appeal was heard along with captioned Commissioner of Customs Air Chennai-VII Commissionerate v. M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (1) TMI 797 - DELHI HIGH COURT], filed by the Revenue, assailing a similar order passed by the learned CESTAT. These appeals were admitted on the same question of law by this Court.
By way of judgment delivered today in Commissioner of Customs Air Chennai-VII Commissionerate v. M/s Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (1) TMI 797 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the question of law is answered in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue, and it is held that the phrase “MIMO and LTE Products” in Serial No. 13 (iv) of the amended N/N. 24/2005 applies solely to products combining MIMO technology and LTE standards, and thus, the WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not the LTE standards, are entitled to the exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
Conclusion - The WAPs imported by the respondent, which employ MIMO technology but not LTE standards, qualify for the customs duty exemption under Serial No. 13 (iv) of the amended N/N. 24/2005.
The order of the learned CESTAT does not suffer from any infirmity or error and, is, therefore upheld - Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Whether the declared assessable value of the imported goods could be rejected and the differential duty, confiscation and penalties sustained in the absence of comparable import evidence and where the only basis was the importer's statement and voluntary deposits.
Analysis: Valuation of imported goods must ordinarily proceed on the transaction value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and rejection of the declared value requires cogent material showing that the invoice value does not reflect the true value in the ordinary course of international trade. The record contained no contemporaneous comparable imports or other reliable data to justify re-determination of value. The demand was sustained primarily on the importer's statement and deposits, but the burden to prove undervaluation lies on the Revenue, and a statement alleged to have been made under coercion cannot by itself displace the declared value without supporting evidence. In the absence of proof that the apparent price was not the real price, the declared value could not be rejected.
Conclusion: The rejection of the declared assessable value was unsustainable, and the demand for differential duty, confiscation and penalties could not be maintained. The appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value under customs valuation law cannot be discarded unless the Revenue produces cogent, contemporaneous evidence of undervaluation, including comparable imports or other reliable material; a bare statement or uncorroborated admission is insufficient.
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte decision by the adjudicating authority - rejection of delared value - evidence presented was sufficient to support the allegations of undervaluation or not - appellant's statement, allegedly obtained under coercion, could be used as a basis for the determination of the value of goods or not - confiscation - penalties.
HELD THAT:- Before rejecting the transaction value the department has to find out as to whether there are any import of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at or around the same time as that of imports in question. It has been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Overseas [2023 (10) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT] that unless the evidence is gathered in that regard the question of importing Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act does not arise. Thus casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is denied to be sufficient to reject it as the evidence of value of imported goods. It has been categorically held that the under valuation has to be proved that too, in the form of evidence about comparable imports. In the absence thereof, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer.
In the present case, admittedly there is no evidence of comparable imports at the relevant time with respect to the value of PVC panels and accessories imported by the appellant. In the absence thereof, there is no basis even to arrive at the re-determined value. The undervaluation of the impugned goods has been confirmed solely on the basis of the statement of the appellant. The said statement is alleged to be recorded under coercion, not only the said statement, but the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs made by the appellant by two demand drafts is also alleged to be involuntary. Indisputably a confession would come within the purview of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to which confession is irrelevant except if making the confusion appears to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise.
The statement of the proprietor which has been alleged to be under coercion, the sole evidence is held to have been wrongly relied upon by the department to reject the value of imported goods shown in the invoice attached to the Bill of Entry. More for the reason that the appellant had requested for the copy even of the non relied documents time to file its defense - there are no document on record which may be called as the document of proving the intelligence of DRI officers or which may be the document proving the actual FOB price.
Conclusion - The department has wrongly rejected the declared assessable value of the impugned import vide four Bill of Entries. The re-determined value is, therefore, not acceptable. The confirmation of the differential duty of Rs. 9,60,376/- is, therefore liable to be set aside along with the order of confiscation and the order imposing various penalties.
Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Maintainability of Refund Claims Without Challenging Assessment Orders
Issue 2: Appropriateness of the Remand Order
Issue 3: Claim of Discrimination Under Article 14
Issue 4: Authority to Recall Orders for Rehearing
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment emphasizes the importance of following legal procedures, ensuring fairness, and the Tribunal's commitment to rectifying errors to uphold justice.
Refund claims for the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid by the respondents - non-uploading of a relevant notification in the EDI system - HELD THAT:- The respondent has stated that the collection of the duty without the authority of law attracting Art 265 of the Constitution and according the refund of the duty ought to have been paid to them accepting that the said payment and collection was under a mistake. It is true that if no tax can be collected except by authority of law, the same logic would prevail for retention of amounts collected without the authority of law. However, that amount has to be claimed as provided for under the Act. Article 13(1)(a) of the Constitution defines "law" to include "any Ordinance, Order, Bye-law, Rule, Regulation, Notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law".
As stated in Mafatlal Industries [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], Article 265 does not itself lay down any criteria for testing the validity of a statute, when it speaks of ‘law’, it refers to a valid law but the validity has to be determined with reference to other provisions of the Constitution.
Considering the loss of time caused due to the Registry’s lapse in not furnishing of our order dated 19.09.2024 to the rival parties, preventing them from responding effectively to the issues raised therein and after hearing the party afresh, the matter can be effectively resolved by remanding the matter to the Original Authority as decided in the impugned order, leaving all issues raised by the parties to this appeal and cross-appeal open.
Conclusion - Refund claims are not maintainable without challenging the original assessment orders. Procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice are paramount. The remand order for reconsideration of refund claims upheld.
Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Justification of Differential Duty Demand
Issue 2: Appellant as Importer under EUVLA
Issue 3: Payment of Rs.31,50,000 and Duty Liability
Issue 4: Effect of Duties Paid by REV and SAP India
Issue 5: Invocation of Extended Limitation and Penalties
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Demand of differental duty - assignee for the use of software imported by REV - no need for the appellant to separately import a CD or DVD from SAP Germany and enter into an agreement with SAP India - HELD THAT:- Neither party has been able to establish whether or not the payment of Rs.31,50,000 was, in fact, made by the Appellant to SAP India. Further, the Revenue has not considered the effect of the Appellant’s contention that duties were paid by REV. The OIO acknowledges that SAP India paid duties too. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the Appellant is an importer at all, whether the Appellant in fact paid the sums of Rs.31,50,000 to REV, and whether the duties paid by REV/ SAP India would result in the nullification of the liability of the Appellant.
It is deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh on these points. The findings on these points, as also on the question of the payment of duties by REV (particularly considering that those duties were paid only in 2013 in respect of an import in 2006) will also have a bearing on the correctness of the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the penalties that may thus follow.
Conclusion - It is necessary to examine whether the Appellant is an importer at all, whether the Appellant in fact paid the sums of Rs.31,50,000 to REV, and whether the duties paid by REV/ SAP India would result in the nullification of the liability of the Appellant. Matter restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority for consideration afresh on these points.
