Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Evolution of Executive Scheme-Making Powers in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 532 of the Income Tax ...
    Withdrawal of Statutory Approvals under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 529 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Legal Perspectives on Condonation of Delay in Income Tax Approvals : Clause 528 of Income Tax Bill, ...
    Executive Discretion and Tax Incentives in India's Mineral Oil Sector : Clause 527 of the Income Tax...
    Immunity and Jurisdictional Bar in Tax Administration : Clause 526 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Authorisation and Assessment in Multi-Person Search Cases : Clause 525 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Rebuttable Presumptions in Tax Searches : Clause 524 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 292C o...
    Deeming Service of Notice in Tax Proceedings Under Income Tax Law : Clause 523 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice : Clause 522 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 292B of...
    Exclusion of Probationary Relief for Tax Offenders : Clause 521 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Jurisdictional Thresholds for Tax Offence Trials : Clause 520 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Immunity from Prosecution under Income Tax Law : Clause 519 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section...
    Practical Impact of Indemnity Provisions in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 518 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Legal Mandate for Receipts in Indian Tax Law : Clause 517 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 2...
    Evolution of Rounding Off Provisions regarding tax payable in Indian Tax Law : Clause 516 of the Inc...
    Legal Framework of Rounding Off Total Income in India tax Law : Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    The Right of Representation in Income Tax Proceedings : Clause 515 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Analysis of Registered Valuer Representation in Income Tax Proceedings : Clause 513 of the Income Ta...
    Public Disclosure of Tax Offenders : Clause 512 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 287 of the ...
    Legal Framework for International Group Reporting : Clause 511 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Power to frame schemes expands executive authority to enable faceless, technology-driven tax administration and modify statutory application.
    Clause 532 grants the Central Government authority to make schemes for any purpose of the Act to enhance efficiency, transparency and accountability by eliminating taxpayer interface and optimising resources, and to issue notifications modifying the application of any provision of the Act to give effect to such schemes; it also permits amendment of schemes under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and requires that notifications be laid before each House of Parliament.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Withdrawal of approvals: authorities may rescind statutory tax approvals after recording reasons and giving a fair hearing.
    Clause 529 authorises the Central Government, the Board, or income-tax authorities to withdraw any approval under the Act at any time after recording reasons and giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, even if the enabling provision lacks an express withdrawal clause. The provision mandates recorded reasons and a hearing but leaves "approval" undefined, does not specify substantive grounds for withdrawal, and does not prescribe a limitation period, which may raise uncertainty and prompt judicial scrutiny of procedural adequacy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: authority may excuse late tax approvals for sufficient cause, subject to discretionary review and safeguards.
    Clause 528 permits the Central Government or the Board to condone delays in obtaining approvals required before a specified date under the Act for "sufficient cause," vesting discretionary power in the same authority to excuse late applications across a broad range of approvals while leaving "sufficient cause," procedural steps, time limits and appeal mechanisms undefined.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Executive discretion in tax exemptions for mineral oil sector enables tailored fiscal relief to investors and service providers.
    Clause 527 vests the Central Government with discretionary power to grant exemptions, reductions or other modifications in income tax for persons engaged in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils, including operators, service providers, suppliers and their employees; notifications must be laid before Parliament and key terms like "mineral oil" and "status" are defined or cross referenced in the Bill.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Bar on civil suits prevents civil court challenges to tax proceedings, preserving exclusive statutory remedies and good faith immunity.
    The provision bars any civil suit to set aside or modify "any proceeding taken or order made" under the Act and grants immunity to the Government and its officers for acts done or intended to be done in good faith, channeling challenges to the statutory appellate and revisionary framework while preserving writ review for ultra vires, mala fide, or constitutional breaches.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Authorisation for multi-person searches: single authorisations allowed, but assessments must be made separately for each person.
    Clause 525 permits a single search or requisition authorisation to name multiple persons without requiring separate instruments, and provides that such joint naming does not, by itself, constitute authorisation against an AOP or BOI. Notwithstanding a consolidated authorisation, assessment or reassessment must be made separately in the name of each person mentioned, preserving individualized tax liability determinations while allowing administrative consolidation of search procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rebuttable presumption in tax searches shifts evidentiary burden to taxpayers and explicitly covers virtual digital assets.
    Clause 524 establishes a rebuttable presumption that items found in search or survey-books, documents, money, bullion, jewellery, other valuables and virtual digital assets-belong to the person in whose possession they were found; that contents of books and documents are true; that signatures and handwriting are authentic; and that stamped, executed or attested documents were duly executed, with identical presumptions applying to items requisitioned to officers as if discovered in a search.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Deeming validity of notice: participation or cooperation bars later objections unless raised before assessment completion.
    Clause 523 creates a deeming fiction that an assessee's appearance in proceedings or co-operation in an inquiry shall be treated as valid and timely service of any statutory notice, and it precludes the assessee from later objecting that the notice was not served, not timely served, or served improperly; however, this preclusion does not apply where the assessee raises the objection before completion of the assessment or reassessment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Substantial compliance preserves tax proceedings despite minor procedural errors when the instrument fulfils legislative intent.
    Clause 522 preserves the validity of returns, assessments, notices, summonses and other proceedings despite clerical, typographical or similar procedural defects, provided the document or action is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purposes of the Act; it does not cure defects that go to jurisdiction, authority, limitation, or breaches of natural justice, and mirrors Section 292B to maintain continuity of judicial interpretation and application.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of probationary relief bars adult tax offenders from probationary provisions, preserving minors' exception and updating criminal code reference.
