News Update

New GST Return to work on 'upload, lock & pay' basis; NIL returns through SMS GST Registration - Part B of REG-26 not filled - Do it before Aug 31GST Council approves proposed amendments in laws; No interest to be paid if ITC is reversed on failure to make payment within 180 days + exemption to IT services in case of Related Parties + to define expression 'renting of immovable property' + extends exemption upto Sept 2019 on outward transportation by air or sea + RCM to apply on DSA services to banks or NBFCsGST Council reduces tax rates on as many as 87 items + 5% IGST on Pool price of imported urea by Govt + exemption from CESS to coal rejects + water supplied for public purposes + 5% tax rate on marine enginesGST Council takes slew of decisions to reduce tax rates & simplify compliance normsGST Council to meet again on Aug 4, 2018 + to focus on issues relating to only MSME Sector + also to discuss possible sops for digital paymentsGSTN to link all tolls & nakkas through RAFD for smooth movement of goods + SOP to be issued to overcome e-Way Bill related penalty + Migration window without interest to remain open till Aug-endGST Council hikes exemption limit from Rs 10 lakhs to Rs 20 lakhs in States like HP, Uttaranchal, Assam, Arunachal & two more + also allows multiple registration within a State if taxpayer wishes so + simplifies cancellation of registrationGST - Council decides to make it quarterly return but monthly payment upto Rs 5 Crore turnover - Relief for 93% taxpayers + approves 10% of turnover or upto Rs 5 lakh worth of services by Composition dealers + suspends RCM upto September 2019GST Council decides 28% tax to apply only on actual hotel tariff of Rs 7500 rather than declared tariffGST Council grants relief to textile sector - ITC refund to be granted but after July 27, 2018GST Council exempts many items such as statutes of god, rakhi, brooms & many others + tax rate on handloom items lowered from 12% to 5% + rate on ethanol down to 5% + many items moved from 28% to 18% slabGST Council approves New two-page GSTR + facility of revision of GSTR + quarterly return for composition dealers but monthly tax payment + exemption to sanitary napkins + 5% tax rate on shoes up to Rs 1000 + many items like TV upto 25 inch + Fridge & other electronic items from 28% to 18% slab + powers to share IGST and CESS collected before 5 yearsGST - CBIC Chairman asks officers to liquidate pendency relating to Budgetary Support SchemeI-T - Re-opening sought u/s 147 by new incumbent AO towards an issue cannot be said to be 'mere change of opinion' when, such issue was not touched upon by earlier AO: HCRailways tool to tell you chances of confirmation of waitlisted ticketsGST Council's 28th meeting takes off with long agenda list; likely to continue till 4 PMBRICS Summit - Nadda reiterates TB to be off India's map by 2025Chennai DRI recalls containers heading for Dubai, to seize Red Sanders log worth Rs 5.6 CroreI-T - Process of packaging can be considered as manufacturing activity if it is a complicated technical process: ITATAverage income of Agri households - Punjab & Haryana top tally as per last surveyNo-trust motion moved by Opposition against Govt falls on the floorCX - Credit taken but not utilized till reversal - Mere taking of CENVAT credit facilities would not compel assessee to pay interest as well as penalty: CESTATDRI seizes FICN worth Rs 47700 in Rs 500 & Rs 1000 denominations, brought from Nepal; One person arrested
 
I-T - Sec 226 does not empower Revenue to seize money or properties of assessee or judgment debtors, which belong to others and were obtained by fraud: HC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, NOV 14, 2016: THE issue is - Where Section 226 empowers the Revenue to seize the money or properties of the assessee or judgment debtors, which belongs to others and was obtained by fraud. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case

The Assessee-partnership firm, a flagship concern of the SGI Group, was accepting deposit from the public and offering return on the deposits. The group had claimed that they had the expertise in stock and commodity market and the deposits collected were used by the group for trading in equity and commodity market, speculative business, FDR and investment in real estate. The deposits were collected from the investors through agents and those Investors /agents were allowed to refer and introduced any other person to be an investor/agent in the firm under their downline as they would receive referral commission on the investment of the said new referred person. One of the investors of the Assessee filed a suit for recovery against the Assessee contending that he had been defrauded by the Assessee and a money decree of Rs 1.60 crore was passed by the Court. The Court also directed the banker of the Assessee for not to release any payment from the bank account to any party without taking leave of the Court.

In the meantime a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department at various residential and office premise of the Assessee and a number of incriminating documents including the cash of Rs 34,69,00,000/- was seized. The block assessment of the Assessee pursuant to search operation and in terms of the post search enquiry had been completed and the demand had been raised on them for a total sum of Rs.345,97,46,125/-. Accordingly, the bank accounts of the Assessee was attached u/s 226 of the Act. Now, the department in instant application prayed for a direction to release the sum to it as the amount belonging to the Assessee deposited by it in the bank account had been freezed for meeting the tax liability arising against it.

On application, the High Court held that,

++ section 293 of the Income Tax Act perhaps has no applicability in the present proceedings. It bars the filing of the suit in a civil court to set aside or modify any proceedings taken and / or made under the Income Tax Act. The Decree Holder has not filed any suit in any civil court against the Revenue authorities challenging any proceedings taken this Act. The Decree Holder rather had filed a civil suit for recovery of his own money of Rs.1,60,00,000/- with pendetelite and further interest based on two post dated cheques issued by the Judgment Debtors. The suit was filed by the decree holder on the premise that the Judgment Debtors had cheated the Decree Holder and had committed fraud upon him;

++ the department of course can seize the money/properties which belongs to the assessee/the judgment debtors but of none other. Now in this case the decree holder has alleged his money being Rs 1,60,00,000/- was received by the judgment debtors by cheating him and the said money belong to the decree holder and need to be returned by the judgment debtors. It is argued the such money of decree holder is held by the judgment debtors in trust and the decree holder has a proprietary interest in the amount so seized to the extent of his decree. If the money was transferred in pursuance of a contract induced by fraud or mistake, as proved by the decree holder and so noted in judgment, the judgment debtor on receiving the notice of rescission ought to have held the money in trust for the benefit of the decree holder;

++ under Section 226 Rule 4 the AO may apply to the Court in whose custody there is money belonging to the assessee for payment to it of the entire amount of such money or if it is more than the tax amount, an amount sufficient to discharge the tax. The section rather clarifies the money which belong to the assessee shall only be available for payment as tax to the Income Tax Department, but what if money found in possession of the assessee does not belong to him or he is holding such money in trust/constructive or otherwise. To my mind such money can't be adjusted against tax liability of the assessee. The plea of revenue that the decree holder ought to have applied u/s 132(11) is also not sustainable. Section 132(11) stands omitted by the Finance Act of 2002 w.e.f. 01.06.2002 and hence decree holder could not have availed of such provision in any case. The plea of the Income Tax Department that it being a secured creditor, would not be of any benefit to the Revenue in view of the fact the money seized to the extent of decree does not belong to assessee being obtained by fraud. The assessee though was in possession of it but at best can said to have held it only in constructive trust.

(See 2017-TIOL-2399-HC-DEL-IT)

 

 


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

GST 1st Anniversary - A Hardlook (Episode 2) | simply inTAXicating

What's New

CGST Notification
CGST Rate Notification
CGST Circular
Income Tax Notification
Income Tax Circular
Customs Tariff Notification
Customs NT Notification
Customs Circular
Anti Dumping Notification
DGFT Notification
DGFT Public Notice
DGFT Circular
RBI Circular

TAXATION & WILDLIFE