The appeals are disposed of by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Eligibility for Notification No. 12/2012-Cus at Debonding
Issue 2: Calculation of Customs Duty at Debonding
Issue 3: Procedural Compliance and Exemption Claim
Issue 4: Timing of Exemption Claim
Issue 5: Legitimacy of Duty and Interest Demand
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Admissibility of Notification No 12/2012 by an EOU/ EHTP in respect of the imported goods at the time of debonding along with the notification No 52/2003 - denial of benefit of Notification No 12/2012 in terms of the condition prescribed by the Notification No 52/2003 - HELD THAT:- In terms of the D O F No 334/7/2016-TRU dated 01.02.2017, JS TRU issued by the JS (TRU) benefit of the exemption as per notification No 12/2012 would be admissible to the EOU/ EHTP subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the notification. The benefit of the said exemption would be available to them at the time of importation of the goods or even at the time of removal of the goods either on debonding or otherwise. The condition 4 of Notification No 52/2003 referred in the impugned order, cannot be reason for denial of the said benefit. Undisputedly the condition prescribed by the said notification had been complied and a bond for Rs 1000 crores was accepted by the jurisdictional authorities on 28.02.2015 as required in terms of IGCR, 1996.
From the clarification issued by the TRU referred above, it is evident in case the EOU/ EHTP can claimed the benefit of the said notification at the time of import of the said goods even without seeking fresh registration under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2016 or the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable and Other Goods) Rules, 2016. The said clarification also provides that the benefit of the said Notification will be admissible even without separately comply with the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2016 for availing the CVD exemption, if the procedure under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rule, 2016 is followed by it for availing exemption / concession from BCD on imports of inputs/raw materials.
There are no hesitation in holding that at the time of debonding, the value of raw material cleared has to be value at the time of importation and the rate of duty is the effective rate of duty leviable on the imported goods at the time of debonding.
Impugned order sought to deny the benefit of said exemption notification to the appellant for the reason that appellant had not claimed the same at the time of importation of these raw materials and hence could not have claimed the same subsequently at the time of clearance from EOU on de-bonding. Interestingly impugned order relies on the decision in case of Priya Blue and other similar cases to deny the claim made by the appellant.
Conclusion - i) The appellant is eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus at debonding. ii) The customs duty should be calculated at the effective rate at the time of debonding. iii) The appellant's procedural compliance is sufficient for claiming the exemption. iv) The exemption can be claimed at debonding, even if not claimed at importation. v) The demand for duty and interest is not justified.
There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
Issues: Whether the accused was entitled, in proceedings for compounding of offences under the SEBI Act, to seek production of the material considered by the HPAC and SEBI's Whole Time Members, and whether Regulation 29 of the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 barred the Court from calling for or perusing such material.
Analysis: The power to compound under Section 24A of the SEBI Act vests in the Court or SAT, though SEBI's view as an expert regulator is entitled to due deference. The material placed before the HPAC and the Whole Time Members was held to be relevant for deciding whether the compounding request satisfied the guidelines recognised by the Supreme Court, including the nature and gravity of the violation, the conduct of the applicant, and the public character of the offence. Regulation 29 was held not to prevent the Court from looking into the material considered by SEBI for the limited purpose of deciding the compounding application, even if the documents were not to be released to the applicant as a matter of course.
Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to production of the material before the Court, and the order refusing the Section 91 request was set aside. The Court directed SEBI to produce the documents, permitting them to be placed in sealed cover, while leaving it to the trial Court to decide whether they should be supplied to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: In compounding proceedings under the SEBI Act, the Court may summon and peruse the material considered by SEBI in deciding the request, and the confidentiality rules governing settlement proceedings do not bar the Court from examining such material for adjudication of the compounding application.
Compounding of offences - Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C - Petitioner had filed the said application seeking directions to SEBI to place on record all the statements/findings/documents considered by the High Powered Advisory Committee (hereinafter “HPAC”) and the panel of Whole Time Members (WTC) while rejecting the request of the Petitioner herein for compounding the offence alleged in the complaint against the Petitioner herein - HELD THAT:- Regulation 29(1) of the Settlement Regulation provides that these documents cannot be given to public if the same prejudices the Board and/or the applicant. Regulation 29 (2) of the Settlement Regulation provides that these documents cannot be used as evidence before any court or Tribunal.
In the opinion of this Court, these Regulations cannot prohibit any Court to look into the material which was placed before the HPAC or the SEBI Board before it comes to the conclusion, to agree for compounding or not to agree for compounding of the offence.
Under Regulation 29 of the Settlement Regulation, the decision taken by the Board is not binding on the Court even if HPAC recommends for compounding of the offence. The Court can take a different view and reject the compounding if they do not meet the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court as laid down in Prakash Gupta [2021 (7) TMI 971 - SUPREME COURT]
The materials sought by the Petitioner become exceedingly important for the Court to take a decision as to allow or not allow the compounding application of the Petitioner.
This Court is inclined to set aside the Order passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Tiz Hazari, dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The SEBI is directed to produce all the documents before the Court. These documents can be given in a sealed cover and it is for the Court to take a decision as to whether these documents should be supplied to the Petitioner or not.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal questions:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Fraudulent and Malicious Intent in Filing Section 7 Application
Issue 2: Jurisdiction to Entertain Section 65 Application Post Admission of Section 7
Issue 3: Authenticity of Loan Agreements
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Maintainability of Section 7 application filed against the Corporate Debtor - whether Section 7 application was filed collusively and with mala-fide intention by the Appellants which was good enough to attract Section 65 of the IBC and consequential recall of the initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor? - Respondent had already transferred its entire share-holding - Respondent not being a share-holder of the Corporate Debtor it had no locus to file the application - HELD THAT:- There are no quarrel with the proposition of the Appellants that in terms of Section 7 of the IBC, what is required to be seen is the existence of a debt and default of the said debt. Once a debt becomes due or payable and there is incidence of non-payment of the said debt in full or part, CIRP may be triggered by the Financial Creditor as long as the amount in default is above the threshold limit. Be that as it may, Section 65 of the IBC is an enabling provision within the statutory framework of IBC whereby even if a Section 7 application has been filed or has been admitted, it vests jurisdiction on the Adjudicating Authority to examine an application under Section 65, if a prima facie case is made out to show that the Section 7 application had been filed ‘fraudulently’ or ‘with malicious intent’ and for purpose other than resolution of insolvency or liquidation.
In the present case too, there are no error on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to consider the Section 65 application filed by the Respondent No.1 on being prima facie satisfied that the Section 7 application seeking initiation of CIRP proceedings had been filed by suppression of relevant material for purposes other than insolvency resolution.
The Appellants have not repelled the allegations on merits but have simply dismissed them by holding them as hyper-technical, irrelevant and obnoxious without adequate substantiation - No justification has also been provided by the Appellants as to how the Appellants inspite of being ineligible to advance the alleged loans had done so. That this tantamount to violation of Section 186 of the Companies Act has also not been denied.
While there is no quarrel over the fact that Section 7 vests rights on the financial creditors to initiate CIRP proceedings against the defaulting Corporate Debtor, however, debt and default cannot always be seen in isolation. There will be no unmindful of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority is also required to take care that the provisions of Section 7 of IBC are not misused or abused in any manner either by the financial creditor or the promoters of the Corporate Debtor to take undue advantage at the cost of insolvency resolution. Present is a case where the promoters of the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditors in trying to create a non-existent financial debt out of routine business entries, have ended up unwittingly committing lapses which lapses when seen cumulatively points to a web of conspiracy and collusion on their part to create a contrived situation of debt and default.
