Case Law Research

×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 7356

Delhi High Court : Principal Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Customs (Import) Vs ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE : 14th February, 2017

IN THE  HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 14.02.2017

CUSAA 28/2016, C.M. APPL.39487-39489/2016

PR  COMMISSIONER  OF  CUSTOMS  AIR  CARGO  CUSTOMS (IMPORT)                                                             
 ..... Appellant
Through   :   Sh.   Sanjeev   Narula,   Sr.   Standing
Counsel and Sh. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate.

versus

ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE
..... Respondent
Through : Sh. M.P. Devnath with Sh. Abhishek Anand and Sh. Yogendra Aldak, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI


MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT


1.       The question of law framed in this case is whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) erred in holding that "no penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could have been levied in the circumstances of the case."


2.       The appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 28.10.2002 through its CHA, Elecon Cargo Agency for the goods declared as "IS 1000 Fibre-Optic Endoscope Surgical System" classifying it under Customs Tariff Heading 9018.90 and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Serial No. 363 (A) List 37 Item No. 82 of Notification No. 21/2002 Cus, dated 01.03.2002 which covered various specific types of endoscopes. It claimed concessional duty @ 5% for accessories of the equipment under Serial No. 363 (B) - List 37 - Item No. 82 of the said Notification. The assessee was  issued a Show Cause Notice on 27th     September 2004, to show why the goods, assessed provisionally, should not be finally assessed at the normal rate of customs duty @ 25% + 16% + 4% (effective 50.8%) by denying the benefit of claimed Customs Notification No.21/2002-S.No.363(A) and the differential duty amounting to `3,47, 63, 531 should not be recovered from M/s. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited along with interest…..(iii) The subject goods, i.e. "da   Vinci Surgical System" of the declared assessable value of `7,59,02,909 should not be confiscated under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of description.(iv) Why penal action should not be taken against M/s. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited, Shri   Bhuvander Kaul, M/s. J. Mitra & Bros and M/s. Elecon Cargo Agency under Section 112(a)/114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for their respective active roles in the mis-declaration of the description of the goods in violations of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962."


3.       The respondent assessee replied to the Show Cause Notice, resisting the allegations. The Commissioner of Customs, i.e. the adjudicating official, held  against  the  assessee  respondent,  by  the  Order-in-Original  dated  8th June, 2007, observing that the invoice of the supplier described the goods as "Endoscopic Intuitive IS 1000 da Vinci Surgical System" and based on this and the other evidence collected held that the assessee was guilty of mis- declaration and denied the benefit of the said exemption notification and passed the order for differential duty and penalty for a like amount, i.e. `3,47,63,531/-. The adjudicating  authority also held  the indenting  agent, M/s. J. Mitra & Bros and the CHA liable to penalty and imposed penalties.

The assessee/respondent appealed to the CESTAT. During the hearing, on its behalf, it was conceded that as regards the demand of duty, and confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, the issue was in effect settled against it in similar set of circumstances by CESTAT order in the case of J. Mitra Bros Vs. CC, New Delhi [2013 (288) ELT 305 (Tri.- Del.)] and the judgment of this Court in the case of CC (I&G) Vs .Care Foundation [2014 (302) TLT 181 (Delhi)]. The assessee nevertheless argued that no interest under section 28AB was recoverable because the demand was not raised/confirmed under Section 28, urging that even if the Order-in- Original were to be construed as made during finalization of the provisional assessment under Section 18, no interest could be demanded as the provision for interest liability was introduced on 13.07.2006 by insertion of Section 18 (3) while in the present case, the Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed on 28.10.2002 and that the interest cannot be demanded upon finalization even if such finalization was done after 13.07.2006. It cited several judgments to that effect including the case of C.C.(Prev.) Vs. Goyal Traders [2014 (302) 529 (Gujarat)] and Sterlite Industries India Ltd. Vs. CC - 2008 (223) ELT 633 (Tri.-Chennai).


4.       Before  the  CESTAT,  in  the  case  of  the  indenting  agent  and  the importer (the assessee) reliance was placed on the judgment in Care Foundation (supra) to contend that imposition of penalty was unwarranted. After  hearing  rival  submissions,  the  CESTAT  set  aside  the  demand  of interest against the appellant and the penalty under Section 114A. It is in these circumstances that the Revenue has appealed to this court.


5.       It is contended on behalf of the Revenue by Mr. Sanjeev Narula, that in Care Foundation (supra), the judgment was premised on peculiar facts. Counsel highlighted that the court, in that judgment, held that, "no exception can be taken to finding that since there was no demand under section 28 (8) of the Customs Act for duty, no penalty could have been imposed under that provision and consequently the penalty under Section 114A was not sustainable. The further reasoning that there could have been penalty under Section 112 but since that provision was not invoked, the direction to pay penalty at ` 2.34 Crores was not warranted in the circumstances, does not appear to be in error of law. For these reasons the court is of the opinion that the question of law framed has to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees". It is submitted that in the present case, Section 112 (a) of the Act was invoked in the Show Cause Notice. If CESTAT was of view that penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was not leviable then penalty Section 112 (a) of the Act should have been revived. Counsel   also   highlighted   that   penalty   was   leviable   under   Section 114A/112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same was confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 114A of the Act as they were found engaged in importation of goods by misclassification/mis-declaration with the intention to evade customs duty.  It is argued that the soundness of this view is apparent, because the Commissioner of Customs' order, on the issue of differential duty at Para 49 (iii) and confiscation of the imported goods valued at ` 7,59,02,909/- under Section 114 (m) at Para 49 (iv) was not questioned. Counsel relied on a ruling of this court reported as Avi Steels v Commissioner of Central Excise CEAC 6/2010 decided on 21.07.2010.


6.       Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Devnath, argued that penalty was not imposable upon it, but conceded that in similar circumstances in the case of similar imports by Care Foundation (supra), after taking into account similar contentions, the penalty upon it had been upheld by CESTAT which was further upheld by Delhi High Court by order dated 11.10.2013 except that the this Court reduced the penalty from ` 25 to ` 5 lakhs. Following the same ratio, the appellant pleaded that the penalty set aside by the Tribunal should not be interfered with. It was also argued that the differential duty had been paid, of a substantial amount. It was argued that since in respect of the same  product,  the  issue  of  misdeclaration  and  the  consequent  penalty imposed had been decided in the other assessee's favour in the other cases, this court should not take a different view in the present case. Counsel also relied on Amrit Foods v Commissioner of Central Excise 2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC).


7.       At the outset, it is essential to notice the CESTAT's reasoning, which granted relief to the importer/assessee. The Tribunal held that:

"We have considered the contentions of all sides and  perused the records. Para 47 of the show cause notice reads as under:-

"47. Hence, M/s. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited, Okhla  Road, New Delhi  - 110025, Shri Bhuvander Kaul, M/s. J. Mitra & Bros, 20, Double Storey Market, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi & M/s. Elecon Cargo Agency, N-264-270, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi are hereby called upon to show  cause  to  the  Commissioner  of  Customs  (Import  & General), New Custom House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi- 110037 as to why:-

(i) The correct description of the goods imported  under  Bill  of  Entry  No.389879  dated  28.10.2002 should not be treated as IS 1000 da Vinci Surgical System" and  not  as  "Fibre  Optic  Endoscope". 

(ii)  The  Bill  of  Entry No.389879  dated  28.10.2002,  which  was  assessed provisionally, should not be finally assessed at the normal rate of customs duty @ 25% + 16% + 4% (effective 50.8%) by denying the benefit of claimed Customs Notification No.2112002-5.No.363(A) and the differential duty amounting to Rs.3,47, 63, 531  should  not  be recovered  from  Mis.  Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited along with interest.

