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 Appellate Remedies in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 356 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Appellate Remedies against Advance Rulings : Clause 389 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Evolution of Procedural Regulation in Advance Rulings under Indian Tax Law : Clause 388 of Income Ta...
    The Transformation of Advance Rulings Powers under Indian Tax Law : Clause 387 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Fraud, Misrepresentation, and the Void Ab Initio Doctrine in Advance Rulings : Clause 386 of the Inc...
    Jurisdictional Bar on Parallel Proceedings : Clause 385 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Procedure for processing applications for advance rulings in the Indian tax regime : Clause 384 of t...
    Procedural Evolution of Advance Ruling Applications : Clause 383 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Legal Insights on Vacancies and Defects in Advance Ruling Bodies : Clause 382 of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Administrative Efficiency vs. Judicial Oversight : Clause 381 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Changing Landscape of Advance Rulings in Indian Tax Law : Clause 380 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Evolving ADR Mechanisms in Indian Taxation : Clause 379 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Set-off and Withholding of Tax Refunds : Clause 438 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245 of ...
    Change in the Interest on Tax Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 437 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Limits on Challenging Completed Assessments in Refund Proceedings : Clause 436 of Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Automatic Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 435 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Procedural and Substantive Aspects of TDS Refunds : Clause 434 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Limitation, Procedure, and Rights of Refund Claims in Indian Tax Law : Clause 433 of the Income Tax ...
    Refund Entitlement in Special Cases (Death, Incapacity, Insolvency, Liquidation, or Other Causes) : ...
    Statutory Safeguards for Taxpayer Refunds : Clause 431 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 237 of I...
❯❯
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
    Appellate scope reform consolidates appealable orders, enables faceless appeals and transfers while preserving rehearing safeguards.
    Clause 356 prescribes an exhaustive list of appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), defines "status" by cross reference, prohibits appeals where orders are passed by or with approval of authorities above Deputy Commissioner, and empowers the Board to transfer appeals between JCIT(A) and Commissioner (Appeals) with a mandated opportunity of rehearing. It formally enables a government notified faceless disposal scheme-permitting elimination of physical interface and modification of procedural provisions-and authorizes the Board to exclude specified cases or classes from the section's operation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Right of appeal to High Court preserves judicial review over advance rulings with limited condonation and streamlined procedure.
    Clause 389 grants a statutory right of appeal to the High Court against rulings or orders of the Board for Advance Rulings and certain Assessing Officer actions, mandates filing in the prescribed form and manner within a limited period, allows judicial condonation for a short additional interval, omits prior executive scheme-making and modification powers, and relies on Rule 44FA to integrate appeal procedure with jurisdictional High Court practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural autonomy for advance rulings enables the Board to set its own procedures, heightening calls for transparency and safeguards.
    Clause 388 vests the Board for Advance Rulings with broad power to regulate its own procedure, subject to the relevant Chapter, enabling the Board to prescribe filing rules, hearing modes, timelines, evidence protocols, order formats and confidentiality mechanisms, while the institutional shift from a quasi judicial Authority to an administrative Board raises concerns about explicit natural justice safeguards, transparency, consistency and the scope of judicial review.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance Rulings powers modernisation clarifies BAR's quasi judicial authority and civil court powers under reformed procedural codes.
    Clause 387 modernises the powers and status of the Board for Advance Rulings by vesting it with civil court powers to summon witnesses, compel document production, receive affidavit evidence and exercise other adjudicatory functions, and by deeming its proceedings to be judicial proceedings that attract penal consequences for perjury and related offences, while limiting the civil court status to specified purposes and aligning cross references with reformed procedural and penal codes.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Void ab initio of advance rulings: fraud or misrepresentation may nullify rulings and restore ordinary tax provisions.
    Clause 386 empowers the Board for Advance Rulings to declare an advance ruling void ab initio if found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, on representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise; the Act is to apply as if no ruling had been made (excluding the period the ruling was in force), and a copy of the order must be sent to the applicant and the tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional bar on parallel proceedings preserves advance rulings' exclusivity for resident applicants and prevents conflicting adjudication.
    Clause 385 imposes a jurisdictional bar barring income tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal from deciding any issue for which a resident has filed an advance ruling application; the prohibition attaches on filing and pertains only to the specific issue raised, thereby preserving the exclusivity and predictability of the advance ruling mechanism while raising interpretive questions about the definition of "issue" and the treatment of pending proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure secures binding tax guidance with hearing rights, grounds for rejection, and mandatory communication.
    Clause 384 requires the Board for Advance Rulings to forward applications to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, call for records, and after examination either allow or reject applications. Rejection must follow an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order, and orders must be communicated to the applicant and tax authorities. Mandatory exclusions include pending proceedings, fair market value determinations, and transactions prima facie designed for tax avoidance; if allowed, the Board must examine further material, hear the applicant or authorised representative, and pronounce a written ruling within the prescribed time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure: streamlined application process with prescribed form, quadruplicate filing, fee and a thirty day withdrawal window.
    Clause 383 establishes a streamlined procedure for advance rulings: applications must state the specific question and be filed in the prescribed form and manner in quadruplicate, accompanied by a prescribed fee, and may be withdrawn within thirty days. The clause retains core procedural features of the prior regime but omits transitional and legacy transfer or opt-out provisions, leaving form, fee, and certain consequences of withdrawal to subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Vacancies and defects immunity preserves validity of advance rulings to prevent collateral challenges and ensure procedural continuity.
    Clause 382 stipulates that no proceeding before, or pronouncement of an advance ruling by, the Board for Advance Rulings shall be questioned or invalidated merely because of any vacancy or defect in the Board's constitution. It applies to both procedural actions and final rulings, reflects the de facto validity principle, and is intended to secure continuity, legal certainty, and protection against collateral procedural challenges, while not extending to defects that negate jurisdiction or involve fraud or bias.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Board for Advance Rulings centralizes administrative advance rulings, prioritizing efficiency but raising independence and legal robustness concerns.
    Clause 381 mandates constitution of one or more Board for Advance Rulings by notification, each comprising two members who are serving tax officers of not below Chief Commissioner rank, nominated by the Board; the provision preserves an administrative, officer-led model akin to the existing framework and emphasizes mandatory establishment, flexibility in number and phased operationalization, while leaving nomination criteria, judicial representation, publication, and appellate design unspecified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling mechanism provides pre transactional tax certainty and access controls for cross border and GAAR related issues.
    Clause 380 defines advance ruling across five categories: rulings for non resident applicants; rulings on transactions between residents and non residents; rulings for specified resident applicants; rulings on computation of total income pending before tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal; and rulings on whether proposed arrangements are impermissible avoidance arrangements; it links applications to the Bill's procedural section and replaces the Authority with a Board for Advance Rulings, while preserving notification based resident eligibility.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Dispute Resolution Committee provides an opt-in ADR path reducing penalties and granting prosecution immunity for minor tax disputes.
    Clause 379 creates an opt in Dispute Resolution Committee to resolve minor tax disputes by allowing modification of assessment variations, reduction or waiver of penalties, and grant of immunity from prosecution, with Assessing Officers required to implement DRC directions within a prescribed short timeframe; eligibility is confined by a monetary ceiling on variations, exclusions for search/survey or international information cases, and an income threshold as reported in returns, while procedural details and disqualifications are to be prescribed in subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Set-off of tax refunds: authority to adjust refunds against outstanding dues with written intimation and time limited withholding.
    Clause 438 authorises specified tax officers to set off any refund due against sums remaining payable by the taxpayer, subject to mandatory written intimation. If assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending, the Assessing Officer may withhold the refund for a limited, time bound period, but only after recording reasons in writing and obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The clause streamlines language from Section 245, narrows discretionary grounds for withholding by focusing on pendency of proceedings, and retains procedural safeguards without specifying priority among kinds of dues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on tax refunds: prescribed entitlement and computation rules ensure compensation for delayed refunds and administrative resolution.
    Clause 437 provides a statutory entitlement to interest on delayed tax refunds, specifying commencement dates for interest based on refund source (advance tax, TCS, tax treated as paid, self-assessment, rectification or excess payment), a materiality threshold exempting trivial refunds, extension of entitlement to deductors, exclusion of periods of delay attributable to the taxpayer or deductor, additional interest for appellate or revision order-related refunds, adjustment and recovery mechanisms for varied refund amounts, and administrative resolution of disputes on excluded periods by a senior tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Finality of assessments: refund claims limited to refunds for wrongly paid or excess tax, not re litigation of settled assessments.
    Clause 436 prevents an assessee, in refund claims, from questioning or seeking review of any assessment or matter that has become final and conclusive; relief in such claims is limited to refund of tax wrongly paid or paid in excess and the provision must be read with appeal, rectification and revision mechanisms to avoid undermining corrective powers elsewhere in the statute.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Automatic refunds on appellate or statutory orders require proactive AO disbursement, subject to reassessment and annulment limits.
    Automatic refunds are mandated when appellate or other statutory orders reduce or annul tax liability, requiring the Assessing Officer to refund excess amounts without a claim, except where the Act provides otherwise. Refunds become due only after a fresh assessment when an order directs reassessment, and where an assessment is annulled the refund is limited to the excess tax paid over tax chargeable on the returned total income. The provision preserves AO obligations, exceptions for set off or stay, and separates principal refund rules from interest entitlement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    TDS refund mechanism for deductors clarifies eligibility, prescribed application procedure, and time bound AO orders.
    Clause 434 creates a statutory TDS refund mechanism allowing a deductor who, under a written agreement, bore withholding tax and later claims no deduction was legally required to apply for refund in the prescribed form; the Assessing Officer must inquire as necessary, provide the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and pass a written order allowing or rejecting the claim within the specified time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Return-based refund claims must be made through the income tax return, tying refund limitation to return filing timelines.
    Clause 433 requires that every refund claim be made by furnishing the return of income under section 263, making return filing the exclusive procedural vehicle for refund claims and implicitly tying limitation to the return filing timelines without providing express condonation or separate application mechanisms.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Refund entitlement: clubbed-income payee and authorised representatives may claim tax refunds when taxpayer cannot act.
    The clause entitles the person in whose total income clubbed income is included to claim the refund attributable to that income, and authorises a legal representative, trustee, guardian or receiver to claim or receive refunds on behalf of a taxpayer who cannot do so because of death, incapacity, insolvency, liquidation or similar cause; procedural formalities and limitation issues are left to subordinate rules and practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax refund entitlement preserved: statutory right maintained under new bill with procedural verification by Assessing Officer.
    Clause 431 preserves a statutory right to a refund where a person satisfies the Assessing Officer that tax paid, paid on or treated as paid on their behalf for a tax year exceeds the amount properly chargeable; it covers direct payments and deemed payments (TDS/TCS, advance tax), places an initial procedural burden on the taxpayer, and mirrors Section 237 of the 1961 Act except for the shift from assessment year to tax year, with attendant implications for temporal reference, procedural integration, and ancillary issues such as interest, set offs and standards of verification.

    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