Conclusion - The bonafide of the Appellants in the filing of the Section 7 application is clearly doubtful. Viewed from the angle of the totality of circumstances, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that the insolvency proceedings resulting in the order dated 17.05.2022 were initiated fraudulently and with malicious intent for a purpose other than the resolution of the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, is neither dehors the records nor unwarranted. When such fraudulent CIRP proceedings are initiated, the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction under the IBC to consider the allegations of fraudulent and malicious initiation of CIRP proceedings in terms of Section 65 and recall the CIRP admission order.
There are no good reasons which warrant any interference in the impugned order. The Appeal is found to lack merit and is dismissed.
Issues: (i) whether the review applications were maintainable under the settled grounds for review; (ii) whether the appellants could rely on prior acquittal or absence of prosecution to seek review and waiver of the pre-deposit direction; and (iii) whether non-compliance with the pre-deposit order warranted dismissal of the appeals.
Issue (i): whether the review applications were maintainable under the settled grounds for review.
Analysis: Review lies only on the limited grounds recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason of comparable nature. The material placed did not disclose any fresh fact that was unavailable despite due diligence, nor any patent error in the earlier order. A review cannot be used as a substitute for rehearing or to correct an allegedly erroneous decision merely because another view is possible.
Conclusion: The review applications were not maintainable on the grounds urged and were liable to be rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the appellants could rely on prior acquittal or absence of prosecution to seek review and waiver of the pre-deposit direction.
Analysis: The absence of prosecution against one appellant and the acquittal of the other were matters existing before the earlier order on waiver of pre-deposit. Those facts were within the appellants' knowledge and could not constitute new evidence. The order also proceeded on the settled principle that adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, and the standard of proof in adjudication is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The earlier release of seized money could not be read to dispense with the ordered percentage pre-deposit of the effective penalty.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to review or to any modification of the pre-deposit direction on the basis of the criminal proceedings or the seized amount.
Issue (iii): whether non-compliance with the pre-deposit order warranted dismissal of the appeals.
Analysis: The conditional order requiring deposit of a specified percentage of the penalty and security for the balance had not been complied with even after the extended time granted by the High Court. In those circumstances, the statutory requirement governing the maintainability of the appeals remained unsatisfied.
Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.
Final Conclusion: The tribunal found no ground to reopen the earlier order, and the failure to satisfy the pre-deposit condition led to dismissal of both the review applications and the connected appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: Review is confined to the narrow grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and where a statutory pre-deposit condition remains unfulfilled, the appeal cannot be entertained.
Review applications filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties under FERA - Whether the appellants' failure to comply with the deposit order justifies the dismissal of their appeals?
HELD THAT:- Order of this Tribunal has directed deposit of 15 percent of the penalty. The interpretation given in the Review Petition cannot be sustained, in view of the unambiguity in the Adjudication Order.
We find that the two Review Petitions fail to meet the conditions of the relevant afore cited provisions of the CPC as well as do not fall within the principles which have been culled out in the Judgment relating to Kamal Sengupta [2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT] after having failed to obtain favorable orders from the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then there is no question of filing the reviews of the Order which has been affirmed by these higher Judicial Fora, as has been held in the Judgment relating to Ram Kishor Gupta [2003 (1) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT]
No merit in the Review Applications filed by the Review Petitioners. We therefore dismiss the Review Petitions filed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The legal judgment primarily revolves around the following core legal issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Contravention of FEMA Provisions
Issue 2: Immunity from Settlement Commission
Issue 3: Delay in Proceedings
Issue 4: Victim of Fraud
Issue 5: Justification of Penalty
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Offence under FEMA - Applied for rebate of Central Excise Duty by producing 15 fake shipping bills, related applications for removal of excisable goods for export (ARE-1s) and other related shipping documents, and fraudulently availed rebate of Central Excise Duty - effect of immunity granted by Settlement Commission under the Customs Act, 1962
HELD THAT:- Oder of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission is categorical that no immunity was either sought or provided to the Appellant under FEMA,1999. The immunities so granted under other Acts won’t have an impact on the proceedings under FEMA.
As held in Vinod Chitalia [2012 (5) TMI 157 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that the orders of the Settlement Commission are conclusive of the matters stated therein and cannot be challenged in any other proceeding. The findings of the Settlement Commission in the present case inter alia are that remittance against the exports were received in advance without any actual export of goods, that all the export documents bear the signatures of the appellant and the exports proceeds were also realized by the appellant. There was no written arrangement between the appellant and the Mundra Brothers with reference to the export of goods. These findings have, therefore, become conclusive in light of the Ld. Settlement Commission’s order.
Whether significant delay was caused as Respondent took almost six years from the date of receiving information from the Excise Department to lodge a Complaint against the Appellant? -The present case, as already noted, is one of FEMA,1999. The penalties prescribed for contravention under FEMA, 1999 are in the nature of technical and procedural lapses. The liability for contravention under FEMA is of a civil nature unlike the erstwhile FERA which it replaced, and also unlike the PMLA, 2002. As such, the ratio of the cases cited by the appellant would not apply to the present case.
It is evident from the order of settlement before the Settlement Commission that the remittance against the said exports were received in advance without any actual export of goods. Also, all the export documents bear the signature of the Appellant, the export proceeds were realized by the Appellant and there is lack of any written arrangement between the Appellant and the Mundra brothers w.r.t export of goods.
As a result, the Appellant being the proprietor of M/s Siddha Exports, and the exports having been made in the name of the said concern, was responsible to ensure the realization of the export proceeds and cannot evade responsibility for the lapses. The Appellant cannot avoid responsibility for the contraventions of Section 7 of FEMA,1999 r/w Regulation 16 (Advance Payment of Exports of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of goods and services) Regulation,2000, by not making shipment within one year from the date of receipt of advance remittances amounting to US $ 10,54,310.36 9 (equivalent to Rs. 4,81,29,268).
Lack of mens rea - Penalty was clearly imposable in the present case and the appellant cannot escape his liability by laying the blame solely at the door of the Mundra brothers. We do find several mitigating factors in the case.
It is not in dispute that to all appearances, all the documentation had been completed as if the export had genuinely been made and the proceeds therefrom had been realized. It is only later that the appellant came to know that the documents had been forged and no export were actually made by the Mundra Brothers. Upon coming to know he approach the Ld. Settlement Commission the order of the Settlement Commission indicates that the applicant (the appellant herein) had made a full disclosure of its duty liability and had also subsequently paid the liabilities as directed by Ld. Settlement Commission.
Nothing has been brought had record to indicate that the appellant acted in active collusion with the Mundra Brothers in forging the documents and falsely claiming that exports had been made when no exports had actually been made to his knowledge.
Ends of justice would met if the amount of penalty levied is reduced to Rs. 5 Lakhs. It is ordered accordingly.
Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts a woman accused from satisfying the twin conditions under clause (ii) of Section 45(1); (ii) Whether bail should be granted on the facts of prolonged custody, non-commencement of evidence, absence of antecedents, and the expected length of the trial.
Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts a woman accused from satisfying the twin conditions under clause (ii) of Section 45(1).
Analysis: The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of that provision. On that construction, a woman applying for bail is not required to satisfy the twin conditions. The respondent also accepted that the rigours of clause (ii) would not apply to a woman in view of the proviso.
