I.  Today's Headlines:

1. There is scope for RBI to cut interest rate: Rajan (Click for detail)

2. Govt to analyse data on unpaid investor money lying with firms (Click for detail)

3. Shell hits back at I-T department in Rs 15000 crore share issue spat (Click for detail)

4. Govt rejects Assocham's plea of exempting iron ore from BCD (Click for detail)

5. Income Tax department to probe Saradha investment schemes (Click for detail)

6. Taxman sends notices to MFs on securitised product income (Click for detail)

7. FY13 indirect tax exceeds revised estimate target (Click for detail)

II.  Direct Tax Case laws:

1.  DIT Vs. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd., ITA No. 1193 of 2012, Date of decision 10.01.2013, Bombay High Court

Whether a notice for reassessment after a period of four years can be served upon an assessee considering the subsequent ruling of the Authority of Advance Rulings on another assessee over the earlier ruling in the assessee’s own case?

In the instant case, a notice u/s 147 and 148 was issued to the assessee for reopening the assessment of a particular year. On appeal to Appellate Tribunal, the fact that there was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the purpose of the assessment.

The Ld AO relied upon the advance ruling in the case of some other assessee as the reason for opening the case for u/s 147.  The Tribunal held that the ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings on another assessee would not apply to the concerned assessee; the advance ruling taken by the assessee would only be applicable to him. The appeal made by the Revenue to the High Court was dismissed considering the above mentioned facts and stated that the order of the Tribunal was justified as there had been no change in law.

(Please click here for judgment)

III.  Indirect Tax Case laws:

1.  Seven Star Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeal No. ST/21 OF 2011, DATE: 07.12.2012 , CESTAT - KOLKATA

Whether Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules applies for reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods is also applicable to credit availed on “input services"?

The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron. Appellant used iron ore as their raw material. In procuring the raw material the appellant paid service tax for GTA service. During the year, the appellant sold some quantity of raw material by some other name. It was contended by the department there is need for reversal of CENVAT credit since the input is removed as such therefore rule 3(5) gets attracted.

The CESTAT held its decision in favor of appellant. The CESTAT stated that Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is directed for reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods and the same is not applicable to the credit availed on the "input services".

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  VSE Stock Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, APPEAL NO. ST/188 OF 2011, NOVEMBER 16, 2012, CESTAT - Ahmedabad

Do the department is justified in issuing the show cause notice when the assessee himself disclosed and paid the amount of default due on his part?

The assessee had taken the CENVAT credit in respect of service tax paid by him. On getting to know the credit was not admissible the assessee paid the amount with interest. On verification by the department, it was found there is short payment. The department instead of informing the same to assessee issued SCN to assessee. The assessee contended that there is violation of Sec 73(3) since department was required to intimate the assessee about the same.

CESTAT held the decision in favour of assessee. Since, it was duty of the department to intimate the assessee and in case of default issue the SCN.

(Please click here for judgment)
 

 Golden Rules:

"If a problem can be solved, no need to worry about it..
If a problem cannot be solved what is the use of worrying?" 

  Thanks & Regards

Team

Voice of CA