1. Govt lists GST Bill for passage in Rajya Sabha today  (Click for detail)
   

2. Revenue Secretary Shaktikanta Das: Black money - Compliance period will not be be extended  (Click for detail)

3. Narendra Modi govt aims to bring tax reform GST bill for last-minute vote  (Click for detail)

4. MFs to seek Amfi guidance for implementing service tax rule  (Click for detail)

5. Supreme Court stays levy of service tax on lawyers  (Click for detail)

6. The Negotiable Instruments ( Amendment) Bill 2015  (Click for detail)
   

1.  M/s. Cosme Matias Menezes Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Writ Petition No. 225 of 2011, Date of Judgment: 07.05.2015, High court of Bombay at Goa

Whether the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act allow the CBDT to admit an application beyond the time prescribed under Section 139 and Section 239 of the said Act.

Held Yes

We find that Section 139 and 239 of the said Act itself allows for filing of the returns and claim of refund within a period of one year from the end of the assessment year. The provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Act allow the CBDT to admit an application beyond the time prescribed under Section 139 and Section 239 of the said Act. In the present case we find that the Respondents have failed to exercise such powers to condone the delay in filing returns and consequent refund by the Petitioners on irrelevant and extraneous reasons.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  Vedanta Limited Vs. Assistant/Depurty Commissioner of Income Tax, Writ Petition No. 371 of 2015, Date of Order: 07.05.2015, High court of Bombay at Goa

Whether it is permitted to get the release of attachment of refund against furnishing of Bank Guarantee.

Held Yes

Petitioners furnishing a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank for an amount of Rs.28,79,81,050 to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Respondent would vacate the attachment of the refund of Rs.28,79,81,050 done under Section 281-B of the Act. It is made clear that the Petitioners will keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the final disposal of the re-assessment notice dated 16.07.2014 issued for the assessment year 2009-10 and eight weeks thereafter as it is the amounts likely to become due on the reassessment that the Revenue is seeking to secure by attachment of the refund. Once the Bank Guarantee in the above terms is furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, the Respondent-Revenue will hand over to refund of Rs.28,79,81,050/- to the Petitioners within one week thereafter

(Please click here for judgment)  
     

1. Indian Oxalate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeal No. ST/39/12, Date of Decision: 16.01.2015, Mumbai – CESTAT

Issue: Whether the service tax liability can be shifted among the persons by way of some agreement / understanding between them?

Held: No

The appellant availed taxable services for supply of their goods to the consignee.  They paid the freight to the transporter and took the reimbursement of transportation expenses from the consignee. The demand of service tax was confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the ground that as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the service tax is liable to be paid by the consignor or the consignee who pays or liable to pay the freight. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of lower authority.

On appeal before CESTAT, the Hon’ble CESTAT held that from the plain reading Rule 2(1)(d)(v) , it is unambiguous that person pays the freight towards the GTA services, it is that person who is liable to discharge the service tax.  In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the GTA services were provided by the transporter for transportation of the goods to the appellant through its consignee.  For the said GTA services it is the appellant who has paid the freight to the transporter.  Under these facts there is no doubt that the appellant being a consignor is liable to discharge the service tax.

(Please click here for judgment)  

1.  M/s. Renaissance JMW Energy Ventures (BIV) ltd. Vs. M/s. Renaissance JMW Energy India Pvt. Ltd., C.P. No. 01/186/2015, Date of Order: 09.06.2015, Company Law Board - New Delhi

In the matter of Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956, 9th June 2015, CLB need not to give any any special direction for the appointment of Director’s as mentioned in relief(a), as EoGM can take a decision with the powers it has, for which CLB need not give any directions.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  P. Chandran Vs. M/s. Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam,  C.P. No. 70/2010, Date of Order: 21.04.2015, Company Law Board - Chennai

In the matter of Companies Act, 1956, Section 237(b), if the company is not maintaining the records as well it is not maintainable either on facts or on law. In this case it will fail its jurisdiction to approach to the CLB.

(Please click here for judgment)       
 

VI.  Reported Cases:

Direct Taxes Segment:

 Golden Rules:

  "A leader takes people where they want to go.
A great leader takes people where
they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be"

  Thanks & Regards

  Team

Voice of CA