News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
ST - Commissioner(A) not addressing issues raised in appeal memorandum - In its absence, it would be inappropriate and difficult to record a finding on the same at second appellate stage - matter remanded: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

KOLKATA, JUNE 20, 2014 : A demand was issued for a total amount of Rs.51.26 lakhs which comprised of wrong availment of CENVAT Credit of Rs.32.37 lakh and short payment of Service Tax of Rs.18.88 lakh.

Against the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposition of penalty, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(A).

The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal in the matter of disallowance of CENVAT credit by the original authority but did not record any finding on the short payment of tax or in the matter of penalty. Inasmuch he reduced the demand to Rs.18.88 lakhs but retained the penalty of Rs.51.26 lakhs.

So, the appellant is before the CESTAT with a Stay application.

The Revenue representative fairly accepted that no categorical finding had been recorded on the issue of short payment of service tax of Rs.18.88 lakh and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) and had no objection if the matter was remanded for decision on these issue afresh.

The Bench observed -

+ The Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the issues raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, which include short payment of service tax and imposition of penalty, even though he had allowed the Appeal on wrong availment of CENVAT Credit in favour of the Appellant.

+ In the absence of any finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the above aspect, it would be inappropriate and difficult to record a finding on the same at the second appellate stage.

+ Both sides agree that these issues be addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by recording the points raised relating to short payment of service tax and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

In the result, the Bench set aside the order of the lower appellate authority to the extent of confirmation of short payment of service tax and imposition of penalty, and remanded the matter to decide these issues afresh.

The appeal was disposed of in above terms.

In passing : Sheer waste of time, energy, money and everything…

(See 2014-TIOL-1074-CESTAT-KOL)


POST YOUR COMMENTS