Conclusion: The proviso exempts a woman accused from the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (ii): Whether bail should be granted on the facts of prolonged custody, non-commencement of evidence, absence of antecedents, and the expected length of the trial.
Analysis: The accused had been in custody since 25 November 2023, the charge had been framed, evidence had not yet commenced, 67 witnesses were to be examined, no antecedents were shown, and the maximum punishment for the predicate offence was seven years. In those circumstances, the application was to be considered under the general bail provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the facts justified enlargement on bail pending trial.
Conclusion: Bail was warranted on the facts and the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions to be fixed by the Special Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 excludes women accused from the twin bail conditions, and once that exception applies, bail is to be assessed on the ordinary bail principles having regard to custody, antecedents, and the progress of trial.
Seeking garnt of bail to a woman - Money Laundering - predicate offence - proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) exempts women from the stringent bail conditions outlined in clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 or not - HELD THAT:- The first proviso to sub- Section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA. Therefore, when a woman applies for bail, the twin conditions in clause (ii) need not be satisfied. Though time is granted to the learned Additional Solicitor General to make submissions in support of the submission that notwithstanding the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA, rigours of clause (ii) of sub- Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will apply even to a woman, today the learned Solicitor General appears and states that rigours of clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply to a woman, in view of proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA.
As rigours of clause (ii) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply, the Special Court ought to have treated the application as the one under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"). Hence, the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. (the first proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 480 of the BNSS) will apply. As the predicate offence is not under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the maximum sentence can be of 7 years. The appellant is a woman. There is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future, considering the fact that 67 witnesses are to be examined. There are no antecedents of the appellant brought on record. Therefore, a case is made out for enlarging the appellant on bail till the conclusion of the trial.
Conclusion - The appellant, being a woman, is exempt from the stringent bail conditions of the PMLA and is entitled to bail under the Cr.P.C. or BNSS, with appropriate conditions to ensure her participation in the trial.
Apppeal allowed.
Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in trial notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether, on the materials collected in the investigation and the applicant's medical and parity-based pleas, the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 stood satisfied.
Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in trial notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The plea of delay and Article 21-based speedy trial rights was considered against the special bail regime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that economic offences involving proceeds of crime are to be viewed seriously and that mere passage of time in custody does not by itself dilute the statutory requirements for release. The investigation had substantially progressed, the prosecution complaint had been filed, and the case involved serious allegations of organised collection and laundering of crime proceeds. In that backdrop, prolonged incarceration alone was found insufficient to override the statutory restrictions.
Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail on the ground of delay or prolonged custody.
Issue (ii): Whether, on the materials collected in the investigation and the applicant's medical and parity-based pleas, the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 stood satisfied.
Analysis: The Court found substantial material indicating the applicant's role as a key conspirator and beneficiary of the alleged proceeds of crime, including statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, documentary material and the alleged money trail. It held that the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 operated against the applicant and that the twin conditions for bail were not satisfied. The medical plea was rejected because the record did not show a serious ailment warranting release when treatment could be provided in custody. The parity and selective-prosecution objections were also not accepted as sufficient to overcome the statutory bar.
Conclusion: The twin conditions for bail were not satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to release on medical or parity grounds.
Final Conclusion: The application for regular bail was held to be untenable under the special bail framework governing money-laundering offences, and custodial release was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, prolonged custody or a general plea of delay does not by itself justify release unless the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; medical relief is available only when adequate treatment cannot be secured in custody.
Money Laundering - grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 - alleged custom rice milling levy scam - scheduled offence - prolonged pre-trial incarceration - violation of right to speedy trial - HELD THAT:- From the investigation of the ED, it has been revealed that the applicant was one of the key conspirator and main beneficiary of the POC extorted from the rice millers. It has also been revealed that the rice milers were forced for payment of the same under threat that their incentive bills would not be cleared from the MARKFED. As per Section 50 (4) of the PML Act, the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA has evidentiary value as the proceedings under Section 50 (2) and (3) are deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of the IPC, 1860.
The applicant is closely connected with POC as he had deputed some persons at certain place and the cash was not physically taken by him but it was initially demanded by the applicant and payment, he conveyed it to the rice millers over phone. It has come in the statements of some of the rice millers who have personally handed over the extortion amount as demanded by the applicant. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT], it has been observed that the economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of country.
The application for bail of the Appellant should be seen at this stage while the Appellant is involved in the economic offence, in general, and for the offence punishable Under Section 4 of the PMLA, in particular.
The present case related to grant of bail in connection with the offence registered against the applicant by the ED under various provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA (ECIR registered by the ED) respectively. In the context of interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA, held that the twin conditions obligate the Court to arrive at a positive finding that applicant has not committed an offence under the PMLA. A tentative finding should be recorded on the basis of broad probabilities and detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, nor evidence be weighed meticulously.
Under PMLA, there is a presumption of guilt on the accused which they have to disprove to get bail. In an older version of the PMLA, the first condition stated that it would be presumed that the accused was guilty of the ‘scheduled offence’, and the reversed burden of proof on the accused was to disprove their involvement in the scheduled offence - In Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] a division bench of the court ruled that the first condition was unconstitutional. Right after this in 2018, this condition was amended, and the new version stated that the reversed burden of proof on the accused was now to disprove their involvement in the ‘money laundering’ offence, and not the ‘scheduled offence’.
The Court after examining the entire documents found substantial material indicating a strong nexus between the applicant and the other accused persons in the commission of the crime. There were documents and evidences that reflected the involvement of the applicant and he is the key conspirator and beneficiary from the said scam. Thus, the guilt of the accused in the offence of money laundering has been gathered and since, the allegations against the applicant were extremely serious and taking into account, the nature and gravity of the offence and from perusal of the record and in view of the fact that looking to the special and stringent provision under Section 45 (1) of the PMLA for grant of bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, prima facie the money trail has been established by the prosecution and therefore, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail for the reasons.
Conclusion - The conditions specified under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with." "Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously. The applicant's bail application was rejected due to failure to satisfy the conditions under Section 45 of PMLA.
The prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for the offences under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002, is hereby rejected.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Liability for Confirmed Demand of Service Tax
Issue 2: Limitation for Issuance of Show Cause Notice
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment underscores the necessity for tax authorities to thoroughly consider evidence presented by taxpayers, such as CA certificates, and to substantiate claims of tax evasion with clear evidence. The court's decision to set aside the demand due to both merits and limitation reflects a commitment to fair adjudication based on documented facts and legal standards.
Liability to pay service tax based on the full value Service Tax reflected in 38 invoices - requirement to remit amount collected as Service Tax from the client as per Section 73A - failure to consider CA certificate - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants have been maintaining that the full Service Tax was reflected in the Invoices, but such Invoices were never sent to the client, not they have paid the full Service Tax to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellants have passed rectification entries in their books of account to the effect that the total Tax is to be divided under the heading of VAT and Service Tax. The VAT amounts have been remitted to the concerned authorities.
The Chartered Accountant has issued the Certificate on 11.02.2015 clearly showing the way the Invoices which were taken for issue of demand in the Show Cause Notice. The date of this CA’s Certificate clarifies that this was obtained before the Personal Hearing and before the impugned Order was passed. The Adjudicating authority has recorded at page 15 of the OIO that the CA’s Certificate has been filed. But, instead of going through the details given therein, he has simply ignored the same and has not given any finding whatsoever as to why or how the certificate does not carry the defence of the appellant. It has been held in catena of decisions that once the CA’s Certificate is produced before the Adjudicating / Appellate authority, he is required to consider the same and if he is not in agreement with the same, he should rebut with proper reason.
