News Update

Income tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - 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: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - 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 dronesFederal 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 damagesFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
Cus - CHA licence - In its limited jurisdiction, High Court cannot re-appreciate and re-appraise a pure finding of fact - CESTAT order upheld: HC

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 25, 2016: REVENUE has challenged the order of the CESTAT.

The respondents are Customs House Agents.

It is the claim of the Revenue that the respondents have assisted the importers in defrauding the Revenue by winning over the trust and confidence of the concerned officials; that these were all intentional and deliberate acts and hence, it cannot be said that the respondents were innocent. And, therefore, the Revenue had rightly proceeded against the respondents for lack of due care and utter negligence and revoked their licence.

The High Court observed that the respondent had challenged the revocation of their licence for breach of Regulations 13(d), 13(e), and 13(n) of the CHALR, 2004 and the CESTAT held that the charges under Regulation 13(d) and 13(e) could not be proved.

The High Court added -

++ Once the respondents were not guilty of aiding and abetting the importers, then, the importers' acts may amount to evasion of customs duty, but those can be proceeded independently.

++ As far as the respondents/Agents are concerned, they have not been held to be guilty of conniving and that of colluding with these importers. Therefore, all that they were pronounced guilty for is some lack of care or supervision. For that, the Tribunal has brought down the period of revocation. It has maintained the forfeiture, but to the extent indicated in the impugned order.

++ It is not the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal was not empowered to do so in law. The argument is, that it should not have done it. We do not think that in our limited jurisdiction we can re-appreciate and re-appraise a pure finding of fact.

Noting that the Revenue is unable to demonstrate that the order of the CESTAT is perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

(See 2016-TIOL-1496-HC-MUM-CUS)


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