    The clause mandates that the Probation of Offenders Act and the analogous provision in the new criminal procedure code shall not apply to persons convicted under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, except for those under eighteen, thereby removing judicial discretion for adult tax offenders, updating statutory references, and preserving a minors' exception while raising procedural questions on age determination and scope.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional threshold: income tax offences must be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, altering forum nomenclature.
    Clause 520 mandates that no court inferior to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, creating a uniform jurisdictional threshold for all tax offences. The provision modernizes terminology compared with Section 292 of the 1961 Act by omitting presidency magistrates, aligning with the CrPC framework and metropolitan magistrates' equivalence, while leaving potential ambiguities about special statute courts and transitional application. Its practical effect is to require complaints be filed before competent magistrates and to enable jurisdictional challenges where proceedings are instituted in inferior forums.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Immunity from prosecution: conditional grants require full and true disclosure and are revocable if falsehood or concealment is found.
    Immunity from prosecution allows the Central Government to grant discretionary, conditional immunity to persons concerned in concealment of income or tax evasion in exchange for a full and true disclosure, with written reasons required for the grant; acceptance limits prosecution and penalty to the scope specified, while failure to fully comply permits the government to record a finding and withdraw immunity, rendering the person liable to trial and penalty as if immunity had never been granted.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Indemnity for withholding agents protects deductors from civil claims when acting lawfully under the tax statute.
    Clause 518 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 provides a statutory indemnity for persons who deduct, retain, or pay tax in pursuance of the tax statute in respect of income belonging to another person, serving as a defence against civil claims by the income recipient where the agent acts lawfully; the protection is conditional on actions being within the scope of the statute and leaves unresolved issues about consequential losses, claim procedures, and interaction with other legal remedies.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Receipt obligation: mandatory issuance of receipts for any tax money paid or recovered, securing payment evidence and taxpayer protection.
    The provision mandates that a receipt shall be given for any money paid or recovered under the Income Tax Bill, 2025, covering voluntary payments and enforced recoveries under the Act. The clause is mandatory but silent on form, content, timing, issuing authority, mode of delivery, and consequences for non-issuance; subordinated rules and administrative practice-including electronic acknowledgments-are expected to fill these operational gaps. The receipt serves as an acknowledgement and evidentiary record rather than an automatic discharge of liability.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rounding off rules: ignore paise then round to nearest ten rupees, making the rounded figure legally operative.
    The provision applies rounding to computed total income and to amounts payable or refundable by first ignoring paise and then rounding the rupee amount to the nearest multiple of ten rupees-rounding up where the units digit is five or more and rounding down where it is less than five-and declares the rounded amount to be the deemed operative total income or amount payable or refundable for all purposes under the Act.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Rounding of tax amounts: unified rule mandates nearest multiple rounding for total income, payable and refundable amounts.
    Clause 516 prescribes a mandatory two-step rounding mechanism: ignore any paise, then round the rupee amount to the nearest multiple of ten-rounding up if the last digit is five or more and down if less than five-and deems the rounded figure to be the amount of total income, amount payable, or amount refundable for all purposes under the Act.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Right of representation: statutory authorisation and disqualification framework balancing access to representation with safeguards.
    The statute permits an assessee to appear by an authorised representative across all proceedings while preserving mandatory personal attendance for oath examination; it defines eligible representatives (including professionals, bank officers, relatives, legacy practitioners and any persons as prescribed), enumerates exhaustive exclusions and disqualifications to prevent conflicts of interest, distinguishes disciplinary regimes for professionals and nonprofessionals (with Rule 52 designating prescribed tax authorities to disqualify nonprofessionals), and mandates procedural safeguards including a hearing and appeal mechanism, while carrying forward prior disqualifications.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Registered valuer representation enables technical valuation expertise in tax proceedings, subject to personal-examination exception and updated registration framework.
    Clause 513 grants an assessee the discretionary right to attend valuation-related proceedings before income-tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal through a "registered valuer," excludes cases where personal attendance is required for examination on oath or affirmation, and defines "registered valuer" by reference to section 514 of the Bill, thereby creating a self-contained regime that modernizes registration, oversight, and professional standards for valuers.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Public disclosure of tax offenders can deter non-compliance while imposing reputational consequences under discretionary publication powers.
    Clause 512 empowers the Central Government to publish names and particulars of assessees when it considers such publication necessary or expedient in the public interest, subject to a safeguard that penalty-related publication await exhaustion or non-pursuit of appellate remedies, and permits publication of partners, directors and other associated persons if circumstances justify it. The clause modernises language and cross-references from Section 287 of the 1961 Act while preserving substantive continuity, raising interpretive concerns about the breadth of "particulars" and the subjectivity of "public interest."
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Country-by-Country reporting requires multinational groups to submit consolidated jurisdictional tax and economic data for risk assessment.
    Clause 511 mandates Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting by parent entities or alternate reporting entities resident in India and requires Indian constituent entities to notify the tax authority of the parent or ARE. It prescribes report contents-aggregate jurisdictional financial and economic indicators, constituent identification, and business activities-provides a secondary filing route where the parent's jurisdiction lacks filing or exchange, allows designation of a single Indian filer, sets a revenue threshold for applicability, and grants verification powers to the authority, with procedural details to be prescribed.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Central Excise

      what is the procedure of prosecution? FOR EVASION OF SERVICE TAX OR CENTRAL EXCISE :

      18 December, 2015

      Contents
      Circulars
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Circular No. 1009/16/2015-CX - Dated: 23-10-2015 - Central Excise - Guidelines for launching of Prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994 regarding Service tax

      what is the procedure of prosecution?

       Procedure for sanction of prosecution

      Prosecution proposal should be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner / Principal Chief Commissioner or Director General / Principal Director General of DGCEI ( in respect of cases booked by DGCEI) after the case has been carefully examined by the Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner or Additional Director General /Principal Additional Director General of  DGCEI who has adjudicated the case. In all cases of arrest, examination of the case to ascertain fitness for prosecution shall be necessarily carried out.

       Prosecution should not be launched in cases of technical nature, or where the additional claim of duty/tax is based totally on a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of law. Before launching any prosecution, it is necessary that the department should have evidence to prove that the person, company or individual had guilty knowledge of the offence, or had fraudulent intention to commit the offence, or in any manner possessed mens rea (guilty mind) which would indicate his guilt. It follows, therefore, that in the case of public limited companies, prosecution should not be launched indiscriminately against all the Directors of the company but it should be restricted to only against persons who were in charge of day-to-day operations of the factory and have taken active part in committing the duty/tax evasion or had connived at it.