The demand with interest an dpenalties set aside.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notice issued on 17.10.2014 for the period 2009-10 to 2012-13. The requisite details have been found from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, which were made available to the Audit team. Even the proper rectification making entries were put up before them, which was not considered by the Audit team. Being a reputed Public Limited Company, the appellants are required to maintain proper books of accounts as well as rectify the mistakes by passing proper counter entries so as to nullify the same. Since they have undertaken all these steps, it is not found that they have indulged in any activity which would point out to suppression on their part. Hence, the confirmed demand in respect of the extended period is time barred. The confirmed demand pertaining to the extended period set aside on account of limitation and allow the appeal even on this ground.
Conclusion - It is not open for Revenue to arrive at a conclusion in disregard of the certificate without challenging or controverting the same with cogent evidence and reasoning. The extended period for tax demands requires evidence of intent to evade.
The appeal was allowed fully on merits regarding the Service Tax demand and partly on account of limitation concerning the extended period.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The judgment addresses two primary legal issues:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue A: Rent-a-Cab Service
Issue B: Debit Notes and Associated Enterprises
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between actual service provision and mere facilitation, as well as the necessity of recognizing internal transactions within a single corporate entity as non-taxable under service tax laws. The court's reliance on documentary evidence and established legal precedents played a critical role in reaching these conclusions.
Liability to pay service tax - rent-a-cab service - transactions involving International Travel House Limited (ITH) - demand on Debit Notes raised on other associate enterprises - Extended period of limitation.
Rent-a-cab service wherein the demand of Rs. 67,38,390/- has been confirmed - HELD THAT:- ITC Sonar is not retaining any amount from the amount being given by the guests. The entire amount is being given back by them to ITH. From the bills raised by ITH, it is seen that they are charging the Service Tax on the guests. This documentary evidence shows clearly that ITC Sonar has not provided any service either to the guests or to ITH. It is seen that ITH has not made any payment towards any consideration to ITC. Even otherwise, the Show Cause notice only alleges providing of renting a cab service to the guests. From the documentary evidence, it gets clarified that the appellant is not providing the rent-a-cab service to the guests. As a hotel, they may be indicating in their website various facilities being provided to the guests on its own - It is for the jurisdictional authorities to take up the matter and proceed against ITH, in case they are collecting the Service Tax under these bills and not remitting the same to the Department. In view of these factual details and documentary evidence shown, the confirmed demand of Rs 67,38,390 under the rent-a-cab service is not legally sustainable.
Debit Notes raised on other associate enterprises wherein the demand of Rs. 28,54,978/- has been confirmed - HELD THAT:- The appellant was registered with the Service Tax department and has been discharging the service tax payments and also they were filing their ST3 returns. Quantification of demand towards rent-a-cab services as well as debit notes raised on associate enterprises have been obtained by the Revenue from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant - it is not seen that the appellant has indulged in any suppression in these matters. Further, the appellant could be carrying bonafide belief that no Service Tax is required to be paid on the rent-a-cab service being actually rendered by ITH. In respect of the debit notes raised on other divisions, the appellant should have carried bona fide belief that since they are all part of the Divisions of the same company, there is no need to pay any Service Tax on such activities.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Department has not brought in any documentary evidence or proof to the effect that the appellant has indulged in any suppression so as to evade payment of service tax on these activities. Further, as submitted by the appellant, if service tax was required to be paid on such services, the appellant would be eligible to take the Cenvat Credit which makes the entire exercise as that of revenue neutral - the appellant cannot be fastened with the allegation of suppression with an intent to evade payment of service tax.
Conclusion - The court set aside the demands for service tax under both the rent-a-cab service and associated enterprises. The appellant cannot be fastened with the allegation of suppression with an intent to evade payment of service tax.
Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (a): Retrospective Application of Notification 2011
Issue (b): Application of Rule 6(7B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
Issue (c): Profit on Settlement as Taxable Value
Issue (d): Taxability of Profit on Sale of Foreign Exchange to EEFC Account Holders
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The appeal was partly allowed, with the court upholding some of the Commissioner's findings and rejecting others, as detailed above.
Service tax exemption for inter-bank transactions - Retrospective operation of exemption notification - Option under Rule 6(7B) of the Service Tax Rules to discharge tax on gross exchange - Taxable value - profit on settlement - Taxability of sale of foreign exchange to EEFC account holders
Service tax exemption for inter-bank transactions - Retrospective operation of exemption notification - Notification No.27/2011 amending Notification No.19/2009 is not retrospective and applies with effect from 01.04.2011 only - HELD THAT: - The amending notification expanded the class of persons eligible for the exemption (substituting the limited expression referring to scheduled banks with a wider expression covering any bank or money changer). The Tribunal found no ambiguity in the amending text and no compelling evidence of an intent to make the amendment retrospective. The presumption that non-procedural changes operate prospectively in the absence of express words to the contrary was applied. The earlier exemption remained limited to inter-bank transactions between scheduled banks until the stated effective date of the amendment. [Paras 11, 14, 15, 16]
Findings of the Commissioner that the 2011 notification operates prospectively are upheld; the appellant's claim of retrospective effect is dismissed.
Option under Rule 6(7B) of the Service Tax Rules to discharge tax on gross exchange - Assessee's election to discharge service tax on the fixed transaction charge shown in invoices is an option which the Revenue cannot unilaterally override; Revenue cannot force application of Rule 6(7B) without determining hidden consideration - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal accepted that Rule 6(7B) confers an option on the assessee to pay service tax on 0.25% of gross exchange; the proviso requires the consideration to be shown separately in the invoice for the option to be available. Although the Commissioner identified limited transactions showing variances in applied exchange rates, those instances were few and not shown to be part of a broader scheme. Even if hidden consideration existed, the proper course was for the Revenue to quantify that differential and tax it under Sections 66/67 rather than to deprive the assessee of its statutory option. Accordingly the relevant grounds of appeal were allowed. [Paras 17, 20, 21]
Assessee entitled to its option under Rule 6(7B); Revenue cannot compel application of Rule 6(7B) or treat unquantified exchange-rate differentials as replacing the assessee's chosen invoiced consideration.
Taxable value - profit on settlement - Profit or loss on settlement arising from purchase and sale of travellers' cheques and prepaid cards forms part of the taxable value and is liable to service tax - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner had found that the difference between sale and purchase exchange rates (profit on settlement) constituted consideration for taxable services. The Tribunal noted the nature of the appellant's activities as a stockist and intermediary in sale/purchase of foreign currency denominated instruments and sustained the impugned finding that such profit is includible in the taxable value. The Tribunal did not find grounds to interfere with the revenue's conclusion on this aspect. [Paras 6, 22, 23]
Findings of the Commissioner that profit on settlement forms part of taxable value are sustained.
Taxability of sale of foreign exchange to EEFC account holders - Profit on sale of foreign exchange to holders of EEFC accounts is not taxable as service tax in the circumstances considered - HELD THAT: - The appellant argued that sales to EEFC account holders did not involve conversion activity and thus lacked the service element taxable under the statutory provisions. The Revenue's contention that separate transactions (supply and later repayment) carried a service element was examined. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that where there is no conversion and no flow of consideration constituting a service, the transaction is not taxable. Accordingly the demand raised in respect of EEFC account transactions was held unsustainable. [Paras 24, 25]
Demand in respect of transactions with EEFC account holders cannot be sustained; those profits are not taxable as service in the circumstances found.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed: the Commissioner's finding that the 2011 amendment is prospective is upheld and the inclusion of profit on settlement in taxable value is sustained; however, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's challenge to the Revenue's attempt to displace the assessee's option under Rule 6(7B) and held that the demand in respect of sales to EEFC account holders cannot be sustained.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question addressed in this judgment is whether the demand for service tax under the category of 'Business Support Service' (BSS) for the logistics services provided by the appellant is justified. This involves examining whether the logistics services fall under the definition of BSS or are merely ancillary to 'Cargo Handling Services' (CHS), which the appellant claims to provide.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Relevant legal framework and precedents:
The legal framework centers around the Finance Act, 1994, specifically sections 65(23) and 65(104c), which define CHS and BSS, respectively. The classification of services is governed by Section 65A, which dictates that a specific description of a service is preferred over a general one. The Service Tax Rules, 1994, particularly Rule 2(1)(d)(v), allocate the liability of service tax payment to the recipient of services.
Court's interpretation and reasoning:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the logistics services provided by the appellant should be classified under BSS or remain under CHS. It was observed that the appellant provided transportation services through outsourced agencies and that the income from these services was recorded as 'transportation income.' The Tribunal emphasized that a specific service description (CHS) should take precedence over a general one (BSS), as per Section 65A.
Key evidence and findings:
The evidence included the appellant's financial records, which showed transportation income and expenses, and the agreements with transporting agencies. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's activities involved handling cargo, with logistics being an ancillary service. The income difference between transportation income and expenses was considered a business margin rather than evidence of BSS.
Application of law to facts:
The Tribunal applied the legal principle that specific service descriptions prevail over general ones. Since the appellant's primary service was CHS, and the logistics involved were ancillary, the Tribunal concluded that the service should not be reclassified under BSS. The Tribunal also considered the liability for service tax on transportation services, which, according to Rule 2(1)(d)(v), falls on the recipient, not the service provider.
Treatment of competing arguments:
The appellant argued that the logistics services were part of CHS and that any income difference was a business margin, not a separate service. The Revenue argued that the additional income from logistics should be taxed under BSS. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, emphasizing the specificity of CHS and the nature of the logistics as ancillary services.
Conclusions:
The Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax under BSS was unjustified. The logistics services were ancillary to CHS and should not be considered a separate taxable service under BSS. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's tax liability should be limited to the normal period of limitation, as the extended period was not justified.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:
"The classification of services is governed by Section 65 A ibid. It is not the case of the department that the appellant did not provide transportation service as a part of handling of cargo."
Core principles established:
The judgment reinforces the principle that specific service descriptions should prevail over general ones for tax classification purposes. It also clarifies that ancillary services to a primary service should not be reclassified into a different taxable category without clear justification.
Final determinations on each issue:
The Tribunal determined that the logistics services provided by the appellant were ancillary to CHS and not a separate BSS. Therefore, the demand for additional service tax under BSS was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.
Classification of service - Business Support Service or Cargo Handling Services? - logistics services provided by the appellant - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The classification of services is governed by Section 65 A ibid. It is not the case of the department that the appellant did not provide transportation service as a part of handling of cargo. The only reason advanced in the SCN is earning income over and above incurred expenditure on transportation. The Appellant is to provide transportation service and it invoices its customer for transportation service. Hence, the Revenue has failed to provide arny reason in support of its averment that the service is that of 'logistics' and it would be liable for service tax under the classification of "business support service”. Moreover, under the provisions of section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994 specific description is always preferred over general description. If the Appellant being an ICD has provided service of transportation by road, it cannot be classified under any other entry. The law does not authorize such classification. For providing transportation service, the liability cannot be fixed otherwise than on the recipient thereof in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The period of dispute is from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and Show Cause Notices came to be issued on 19.10.2011 and 10.10.2012 invoking the extended period of limitation - from the facts borne on record that the appellant being an ICD had admitted its liability under the specific classification namely CHS and hence, the Revenue could not have presumed as to the knowledge of the appellant for the taxability of difference between transport income and transport expense as reflected in the books of accounts to be liable to Service Tax under ‘transportation charges’, which fact was not alleged even in Show Cause Notice. Hence, at best, the liability could have been restricted to the normal period of limitation.
Conclusion - The logistics services provided by the appellant were ancillary to CHS and not a separate BSS. Therefore, the demand for additional service tax under BSS was set aside.
Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the demand of Service Tax on the appellant under Works Contract Service (WCS) is appropriate and lawful. This involves determining the correct classification of the service provided by the appellant-whether it should be classified under Construction of Complex Service (CCS) or WCS.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:
The legal framework centers on the classification of services under the Finance Act, 1994, specifically Section 65/105(zzzza), which defines Works Contract Service. The appellant initially classified its services under CCS and claimed benefits under Notification No. 1/2006-ST. The Revenue's position was influenced by the Supreme Court decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which clarified that composite contracts involving the transfer of property in goods are classifiable under WCS.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:
The court examined whether the appellant's construction activities, which involved both service provision and the supply of materials (subject to VAT), constituted a composite contract. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Larsen & Toubro Ltd., which established that such contracts fall under WCS. The court found that the appellant's activities met the criteria for WCS, as they involved the transfer of property in goods.
Key Evidence and Findings:
The appellant was registered with the State VAT department and paid VAT on materials used in construction, indicating a composite contract. The appellant also paid Service Tax on a portion of the gross amount charged, aligning with Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which was introduced retrospectively.
Application of Law to Facts:
The court applied the legal principles from the Larsen & Toubro Ltd. case to the facts, determining that the appellant's construction activities were indeed composite contracts. Therefore, the correct classification was under WCS, not CCS.
Treatment of Competing Arguments:
The appellant argued that its classification under CCS was justified and that the demand for differential tax was based on an incorrect interpretation. The Revenue countered that the classification should be under WCS, as supported by the Supreme Court's decision. The court sided with the Revenue's interpretation but limited the demand to the normal period, rejecting the extended period of limitation.
Conclusions:
The court concluded that the appellant's services were correctly classifiable under WCS. However, the demand for differential tax was limited to the normal period, and penalties under Section 78 were not sustainable.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:
"Composite contracts where transfer of property in goods is involved shall be classifiable only under Works Contract Service and not under CCS/CICS."
Core Principles Established:
The judgment reinforced the principle that composite contracts involving both service provision and the transfer of goods are to be classified under WCS, as established by the Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:
The court determined that the appellant's services were classifiable under WCS, but the demand for differential tax should only apply to the normal period. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside.
Classification of the service provided by the appellant - to be classified under Construction of Complex Service (CCS) or WCS? - whether the demand of Service Tax on the Appellant under WCS is in order? - HELD THAT:- From the documents placed on record, there is a finding that insofar as the construction of projects was concerned, the Appellant had got itself registered with the State VAT department and paid applicable VAT. The effect is that the construction activity, as a builder, involved both service of construction as well as supply of materials; that being sale, applicable VAT stood remitted. So, the said activity clearly involved a composite contract hence, the service was covered under WCS.
Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly held that composite contracts where transfer of property in goods is involved shall be classifiable only under Works Contract Service and not under CCS/CICS.
Conclusion - The appellant's services were classifiable under WCS, but the demand for differential tax should only apply to the normal period. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Classification of Services as BAS or Intermediary
Issue 2: Entitlement to Export of Services Benefit
Issue 3: Impact of Amendment on Intermediary Definition
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment effectively clarifies the classification of services under the Service Tax framework, emphasizing the importance of the nature of services and the timing of legal definitions in determining tax liabilities.
Classification of service - Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) or intermediary services - business of guiding and advising the foreign parties for bidding and negotiations - benefit of export of services for the period from July 2012 to March 2014 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the Tribunal in the Appellant’s own case [2018 (7) TMI 1214 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] for the previous period i.e. from April, 2007 to June, 2012. The present proceedings are for the period from July, 2012 to March, 2014.
The concept of intermediary becomes relevant for the purpose of determination of the place of provisions of services as per Rule 9 of Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012. In case of intermediary, it is the location of services provider which is considered as place of provision of services for the purpose of levy of service tax for the period when the appellant is covered by the definition of the intermediary, the place of provision of service, the location of service provider i.e. the taxable territory of India. Hence the benefit of export of services could not be extended to the an intermediary located in India.
As per the Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules in cases such cases the place of provision of service is location of the service recipient, which in the present case is outside India. Appellant are receiving payment against the provisions of these services in convertible foreign exchange. Thus, these services would qualify to get the benefit of export of services as per Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Thus for this period there cannot be any levy of service tax and the demand made by the impugned order needs to be set aside.
Conclusion - The services provided by the appellant in respect of the sale of goods of associated group companies cannot be said to be services provided by intermediary as defined by said Rules ibid. The benefit of export of services would be available to the appellant.
Appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Requirement to Pay Service Tax on Advances/Mobilization Amounts
Issue 2: Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with evidence, adhering to procedural requirements, and the tribunal's commitment to ensuring justice is both done and seen to be done.
Levy of service tax - Advances/Mobilization amount received from their customer - whether these amounts were advances or loan against Bank Guarantee from the clients as claimed by the appellant? - opportunity of hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is not fair on the part of the learned counsel to submit that the impugned order was passed behind their back or without giving opportunity of hearing to them. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the appellant and twice the Manager-Taxation of the appellant also appeared before the said authority and took time for filing reply and necessary documents in support of their claim but nothing was filed. Six times adjournment was granted by the said authority including twice on the request of their Manager Taxation. Although the illness of their Manager-Taxation was genuine ground but in his absence someone ought to have appeared before the adjudicating authority on behalf of appellant.
There are no fault on the part of the adjudicating authority for adjudicating the issue ex-parte. Learned counsel also submits that all the documentary evidences have been filed by them in support of their claim.
Conclusion - In the present case no personal hearing was sought. Even then in the interest of justice seven personal hearing was granted i.e. adjournments were granted for six times. Service tax is applicable on advances unless adequately proven otherwise.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner for denovo adjudication.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question in this judgment is whether a builder is liable to pay service tax on the entire consideration received from the buyer after the issuance of an "occupancy certificate" when the statutory term used is "completion certificate" as per the exception provided in Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Relevant legal framework and precedents:
Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, classifies the construction of a complex, building, or civil structure intended for sale to a buyer as a declared service, except where the entire consideration is received after the issuance of a completion certificate by the competent authority. The explanation to this section specifies that a competent authority could be an architect, chartered engineer, or licensed surveyor.
Court's interpretation and reasoning:
The court interpreted the provision by considering the purpose behind the issuance of a completion certificate. It reasoned that after the issuance of an occupancy certificate, the sale of flats is merely a transfer of title in immovable property, which does not constitute a service under the Finance Act, 1994. The court also referenced a press release by the Ministry of Finance, which clarified that the sale of flats after the issuance of an occupancy certificate is exempt from service tax, as it does not fall within the definition of "service" under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Key evidence and findings:
The court noted that the respondent had received an occupancy certificate from the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation. The court found that the occupancy certificate was issued after the completion of the building as per the approved plans, and the issuance of the certificate was not disputed by the Revenue.
Application of law to facts:
The court applied the law by determining that the issuance of an occupancy certificate by the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation effectively served the same purpose as a completion certificate. It concluded that the sale of flats after receiving the occupancy certificate did not amount to providing a declared service, thus falling within the exception in Section 66E(b).
Treatment of competing arguments:
The Revenue argued that the statutory requirement was for a completion certificate, not an occupancy certificate, and that the exemption should not apply. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing the practical equivalence of the two certificates in the context of the statutory provision and the intent behind the Finance Act, 1994. The court also dismissed the notion that different standards could apply between different municipal corporations within the same state.
Conclusions:
The court concluded that the respondent was not liable to pay service tax on the sale of flats where the entire consideration was received after the issuance of the occupancy certificate. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:
"The main reason for issuance of clarification by the Ministry of Finance dated 26.10.2015 is that after the issuance of occupancy certificate by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) the sale of flats/dwelling etc. is mere transfer of title in immovable property and does not amount to any service and hence falls outside the purview of Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994."
Core principles established:
The court established that the issuance of an occupancy certificate can be considered equivalent to a completion certificate for the purposes of the exemption in Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to exclude mere transfers of title in immovable property from the scope of service tax.
Final determinations on each issue:
The court determined that the respondent was not liable for service tax on the sale of flats where the consideration was received after the issuance of an occupancy certificate, thus affirming the decision to drop the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice.
Liability of builder to pay service tax - builder is liable to pay service tax on receipt of entire considerations from the buyer after issuance of ‘occupancy certificate’ when the term used is ‘Completion Certificate’ in the exception provided in Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 or not - HELD THAT:- The main reason for issuance of clarification by the Ministry of Finance dated 26.10.2015 is that after the issuance of occupancy certificate by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) the sale of flats/dwelling etc. is mere transfer of title in immovable property and does not amount to any service and hence falls outside the purview of Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The press release is confined to the cases pertaining to BMC as it has been issued in response to a representation made by the Real Estate Developers of Mumbai to the Ministry of Finance claiming exemption in cases where the Occupancy Certificate were issued by BMC without there being any completion certificate. But the clarification cannot be said to confine only to BMC as it clarifies the provision and hence we have no doubt in holding that the clarification is equally applicable on the Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation as well, since the said clarification is qua the provision of Finance Act, 1994 which is applicable on everyone whether it is BMC or any other Municipal Corporation.
In the case in hand the Occupancy Certificate is not disputed and its issuance by Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation is also an admitted fact. The Revenue i.e. the appellant herein is not casting any doubt on the said certificate and their only concern is that the said Occupancy certificate has not been issued by BMC but by a different Municipal Corporation, therefore the clarification issued by Ministry of Finance will not be applicable which, in our view, is totally unfounded. The expression used in Section 66E(b) ibid is ‘after issuance of completion certificate’ which, in our view, can’t be limited to only the completion certificate - it can be said that the pre-condition for issuance of occupancy certificate is the completion of building and its inspection by Commissioner of concerned Municipal Corporation being the competent authority or anybody on his behalf.
