News Update

DRI nabs Dubai-bound pax with FC worth Rs 1.93 croresCX - Too late for Revenue to complain that there is non-compliance by Settlement Commission with mandatory provisions of law: High CourtI-T - Tax Recovery Officer cannot summarily assume powers under Indian Contract Act, 1872, to suo motu declare a transaction of sale to be void & without approaching civil court: HCI-T - Expenses incurred for purely business purposes not being incurred on employees, would not attract Fringe Benefit Tax: HCCX - General practice amongst masses to not consider trading as an 'exempted service' till amendment was made in CCR - assessee had no malafide intention to avail undue benefit: CESTATCJI impeachment - Opposition Parties finally do it; hands over Notice to Vice PresidentBRICS discusses constitution of Working Group on illicit financial flowsCBDT shifts DGHRD office to Jawaharlal Nehru StadiumCBIC clarifies that remnant fuels (HSD/LDO) (after ship breaking) are classifiable under Chapter 27 and free from import policy restrictionsI-T - Mere projection of profit statement found in loose sheets from taxpayer's premises, is no basis for levying penalty in his hands: ITATGoM on Transport recommends uniform road tax structureCX - Assessee taking credit on rejected goods, recyling same and paying duty on clearance alleging that credit has been availed irregularly is unsubstantiated no question of double duty : CESTATGovt seeks feedback to Draft Coastal Regulation ZoneI-T - Payments made to founder or relative of trust, if credited to trust's account immediately without taking any undue benefit from it, will not upset exemption benefit u/s 11: ITATFC to individually assess needs of each State: NK SinghCX Mere reiteration of order of penalty imposed by original authority, who had jurisdiction, by first appellate authority, who lacked jurisdiction, does not cause grievance to appellant at that stage: CESTATGoM on Transport recommends uniform road tax and national permits for buses and taxisJustice Loya death case - SC dismisses pleasChennai Customs nabs pax coming from Dubai with gold worth Rs 2.5 Cr + also seizes 7.5 kg of seahorses during vehicle checkGovt to give new award to certain ranks of Civil servantsVAT - Reimbursement received by dealer for supply of spare parts to its customers under warranty period, are not liable to VAT under Maharashtra VAT Act: HCIT - Where Revenue detects massive tax evasion through bogus bills, it cannot wash hands of it through mere additions: ITATIT - Failure to explain scientific method in determining the amount of performance bonus payable to employees can lead to its disallowance : ITATST - Demand of differential amount of service tax alleging that entire amount collected by PCO operator is subject to levy of service tax cannot sustain for period prior to 01.03.2011: CESTATIndia almost ready with Rs 600 Crore Chandrayaan-2Govt launches Study in India Portal for foreign studentsAfter issuance of SCN, write to noticees about availing window of Settlement Commission for early settlement of disputes - CBIC instructs fieldCBDT Diktat on Misconduct - But, Mr Prime Minister, Actual High-handedness lies in Revenue Target Fixation!
 
Commissioner and his officials are playing blame game - this must be immediately stopped: High Court

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 17, 2017: IN the case of ICICI Reality, the Bombay High Court in a scathing order [2017-TIOL-84-HC-MUM-CX] while dismissing the appeal (for the delay of 776 days) and the notice of motion observed –

+ Waking up after more than two and half years after such a dismissal and seeking restoration of the appeal would not be fair and proper. It is clear that there is no cause shown, much less some change in the panel of advocates. No details are provided and a vague statement is made in the affidavit-in-support.

+ It is noticed on several occasions by this Court that the advocates employ registered clerks who keep track of such matters and which remain pending in the Registry for compliance with the procedural rules.

+ The Revenue/Department has not learnt its lessons and though being the largest litigant, has not engaged the services of court clerks, much less registered court clerks. Therefore, those advocates who are engaged by the Revenue on more occasions than one have not been informed about lack of the procedural compliances.

+ The advocates who are panel advocates also do not have their own paraphernalia including clerks. We do not think that the High Court should condone such lapses and utter negligence on the part of the Revenue officials and their advocates.

It seems more was on its way.

In the present set of appeals filed in the year 2014 by CCE, Pune-III , notices of motions were filed seeking time to remove the office objections.

The High Court remarked –

++ While filing a cryptic affidavit in support, initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blamegame. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates. They are of the opinion that their Advocates ought to inform them and at every stage of the matter, particularly as to which office objections have to be complied with or are to be removed. If no such communication is made by the Advocates, then the Commissioner feels that he and his officers are not at fault.

++ We are sorry to say that this is not what was expected from the Commissioner of Service Tax. If the officers are unaware of legal procedures, then, they have to be in touch with their Advocates and periodically. They cannot expect that the Advocate himself comes to their office and apprise them as to what further has to be done after the filing of an Appeal. Earliest this impression is removed from their mind as it is the duty of the officers to follow up the case, then, the better it would be for our system. This blamegame must be immediately stopped. We are expecting that this game will not be played further and as assured … in the light of a circular which is issued.

++ There is a Legal Coordination Cell, Pune Zone and it would hereafter take care in terms of its Office Order dated 10.01.2017 and which has been circulated to all concerned. We would expect better coordination which was completely lacking earlier. We would also appreciate that the Revenue officials communicate with their Advocates periodically or rather regularly apprise themselves of the stages in which their Appeals have to go through.

Accepting the explanation placed on the additional affidavit filed "on purely and in larger public interest", both the motions were allowed and four weeks time was granted to remove all office objections.

No costs were imposed since the counsels for the Revenue had "taken pains" to apprise the Commissionerate of all the lapses pointed out.

(See 2017-TIOL-333-HC-MUM-ST)


POST YOUR COMMENTS