News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
CX - S 35C(2A) - If main provision cannot be treated as mandatory, first, second and third proviso also cannot be treated as mandatory but directory - Three provisos have to advance cause of justice and not to defeat it: HC

By TIOL News Service

ALLAHABAD, AUG 27, 2015: AGGRIEVED by the orders of the CESTAT extending the stay beyond the period of 365 days, the CCE, Meerut is before the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court after hearing the submissions made by both sides extracted the provisions of s.35C(2A) of CEA, 1944 as it evolved, after being added by the Finance Act, 2002 and later being amended by the FA, 2013, omission of the three provisos by the FA, 2014 &section 35F of the CEA, 1944 as substituted by the FA, 2014 w.e.f 06.08.2014.

The High Court, thereafter, inter alia observed thus -

+ Section 35C(2A) of the Act as amended in 2002 and 2013 makes it apparently clear that the Tribunal was mandated to hear every appeal within a period of three years "where it is possible to do so". These words indicate that though a mandate was given to the Tribunal to decide the appeal within three years, it was not a mandatory provision, but only a directory provision. Consequently, the first, second and third proviso directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal within 180 days in the first instance or within 365 days in the second instance, failing which, the stay order would stand vacated also has to be read as directory in nature. If the main provision cannot be treated as mandatory, the first, second and third proviso also cannot be treated as mandatory.

+ If the Tribunal would not dispose of the appeal within 365 days under the first, second and third proviso of Section 35C(2A) of the Act which was not attributable to the assessee, it would not mean that the Tribunal was divested with its incidental powers in not extending the interim order. The three provisos, in our view, cannot be read as mandatory in nature.

+ The use of the word "shall" was ordinarily indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision, but, having regard to the context in which it was used and having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same could be construed as directory.

+ In the instant case Section 35C(2A) gave a mandate to the Tribunal to decide the appeal within three years "where it was possible to do so". These words indicate the intention of the legislation, namely, that the appeal should be decided as far as possible within three years and therefore, the provision is not conclusive to be determined as mandatory in nature.

+ The use of the word "shall" in the first, second and third proviso though indicative of the mandatory nature of the proviso, has to be construed as directory in consonance with the main provision. The three provisos have to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.

+ The proviso has to be read in the aforesaid manner which will not only promote justice what would prevent miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, if the stay order stands vacated after 365 days and the appeal is not decided, the appellant would be put to irreparable loss and harm especially where the fault in not disposing off the appeal was not attributable to him.

+ In any case, the three provisos in sub section (2A) of Section 35C of the Act has now been omitted w.e.f. 6.8.2014 and the bar which was upon the Tribunal to grant limited stay orders has now been removed even though the mandate to decide the appeal within three years, as far as possible, still continues to operate.

+ The omission of the first, second and third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act in effect means that there is no provision for making any further application for extension of stay. The omission of the first, second and third proviso would mean that the appeal filed by an assessee needs to be disposed of within a period of three years and stay orders which have been passed by the Tribunal would continue to remain in force unless it is limited by the Tribunal itself.

+ The contention that the appeals filed before 6.8.2014 would continue to be governed by first, second and third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act in view of the second proviso contained in Section 35F of the Act which came into effect from 6.8.2014 is patently erroneous.

+ The second proviso which was inserted in Section 35F of the Act w.e.f. 6.8.2014 provides that the provision of Section 35F of the Act would not apply to the stay applications and the appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of Finance Act 2 of 2014. The second proviso indicates that the Parliament has exempted the requirement of complying with the pre-deposit as mandated by Section 35F(1) of the Act as amended only in the case of those stay applications and appeals which were pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of Finance Act (2) of 2014. The appeals which are filed on or after enforcement of the amended provision w.e.f. 6.8.2014 would be governed by the requirement of pre-deposit as indicated therein.

+ The provisos to Section 35C (2A) of the Act has no relevance to the pre-deposit of amount under Section 35F of the Act. Once the proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act has been omitted, the embargo upon the Tribunal to limit the stay order for a limited period has now been removed. Consequently, the incidental power of the Tribunal to grant interim relief pending disposal of the appeals is now not confined to a limited period.

Holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, all the appeals filed by the CCE, Meerut were dismissed.

(See 2015-TIOL-1974-HC-ALL-ST)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023