Conclusion - Having received the occupancy certificate from competent authority i.e. Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation and having sold the units/flats in issue subsequent to the date of issue of the said occupancy certificate, the appellant is not providing the declared services of construction of complex/building, etc. to any of such buyers and therefore the same falls within the exception provided in Section 66E(b) ibid. The respondent was not liable for service tax on the sale of flats where the consideration was received after the issuance of an occupancy certificate.
Appeal dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 35G
Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, pertains to appeals to the High Court on substantial questions of law. Section 35L, amended by the Finance Act (2) Act, 2014, specifies that appeals on matters related to the taxability or excisability of goods or services should be directed to the Supreme Court. The amendment was clarificatory, as per a circular by the Ministry of Finance.
The Court interpreted the amendment to Section 35L as clarifying that disputes related to the taxability of services fall under the category of "Determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty." Therefore, such matters should be appealed to the Supreme Court, not the High Court.
The Court referred to the Ministry of Finance's circular and previous judgments by the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which supported the interpretation that appeals on taxability issues should be directed to the Supreme Court.
Since the issue at hand involved the taxability of services provided to a Municipal Corporation, the Court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 35G and should be directed to the Supreme Court under Section 35L.
The respondent's preliminary objection regarding the appeal's maintainability was upheld, and the Court did not address the substantial question of law due to the jurisdictional issue.
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability under Section 35G, leaving the revenue to pursue statutory remedies.
Issue 2: Justification of Tribunal's Reliance on Previous Orders
The Tribunal's reliance on its previous orders, which are under challenge and pending before the Supreme Court, was questioned. The Court did not delve into this issue due to the dismissal of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
Since the appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the Court did not provide an interpretation or reasoning regarding the Tribunal's reliance on its previous orders.
This issue was not addressed due to the preliminary dismissal of the appeal.
The Court did not apply the law to the facts regarding this issue, as it was not considered due to the appeal's dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
Competing arguments on this issue were not addressed due to the jurisdictional dismissal.
The substantial question of law related to this issue was left open for consideration in a proper forum.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The Court stated: "In the above circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed."
Disputes relating to the taxability of services fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the High Court, as clarified by the amendment to Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability under Section 35G, and the substantial question of law was left open for consideration in a proper forum.
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is maintainable before the High Court or not - taxability of services provided to a Municipal Corporation - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (2) to Section 35L of the Act was inserted with effect from 6.8.2014 by Section 107 of the Finance Act (2) Act, 2014 and that the amendment was clarificatory was accepted by the department. In this regard, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Tax Research Unit has issued circular dated 10.7.2014 which refers to the bill introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Hon’ble Finance Minister. It has been clarified by the said circular that section 35L is being amended so as to clarify that determination of disputes relating to taxability or excisable of goods is covered under the term “Determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty” and, hence, appeal against Tribunal order in which matters would lie before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
This decision was followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of COMMISSIONER SERVICE TAX VERSUS DLF GOLF RESORTS LTD. [2017 (5) TMI 402 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]. In the said decision it has been held that the appeal does not lie before the High Court under Section 35G of the Act but appeal would lie before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Act.
Conclusion - Disputes relating to the taxability of services fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the High Court, as clarified by the amendment to Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Act.
Appeal dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Entitlement to Refund of Excess Excise Duty
Issue 2: Procedural Compliance and Evidence Submission
Issue 3: Unjust Enrichment
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Refund of excess Central Excise Duty paid for the months of November 2015 and December 2015 - rejection of refund claim based on the evidence provided by the appellant - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The appellant had submitted the details of errors in ER-1 returns filed and details of correct figures that should have been considered while verifying the correctness of total duty actually payable and refund claimed vide their letter dated 18.02.2016. They have also submitted the attested copies of invoices issued in relation to clearances made during the period in dispute vide letter dated 03.12.2016 which clearly supports the correct figures as submitted by the appellant vide letter dated 18.02.2016.
The excess duty paid by the Appellant has been reflected as ‘Advances and loans’ in Note 18 of the Annual Accounts of 2015-16. However, the lower authorities have simply brushed aside the accounting entries available in the Annual Accounts for the year 2015-16 without giving any valid finding as to why they are not acceptable - The Appellant has submitted enough evidence to substantiate their claim of excess payment of duty.
The documents submitted by the Appellant along with the Chartered Accountant submitted by them establishes that there was an excess payment of duty by the Appellant during the months of November 2015 and December 2015.
Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has not produced any documents regarding crossing of the bar of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the matter is required to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of the documents on the eligibility of refund from the unjust enrichment angle.
Conclusion - The documents submitted by the Appellant establish that there was an excess payment of duty by the Appellant during the months of November 2015 and December 2015 and the Appellant is eligible for the refund, subject to verification of ‘unjust enrichment’.
The impugned order is set aside and the issue is remanded back to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose of verification of the issue of ‘unjust enrichment’ before he sanctions the refund claim - Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an appeal against the Tribunal's order under the MVAT regime; (ii) whether the condition requiring pre-deposit of specified amounts for stay of recovery of the assessment demands was justified.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an appeal against the Tribunal's order under the MVAT regime.
Analysis: The challenge was to an order granting stay on conditional deposit. The Court followed the binding view that such an order is not an appealable order under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The objection based on alternate remedy was therefore rejected. Reliance on the cited Supreme Court decision was held to be inapplicable on facts and under a different statutory context.
Conclusion: The maintainability objection was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the condition requiring pre-deposit of specified amounts for stay of recovery of the assessment demands was justified.
Analysis: The Court found that a strong prima facie case was made out, including on the interpretation of the exemption notification and the relevant metrology and beer-manufacture rules. It also accepted that financial hardship had been pleaded. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner should not be saddled with any pre-deposit as a condition for stay.
Conclusion: The pre-deposit condition was set aside and the assessment orders were stayed pending the first appeal.
Final Conclusion: The conditional stay orders were modified in writ jurisdiction, the recovery of the assessments was stayed, and the matter was disposed of with the assessee obtaining complete relief from the pre-deposit requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: An order granting or refusing stay on conditions under the MVAT appellate scheme is not appealable, and where a strong prima facie case and financial hardship are shown, the Court may dispense with pre-deposit and grant stay of recovery.
Imposition of condition for stay to the recovery of tax assessed by the Assessing Officer - case of petitioner is that no amount ought to have been directed to be deposited as a condition precedent for granting a stay - HELD THAT:- As far as the preliminary objection is concerned, the same need not detain us any further because the same is covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. BHAMBHANI SHIPPING LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS [2017 (12) TMI 629 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. In this decision, a Division Bench of this Court was in fact considering the provisions of Section 27 of the MVAT Act, 2002 and came to the conclusion that an order granting or refusing to grant a stay on conditions, is not an appealable order under Section 27 of the MVAT Act, 2002. This decision is binding. Hence, as far as the objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition is concerned, the same stands rejected.
As far as the decision relied upon the case of RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2010 (4) TMI 432 - SUPREME COURT] is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable on facts. First of all, what the Court was considering were the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Further, after going through this decision, the fact situation in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was completely different from the present case.
Conclusion - The Petitioner should not be saddled with any pre-deposit as a condition for stay.
Petition disposed off.
TaxTMI 