SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Cus - When there is nothing on record to show that appellant had connived with other three persons to import AA batteries under the guise of declaring goods as Calcium Carbonate, penalty imposed on appellant are set aside: HCCongress fields Rahul Gandhi from Rae Bareli and Kishori Lal Sharma from AmethiCus - The penalty imposed on assessee was set aside by Tribunal against which revenue is in appeal is far below the threshold limit fixed under Notification issued by CBDT, thus on the ground of monetary policy, revenue cannot proceed with this appeal: HCGST -Since both the SCNs and orders pertain to same tax period raising identical demand by two different officers of same jurisdiction, proceedings on SCNs are clubbed and shall be re-adjudicated by one proper officer: HCFormer Jharkhand HC Chief Justice, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra appointed as President of GST TribunalSale of building constructed on leasehold land - GST implicationI-T - If assessee is not charging VAT paid on purchase of goods & services to its P&L account i.e., not claiming it as expenditure, there is no requirement to treat refund of such VAT as income: ITATBengal Governor restricts entry of State FM and local police into Raj BhawanI-T - Interest received u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 awarded by Court is capital receipt being integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt u/s 10(37): ITATCops flatten camps of protesting students at Columbia UnivI-T - No additions are permitted on account of bogus purchases, if evidence submitted on purchase going into export and further details provided of sellers remaining uncontroverted: ITATTurkey stops all trades with Israel over GazaI-T- Provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(a) cannot be invoked, where a necessary condition of the money received without consideration by assessee, has not been fulfilled: ITATGirl students advised by Pak college to keep away from political eventsI-T- As per settled position in law, cooperative housing society can claim deduction u/s 80P, if interest is earned on deposit of own funds in nationalised banks: ITATApple reports lower revenue despite good start of the yearI-T- Since difference in valuation is minor, considering specific exclusion provision benefit is granted to assessee : ITATHome-grown tech of thermal camera transferred to IndustryI-T - Presumption u/s 292C would apply only to person proceeded u/s 153A and not for assessee u/s 153C: ITATECI asks parties to cease registering voters for beneficiary-oriented schemes under guise of surveys
 
National litigation Policy - Applicable to appeals filed prior to issuance of CBEC instructions dated 20.10.2010 - In view of object behind Policy, court can give it retrospective effect: High Court

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, NOV 01, 2015: THIS is a revenue appeal against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The amount involved is Rs 1,49,170/-

The respondent assessee raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal on account of the National litigation Policy and the CBEC instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC as the amount falls below the monetary limit.

It was contended by the revenue that the appeal was admitted on 25.3.2010 and the National Litigation Policy of the Government was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC and, therefore, there was no bar on the appellant/Department in filing the appeal.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ It is to be pointed out that the main reason for bringing into effect the National Litigation Policy is to reduce Government litigation so that the Government ceases to be a compulsive litigant. The purpose underlying this Policy is to ensure that valuable time of the Courts is spent in resolving pending cases and in bringing down the average pendency time in the Courts and to achieve this, the Government should become an 'efficient' and 'responsible' litigant. With the above object in mind, the National Litigation Policy was formulated and issued. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the appeal has been filed well before the issuance of the National Litigation Policy. However, the said aspect does not preclude the Court from giving retrospective effect to the Policy, in certain circumstances, keeping in mind the laudable object behind its issuance. This Court is also conscious of the necessity to bring down the average pendency time in the Courts so that precious judicial time does not get wasted.

+ The Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal in view of the preliminary objection made by the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at Rs.2,00,000/- by the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC.

(See 2015-TIOL-2512-HC-MAD-ST)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Monetary limits for filing appeal

Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suman Dhamija - 2015-TIOL-195-SC-IT has held that instructions regarding monetary limit for filing of appeals will govern only such cases which are filed after issuance of instructions. Supreme Court had set aside orders of High Court and remanded the cases to High Court to decide the issue on merits.

TIOL-DDT 2674 and 2675 dated 31.08.2015 and 01.09.2015 be referred.

These are personal views.

Posted by Shvetal Parikh
 
Sub: National Litigation Policy Whether CBEC Circular has prospective or retrospective effect

Kind attention is invited to TIOL-DDT 2674 dated 31.08.2015 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suman Dhamija - 2015-TIOL-195-SC-IT was reported, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-

The appeals and review petitions preferred by the appellants before the High Court, were disposed of on the basis of the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 9.2.2011. It is not a matter of dispute, that all the appeals were preferred prior to 2011, whereas, the instructions dated 9.2.2011 clearly indicate in paragraph 11 thereof, that they shall not govern cases which have been filed before 2011, and that, the same will govern only such cases which are filed after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 9.2.2011 .

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and remanded the cases to the High Court to decide the issue on merits.

It appears that this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (though pertaining to Income Tax matters) has not been brought to the notice of Hon'ble High Court.

Posted by Rameshchandra Kabra
 

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST