Period of Depreciation should extend up to Date of Payment of Duty: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad held that period of depreciation should extend up to the date of payment of duty.

The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was a unit engaged in the development and export of Software as a 100% export-oriented unit. The unit availed the benefit of exemption from payment of Customs duty under the provisions of Notification 13/81-Cus., dated 9-8-1981, and imported capital goods. Later the appellant applied for D-Bonding of the 100% EOU and by letter and the department of Industrial Development permitted the Appellant to clear capital goods without payment of duty and to gift the imported capital goods to an educational institution that was eligible to import such goods without payment of duty.

The department issued a show-cause notice demanding duty on the imported goods. The Appellant applied to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise for completion of De-Bonding formalities and for clearance of the goods without payment of duty by way of gift to MS University. The Appellant also filed Ex-Bond Bill of entry for such duty–free clearance. The Commissioner dropped the said show cause notice dated 06.11.1997 and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the Appellant’s request for clearance of the goods without payment of duty on merit and in accordance with the law.

The Assistant Commissioner ordered for payment of duty and interest. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner wherein the Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner. In de-novo proceeding, Assistant Commissioner directed payment of duty with interest for clearance of goods to MS University. In the appeal filed by the Appellant, the Commissioner upheld the direction to pay duty by filing a revised Bill of entry but he set aside the demand of interest. Against the said Order-In-Appeal appellant preferred an Appeal to the Tribunal challenging the said order to the extent it upheld the liability to pay duty.

By the said order tribunal held that duty was payable by the Appellant. However, in the calculation of duty, the Assistant Commissioner had erred in allowing depreciation only up to July 1994 when permission for de-bonding was granted by the Ministry of Industry and directed that depreciation should be allowed till the date of payment of duty. The Tribunal by said order upheld the setting aside of the interest.

Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member, and Raju Technical Member held that “ Lower Adjudicating authority held that deprecation was allowed only up to the date of permission for de-bonding which has been categorically held to be incorrect by the tribunal in its above remand order. Clearly, lower authorities are not following the directions given by Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.”

PMLA: Jharkhand HC denies Bail since There is Reasonable Ground to Believe that Accused is Guilty

While rejecting a bail application of an accused charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Jharkhand High Court has held that there are reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offence and he is likely commit the offence if bail granted.

The Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint against the accused, Mr. Hemant Kumar Sinha, under Section 44 read with Section 45 of the Act, 2002 for the offence under Section 4 of the said Act with alleging that M.S.S. & Health Care Ayurvedic Trust was created under a trust deed 16th May, 2007 between the Settler and the Trustees.

The accused submitted that he was the Chief Secretary of the trust and it was alleged that the trust was engaged in collecting money from the public by cheating the poor people and inducing them to invest money which would become fourfold within 16 months. The trust had enrolled the investors by collecting deposits of Rs.3000/- each and four post dated cheques of Rs.2300/- each were being issued to the investors in addition to four medicine coupons of Rs.700/- each.

It was also argued that the applicant was not trustee of the said trust as alleged. He was employee of the same and worked as Chief Secretary of the trust. He had never misused the privilege of bail granted to him in Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No.281 of 2010. The applicant is a heart patient and had undergone surgery and is not having good health and he undertakes to abide all the conditions on being enlarged on bail.

Disregarding the precedents referred by the applicant, Justice Subhash Chand held that “this Court is of the considered view that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 prior to judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) was declared unconstitutional; but the defects of provisions of the said act was cured by the Parliament by way of Amendment Act 13 of 2018 and consequently, the twin conditions of Section 45 while disposing of the bail applicant under the Act, 2002 stood revived.”

ejecting the bail application, the Court added that “In view of the submissions made and materials on record there are reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence of money laundering and he is likely to commit the offence, if enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is, hereby, rejected.”

Income Tax Notice against Dead Person is Invalid: Delhi HC quashes Re-AssessmentRead More: https:/

The Delhi High Court has quashed a re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 observing that the same was issued to a dead person.

The Petitioner, Davinder Singh Thapar L/H Amrit Singh Thapar is the son of Late Mr. Amrit Singh Thapar, the deceased assessee, who expired on 02.08.2020. The Petitioner approached the High Court contending that impugned notice dated 06.04.2021 was issued by Respondent No.1 stating therein that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2013-14 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act and 30 days were granted to file a return in the prescribed form. Soon thereafter vide an email dated 30.04.2021, Petitioner’s mother, i.e., the wife of the deceased assessee informed Respondent No.1 of the demise of her husband and also sent the Death Certificate. Despite the said intimation, the department issued notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

The petitioner contended that the impugned notices are invalid in the eyes of law having been issued against a dead person. It was argued that the statutory requirement of Section 148 of the Act is that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, which in the present case was not served as the assessee expired on 02.08.2020, prior to the issuance of the first notice.

After relying on a catena of judgments, Justice Jyoti Singh Hon’ble and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta quashed the impugned notices and held that “Needless to state that it is open to the Respondents to take such steps as may be permitted in law and if and when such steps are taken, with which the Petitioner is aggrieved, it would be open to the Petitioner to resort to the remedies in accordance with law.”