(iii) The subject goods i.e. "da Vinci Surgical System" of the declared assessable value of Rs. 7,59,02,909 should not be confiscated under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of description.

(iv) Why penal action should not be  taken  against  Mis.  Escorts  Heart  Institute  &  Research Centre Limited, Shri Bhuvander Keul, Mis. J. Mitra & Bros and Mis. Elecon Cargo Agency under section 112a)1114A of the Customs Act, 1962 for their respective active roles in the mis- declaration of the description of the goods in violations of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962."


It is evident from perusal of para 47 of the Show Cause Notice (quoted above) that the Show Cause Notice was for the finalisation of assessment of Bill of Entry dated 28.10.2002 which had been assessed provisionally. The Show Cause Notice does not mention Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 even in passing. The Show Cause Notice also does not mention as to under what provisions of law, the interest was sought to be recovered although the impugned order confirms interest under provisions of Section 28AB ibid. Perusal of Section 28AB ibid as it existed during the relevant period leaves no scope for ambiguity that the interest thereunder is chargeable only when the demand has been confirmed under provisions of section 28 ibid. Even if it is considered that the demand arises out of finalisation of provisional assessment in terms of Section 18 ibid, it has been settled by judicial pronouncements that no interest is recoverable on finalisation of provisional  assessments  made  prior  to  13.07.2006  when  the  provision  for  interest liability were introduced in Section 18 ibid by inserting Section 18 (3) even if the finalisation of assessment took place after 13.07.2006. In the case of the Sterlite Industries Vs. C.C., [2008 (223) ELT 633 (Tri -Chennai)] it was held that no interest is payable on the differential duty determined on finalisation of provisional assessment made prior to 13.7.2006 even if such finalisation took place after 13.07.2006. Similar view is held in the case of C.C.(Prev.) Vs. Goyal Traders - 2014 (302) ELT 529 (Gujarat).


8.       It is evident from the foregoing analysis that the Show Cause Notice did not raise the demand in terms of Section 28 ibid. The wording of Section 114A ibid makes it expressly clear that penalty under that Section is attracted when liability to pay duty or interest is determined under Section 28 ibid. Indeed,  in  the  case  CC  (I&G)  Vs.  Care  Foundation  (supra),  involving similar facts and  circumstances, Delhi High Court held as under:-

"6. In the opinion of this Court, no exception can be taken to the finding that since there    was no demand under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act for duty, no penalty could have been imposed under that provision and consequently the penalty under Section 114A was  not sustainable. The further reasoning that there could have been penalty under Section    112         but since  that  provision  was  not  invoked,  the  direction  to  pay penalty at Rs.2.34 crores     was     not     warranted     in     the circumstances, does not appear to be in error of law.

For these reasons the Court is of the opinion that the question of law framed has to be   answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee."

Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, penalty under the section 114A ibid is simply not attracted. The above quoted para of the Delhi  High Court judgment also deals with Revenue's contention regarding penalty under Section 112 ibid which we (have to) respectfully follow.


9.       For similar role of appellant No.2 in the case of import of the same item by M/s. Care Foundation (supra) involving similar facts and circumstances, and after considering similar contentions put forth by it, CESTAT upheld the penalty on it. In that case, the Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 11.03.2014 in Customs Appeal No.9/2013 also upheld the appellant liable to penalty but reduced the same from `25 lakhs to ` 5 lakhs. We are persuaded by the contention of appellant No. 2 that as the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to those obtaining in the case of M/s. Care Foundation (supra) and its role in that case was similar to its role in the case of imports by the appellant No.1, the penalty imposed should be reduced in the same ratio to ` 1 lakh.


10.     Section 112 (a) and Section 114 of the Act reads as follows:

“SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc.- Any person, -

(a)  who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act,

**************************                    ***********

shall be liable, -

(i)   in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the    goods       or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater;

(ii)   in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees,  whichever is the greater;

(iii)  in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding the difference between the  declared  value  and  the  value  thereof  or  five  thousand rupees, whichever is the greater;

(iv)  in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest;

(v)  in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not     exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the      declared value and the  value thereof  or  five  thousand  rupees,  whichever  is  the higher."