      Prosecution should not be filed merely because a demand has been confirmed in the adjudication proceedings particularly in cases of technical nature or where interpretation of law is involved. One of the important considerations for deciding whether prosecution should be launched is the availability of adequate evidence. The standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution is higher as the case has to be established beyond reasonable doubt whereas the adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. Therefore, even cases where demand is confirmed in adjudication proceedings, evidence collected should be weighed so as to likely meet the test of being beyond reasonable doubt for recommending prosecution. Decision should be taken on case-to-case basis considering various factors, such as, nature and gravity of offence, quantum of duty/tax evaded or Cenvat credit wrongly availed and the nature as well as quality of evidence collected.

        Decision on prosecution should be normally taken immediately on completion of the adjudication proceedings. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal [2011(266)ELT 294 (SC)] has interalia, observed the following :-

      (i) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings can be launched simultaneously; (ii) decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other and (iv) the findings against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution.” Therefore, prosecution may even be launched before the adjudication of the case, especially where offence involved is grave, qualitative evidences are available and it is also apprehended that party may delay completion of adjudication proceedings.

        Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or ADG (Adjudication) acting as adjudicating authority should indicate at the time of passing the adjudication order itself whether he considers the case to be fit for prosecution so that it can be further processed and  sent to Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/ Director General of DGCEI, as the case may be, for sanction of prosecution. Where at the time of adjudication proceedings no view has been taken on prosecution by the Adjudicating Authority then the adjudication wing shall re-submit the file within 15 days from the date of issue of adjudication order to the Adjudicating Authority to take view of prosecution. Where, prosecution is proposed before the adjudication of the case, Commissioner/Principal Commissioner or Principal Additional Director General/Additional Director General, DGCEI who supervised the investigation shall record the reason for the same and forward the proposal to the sanctioning authority. The adjudicating authority shall also be informed of the decision to forward the proposal so that there is no need for him to examine the case at the time of passing of adjudication order from the perspective of prosecution. Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/ Director General of DGCEI may on his own motion also, taking into consideration the seriousness of an offence, examine whether the case is fit for sanction of prosecution irrespective of whether the adjudicating authority has recommended prosecution.

       In respect of cases investigated by DGCEI, the adjudicating authority would intimate the decision taken regarding fitness of the case for prosecution to the Principal Additional Director General/ Additional Director General of the Zonal Unit or Headquarters concerned, where the case was investigated and show cause notice issued. The officers of unit of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence concerned would prepare an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution, within one month of the date of receipt of the decision of the adjudicating authority and would send the same to the Director General, CEI for taking decision on sanction of prosecution. The format of investigation report is annexed as Annexure-I to this Circular.

       In respect of cases not investigated by DGCEI, where the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner who has adjudicated the case is satisfied that prosecution should be launched, an investigation report for the purpose of launching prosecution should be carefully prepared within one month of the date of issuance of the adjudication order . Investigation report should be signed by an Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, endorsed by the jurisdictional Principle Commissioner/Commissioner and sent to the Principal Chief/ Chief Commissioner for taking a decision on sanction for launching prosecution. The format of investigation report is annexed as Annexure-I to this circular. A criminal complaint in a court of law should be, filed by the jurisdictional Commissionerate only after the sanction of the Principal Chief / Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General/Director General of DGCEI has been obtained.

       Principal Commissioner/Commissioner or Additional Director General (Adjudication) shall submit a report by 10th of every month to the Principal Chief /Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General/ Director General of CEI, who is the sanctioning authority for prosecution, conveying whether a view on launching prosecution has been taken in respect of adjudication orders issued during the preceding month.

       Once the sanction for prosecution has been obtained, criminal complaint in the court of law should be filed as early as possible by an officer of the jurisdictional Commissionerate authorized by the Commissioner.

      It has been reported that delays in the Court proceedings are often due to non-availability of the records required to be produced before the Magistrate or due to delay in drafting of the complaint, listing of the exhibits etc. It shall be the responsibility of the officer who has been authorized to file complaint, to take charge of all documents, statements and other exhibits that would be required to be produced before a Court. The list of exhibits etc. should be finalized in consultation with the Public Prosecutor at the time of drafting of the complaint. No time should be lost in ensuring that all exhibits are kept in safe custody. Where a complaint has not been filed even after a lapse of three months from the receipt of sanction for prosecution, the reason for delay shall be brought to the notice of the Principal Chief/ Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or Director General of DGCEI by the Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner in charge of the Commissionerate responsible for filing of the complaint

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax