HC holds that show cause
notice is mandatory for determining the disputed tax, interest and penalty and
same cannot be collected for 5 years without alleging omission / commission of
willful suppression, fraud, misrepresentation with intent to evade tax as
enumerated under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act; Notes that
pursuant to audit, the assessee, a cooperative bank, had provisionally paid
CENVAT credit under protest along with interest and penalty; Rejects Revenue’s
plea that no show cause notice is necessary when the assessee has paid tax and
penalty upon ascertainment by Audit Enquiry Officer before service of notice
u/s 73(1) of the Act; Referring to CBEC Instruction dated August 18, 2015 and
provisions of Section 73(3), HC remarks, “extended period of limitation of five
years is available only in cases where the omissions or commissions enumerated
in proviso to Section 73(1) are alleged”; Relying on SC rulings, HC also
quashes levy of penalty stating that show cause notice is mandatory where
Section 78(1) is invoked : Karnataka HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
India-Mauritius DTAA Protocol Notified: Key Tax Implications
The Government of India has notified the amendment to the Protocol of the India-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on 13 Oct...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
In a recent informal guidance letter, SEBI clarified whether a cousin of a Promoter Group member qualifies as a person ‘related to promote...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
Key features of File Validation Utility (FVU) version 3.3 FVU 3.3 will be applicable for quarterly TDS/ TCS statements pertaining to...
-
CIT vs. The Instalment Supply Ltd (Delhi High Court) The assessee bought 1614 items of computer systems for Rs.40 lacs from HCL Hewlett ...
-
Facts The applicant („A‟) is a closely held Public Limited company incorporated in India in the year 1953. A‟s shareholder included A (...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
Until now, 'Samaritans' is not how the Independent Directors are purported by Clause 49 in the Listing agreement. An Independ...
-
1. Concept of “limited liability partnership” LLP is an alternative corporate business form that gives the benefits of limited liability ...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
No comments:
Post a Comment