**************************                    ***********

SECTION 114A.  Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. - Where the         duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or the interest has not been charged or paid or has been part paid or the duty or interest has been erroneously refunded by  reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the person who is         liable to pay the duty or interest, as the case may be, as determined under sub-section (8)      of section 28 shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty or interest so          determined :

Provided that where such duty or interest, as the case may be, as determined under sub-       section (8) of section 28, and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA, is paid within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order of the proper officer         determining    such   duty,   the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this  section shall be twenty-five per cent of the duty or interest, as the case may be, so determined :

Provided  further  that  the  benefit  of  reduced  penalty under  the  first  proviso  shall  be  available  subject  to  the condition that the amount of penalty so determined has also been  paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso :

Provided also that where the duty or interest determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty or interest as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account :

Provided also that in case where the duty or interest determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case    may  be,  the court,  then,  the  benefit  of  reduced  penalty  under  the  first proviso shall be     available if the amount of the duty or the interest so increased, along with the interest payable     thereon under  section  28AA,  and  twenty-five  percent  of  the consequential        increase  in  penalty  have  also  been  paid within thirty days of the communication of the        order       by which such increase in the duty or interest takes effect :

Provided also that where any penalty has been levied under this section, no penalty shall     be  levied  under  section 112 or section 114.

Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that -

(i)     the provisions of this section shall also apply to cases in which the order determining  the duty or interest under sub-section (8) of section 28 relates to notices issued prior to the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President;

(ii)     any amount paid to the credit of the Central Government prior to the date of communication of the order referred to in the first proviso or the fourth proviso shall be adjusted against the total amount due from such person."

11.     At the outset, this court is of the opinion that the question of law was inaccurately framed, because in the present case the invocation of the extended period of limitation has remained unchallenged; therefore, the Revenue's competence to demand differential duty has to follow, by virtue of Section 28. Given that penalty under Section 112 (a) cannot be imposed if penalty under Section 114A is invoked, the correct question of law therefore is whether the CESTAT erred in deleting the penalty under Section 114A in the facts and circumstances of this case.

12.     On the facts, there is no dispute that the goods were mis-declared. This aspect was clearly alleged by the show cause, which inter alia, reads as follows:

"41. From the evidence gathered from tile records, brochures
& manuals obtained during       investigation,          information gathered from various publications & articles appearing In the print media, the information obtained from various websites and    from the statements of the persons connected with the lmport of "da Vinci Surgical      System", it appears that the "da Vinci Surgical System" Imported by M/s Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre and cleared vide Bill of Entry No, 389879 dated 28,10.2002   was not a "fibre optic      endoscope"       but
was a state of the art "Robotic Surgical System" and that the said Robotic Surgical System can be used to perform complex surgeries with unprecedented control and      precision.      The endoscope Is just a small part of the   said  complex  "Surgical System" and is used for viewing the inner portion of the   body while the surgeon is carrying out the minimum invasive surgery  through the  sophisticated     robot     and     the     programmed computer.

42.  It  has  also  been  noticed  that  the  All  India  Institute  of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi had also imported the same system from the same supplier and had filed Bill of Entry No. 506592 dated 21.6.2003 for the clearance of the   same equipment, It Is noticed that the AIIMS had cleared the system by correctly describing the goods as   Surgical  Robotic System for Cardiac Surgery". However, AIIMS had claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty of 5% under Notification no. 51/96 and not under Notification no. 21/2002 claimed by M/s Escorts.

