News Update

Consumer court orders Swiggy to compensate for failure to deliver Ice CreamRequisite Checks for Appeals - Court FeeI-T - Members of Settlement Commission appointed amongst persons of integrity & outstanding ability & having special knowledge in/experience of direct taxes; unfortunate that SETCOM's orders are challenged without establishing them to be contrary to law or lacking in jurisdiction: HCThe 'taxing' story of Malabar Parota, calories notwithstanding!I-T - Unless a case of bias, fraud or malice is alleged, then Department cannot assail SETCOM's order: HCCentre allows export of 99,150 MT onion to Bangladesh, UAE, Bhutan, Bahrain, Mauritius & LankaI-T- Re-assessment vide Faceless Assessment u/s 144 of I-T Act, is barred by Section 31 of IBC 2016, which is binding upon all creditors of corporate debtor: HCPension Portals of all Pension Disbursing Banks to be integratedI-T- Resolution Plan under IBC, once approved, nullifies any claims pertaining to a period prior to approval of said Plan: HC‘Flash Mob’ drive in London seeks support for PM ModiI-T - Once assessee has produced all supporting documents which includes profit & loss account, balance sheet and copy of ITR of creditors, then identity & creditworthiness is established: ITATTo deliver political message, Pak Sessions judge abducted and then released: KPKI-T - Assessee shall provide monthly figures to arrive at year-end average of deposits received from members, interest paid thereon & investments made in FDs from external funds, for calculating Sec 80P deduction: ITATMaersk to invest USD 600 mn in Nigerian seaport infraI-T - It shall not be necessary to issue authorization u/s 132 separately in name of each person where authorization has been issued mentioning thereon more than one person: ITATChile announces 3-day national mourning after three police officers killedI-T- Since facts have not yet been verified by AO, issue of CSR expenditure can be remanded back for reconsideration: ITATIndian Coast Guard intercepts Pakistani boat with 86 kg drugs worth Rs 600 CroreI-T - Failure to substantiate cash deposits by employer during festival will not automatically lead to additions u/s 68, in absence of any opportunity of hearing: ITATGold watch of richest Titanic pax auctioned for USD 1.46 millionGST - There is no material on record to show as to why the registration is sought to be cancelled retrospectively - Order cannot be sustained: HCIraq is latest to criminalise same-sex marriage with max 15 yrs of jail-termGST - SCN does not put the petitioner to notice that the registration is liable to be cancelled retrospectively, therefore, petitioner did not have any opportunity to object to the same - Order modified: HCUndersea quake of 6.5 magnitude strikes Java; No tsunami alert issuedGST - A taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with retrospective effect only where such consequences are intended and are warranted: HCZelensky says Russia shelling oil facilities to choke supply to EuropeGST - Rule 86A - Single Judge was correct in relegating appellant to his alternate remedy of replying to SCNs and getting matter adjudicated by adjudicating authority: HC20 army men killed in blasts at army base in CambodiaST -Simultaneous filing of refund applications by service provider/KSFE and the service recipients/petitioners for same amount - Applications ought not to be rejected on technical issue when applications filed in time: HC3 Indian women from Gujarat died in mega SUV accident in USST - Court cannot examine the issue, which is only a question of fact and evidence and not of the law - Petition dismissed: HCJNU switches to NET in place of entrance test for PhD admissionsCX - Department ought not to have waited for rebate proceedings to get finalized and ought to have issued SCN within normal period: CESTATGST - fake invoice - Patanjali served Rs 27 Cr demand notice
 
I-T - Levy of same fees on identical assessees placed on similar footing, is no basis to judge exclusivity of such levy in terms of Section 40(a)(iib): HC

 

By TIOL News Service

ERNAKULAM, JUNE 13, 2018: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IS - Whether levy of same fees/charges on identical assessees placed on same footing, is no basis to judge exclusivity of such levy in terms of Section 40(a)(iib). YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The assessee company is engaged in the business of Indian made foreign liquor. For the relevant A.Y, the self assessment in the case of assessee was completed after disallowing the deductions claimed by assessee towards (i) Gallonage fee amounting to Rs.54,83,87,000/-, (ii) Licence fee amounting to Rs.5,75,000/-, (iii) Shop license fee amounting to Rs.199,71,00,000/- and (iv) Surcharge on sales tax amounting to Rs.551,61,01,115/-, on the ground that they were exclusive levies on the assessee by the State Government. The assessee contended that such levies were not exclusive levies falling within the scope of Section 40(a)(iib) and therefore, the AO was not justified in disallowing the deductions made on such heads. On appeal, the FAA granted a conditional stay for entertaining the grounds of assessee.

High Court held that,

++ the question that arises for consideration is whether the FAA is justified in imposing condition while granting the stay sought by the assessee. It was contended by assessee that they have the monopoly in the wholesale business of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and beer in the State and they are carrying on the said business on the strength of license issued by the competent authority under the Foreign Liquor Rules. The deduction of Rs.5,75,000/- claimed by assessee which was disallowed, is the licence fee levied exclusively on the assessee by the State Government for the licence issued to them in respect of 23 warehouses. Rule 15A of the Foreign Liquor Rules provides that Gallonage fee at such a rate as the Government may prescribe from time to time shall be paid by the FL-9 licensee on the quantity of Indian made Foreign Liquor sold by such licensee. It is also seen that Gallonage fee of Rs.54,83,87,000/- deducted by assessee which was disallowed, is the fee levied on the assessee exclusively by the State Government under Rule 15A on the quantity of Indian made Foreign Liquor sold by assessee on the strength of the FL-9 licence exclusively granted to them. In so far as FL-9 license is issued in the State under the Foreign Liquor Rules, only to the assessee, in view of the monopoly created in their favour by the State Government, it cannot be contended that the said levies are not exclusive levies on the assessee by the State Government;

++ coming to the remaining deductions which are disallowed, the specific case of the assessee is that the same are levies applicable to others as well. For instance, as far as the shop rental is concerned, it is the case of assessee that retail sale of foreign liquour in the State is not being carried on exclusively by the assessee, but also by the Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited also. A reading of Section 40(a)(iib) indicates that exclusivity in terms of the said provision is not to be determined with reference to the issue as to whether anybody else is also being levied the same fee or charge, but it has to be determined having regard to the object of the provision. Looking at the facts in the said perspective, there is no doubt that two views are possible in the matter and the appellate authority cannot therefore be found fault with for having imposed the impugned condition.

(See 2018-TIOL-1108-HC-KERALA-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

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.


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