43. It has been noticed that a letter EHIRC/JVIED:EQPT/IMP/098 dated 28.10.2002   signed      by Dr; Naresh Trehan, Executive Director, M/s Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited had been submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Deihi for the customs clearance of equipment under Bill of Entry No. 389879 dated 28.10.2002. In this letter, Dr. Naresh Trehan had written  that  "I  confirm  and  believe  that  the  said  system  Imported by our Institute is a fibre optic endoscope" & "the equipment   namely,  Intuitive  Fibre  Optic  Endoscope  along with accessories is covered under Notification No. 21/2002 Cus dated 0.3.2002 at S. No. 363 (A) & (8), List 37, Item no.  82".


44. Therefore, from the above discussion it is Quite evident that the "da Vinci Surgical System" imported by M/s Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited was a   "Robotic   Surgical System" and not a "Fibre Optic Endoscope" as declared In the Bill of Entry at the time of clearance. It Is also noticed that there is no other entry in the notification under which benefit of concessional rate of duty @ 5% is applicable to the robotic surgical system. It is noticed that in various brochures, the manufacturer had  initially  described  the  equipment  as  'da Vinci Surgical System' and also in the initial correspondence between the Importer, supplier and the distributor. However, subsequently, the importer, M/s Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited changed the description of the system by adding  the word "endoscopic" in their     correspondence  with the suppliers. Moreover, the Importer had asked the distributor, M/s     J. Mitra & Bros to obtain letters from the manufacturer, M/s Intuitive Surgical Inc, USA        stating   that the equipment was "Fibre Optic Endoscopic System" with the sole purpose of getting the equipment cleared from Customs at the concessional rate of customs duty @ 5% under Customs Notification no. 21/2002 - S. No. 363(A) as against the normal applicable  customs  duties  @  25%  +  16%  +  4%  (effective 50.8%). Besides, the documents recovered by the Hyderabad Customs show that" the original pamphlet of the manufacturer was manipulated by the distributor, M/s J. Mitra & Bros by Interpolating the words "Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass System" in place of "Surgical System".

13.     These led to findings relating to mis-declaration of the goods based on the invoice and purchase order of the goods, i.e as "Endoscopic Intuitive IS 1000 da Vinci Surgical System", showing that "what was ordered by M/s Escorts was da Vinci surgical system and what had been supplied as per the invoice was also da Vinci Surgical System and not an Endoscope as defined in various dictionaries. As such, mentioning the said item as "IS 1000 Fibre Optic Endoscope Surgical System and Accessories" in the Bill of Entry was a   misdeclaration.   Those   findings   have   been   accepted;   they   were unchallenged. The only issue, therefore, is whether the penalty levied under Section 112 (a) or Section 114A could have been interfered with. In this context, it is noticed that the Show Cause Notice had proposed confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m). Besides, it also stated as follows:

"(v) Why penal action should not be taken against M/s Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Limited, Shri Bhuvannder Kaul, M/s J. Mitra & Bros and Mis Elecon   Cargo        Agency under section 112(a) I 114A of tile Customs Act, 1962 for their respective active roles in the mis-declaration of tile description  of the goods in violations of the provisions  of the Customs Act, 1962."

These  facts,  clearly  distinguish  the  present  case  from  those  in  Care Foundation (supra), where the Show Cause Notice did not invoke Section 112;  the  penalty  was  therefore  set  aside  as  untenable.  The  CESTAT therefore, set aside the penalty. Here, the Show Cause Notice invoked both sections 114A and 112. The Order-in-Original imposed a differential duty of ` 3,47, 63531/-. That duty amount has not been contested. Given that both the penal provisions were invoked, the question of deleting penalty could not have arisen.

14.     As is noticed the precondition to impose penalty is the determination, after Show Cause Notice that non levy or short levy of customs duty was the result of mis-declaration. The Show Cause Notice  was issued under the extended  period,  on  account  of the  Revenue's  contention  that  there  was willful   mis-declaration.   The   findings   of   the   Commissioner   clearly established the nature of the mis-declaration, i.e that instead of describing the products accurately, i.e. as da Vinci Surgical System it was described as an endoscopic surgical system. The Commissioner held inter alia, that:

"These facts go to prove that there was a pre-mediated plan to mis-declare the goods in order to incorrectly avail the benefit of exemption under notification no. 21/2002- Cus   dated 1.3.02 thereby rendering the imported goods liable to confiscation and the importer, M/s Escorts liable for penal action as proposed in the show cause notice. On the same wounds Shri Bhuvander Kaul, Deputy General Manager (Medical Materials) of M/s Escorts, who was inter-alia looking after import of the equipment is also liable for penal action under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 as he is found to be having knowledge  of and also part of the entire plan to mis-declare    the descriptions   of   the   imported   item   to   wrongly   avail   the exemption under the aforesaid notification."

In these given circumstances- and having regard to the clear terms of the Show Cause Notice, this court is of the opinion that the CESTAT could not have set aside the penalty, which is mandatory. What the Revenue could not have done (and in fairness, did not) was to impose penalty in addition, under Section 112 (a); this is because of fifth proviso to Section 114A which stipulates that "Provided also that where any penalty has been levied under this section, no penalty shall be levied under section 112 or section 114." The ratio in Amrit Foods (supra), according to this court, is distinguishable, because the Supreme Court held that in that case, the Show Cause Notice was unspecific about the provision, which dealt with several possibilities. In the   present   case,  however   the   Show   Cause   Notice   mentioned   both provisions, which are clear. Moreover, the nature of the facts was made known with clarity in the Show Cause Notice.


15.     In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of CESTAT is set aside; the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee/respondent. The order of the Commissioner is accordingly restored. The appeal is allowed.

 

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)


NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE)

FEBRUARY 14, 2016                                                                    

Additional Info

  • Date Range: Tuesday, 14 February 2017
  • Court/Authority: High Court
  • Tax Type: Customs duty
  • Petitioner/Appellant: Principal COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO CUSTOMS (IMPORT) versus ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE
  • Respondent: Principal COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIR CARGO CUSTOMS (IMPORT) versus ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE
  • Appl no. or Appl year: CUSAA 28/2016, C.M. APPL.39487-39489/2016
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • High Court Location: Delhi High Court
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

A New Feature :

Advanced Case Law Search

 

7th April, 2016

The “Advanced Case Law Search” feature in TaxQuotient  enables search on separate parameters such as Court, Tax Type, Date (from & to Range), appellant, respondent and even keywords. This helps you in locating case law you are searching for swiftly.

TIP: #1 : If you want to view the latest cases, just enter the start and end dates keeping all other boxes blank. You will get a list of all available indirect tax cases during that period.

TIP # 2 : Please keep the date range (start to end date) for upto 6 months.

TIP # 3 : Don't forget to reset the search to clear the earlier results before a new search.

Click to enter Advanced Case Law Search

 GST Bill passed by Parliament

 

 

 

The 122nd Constitution Amendment Bill introduced in Parliament in December 2014 has been passed by the Rajya Sabha and now also by the Lok Sabha with the amendments.  Now the Bill must get ratified by at least half the number of 31 State Legislatures which means 16 States and then finally get the approval from the President.

Thereafter the GST Council has to be set up which will determine the GST design at the granular level. This will include the structure of GST including scope of CGST, SGST and IGST, the taxes subsumed, the items/commodities covered and other critical aspects such as the threshold limits for taxability, exemptions, and several other parameters critical for an ideal  GST.

Further, for the GST to operate smoothly, the taxes paid on goods and services at every stage in the value chain needs to be tracked. This requires an IT infrastructure which will track the transactions and taxes paid and form the back-bone of GST. Reportedly considerable work has been already done on it, nevertheless it will need changes to correctly reflect the GST Law proposed by the GST Council and accepted by the Central & State Legislatures.

Last but not the least,  the tax authorities and other stakeholders who will implement the GST need to be trained for a smooth introduction.

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 

correctly?

If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

CESTAT Updates

June- July 2016

 

Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes

 

  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues
Go to top