Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

October 2013

2013 (31) STR 367 (Tri.-Delhi) Jindal Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CCE Meerut–II

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Penalty u/s. 78 – retrospective amendment settled the issue – extended period cannot be invoked.

Facts:
The Appellant did not pay tax under the category “Renting of Immovable Property Services” for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 against which a show cause notice was issued in 2010 (after retrospective amendment) invoking extended period and imposing penalties u/s. 76 and u/s. 78 on the pretext of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression of facts.

Held:
The Hon. Tribunal relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Continental Foundation Jt. Venture 2007 (216) ELT 177 held that, where there were doubts regarding the interpretation of provisions of law during the period of dispute, extended period cannot be invoked.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Salary income of an expatriate who partly rendered services in India and partly outside India not chargeable to tax in India in respect of proportionate period for which services performed outside India

2013-TIOL-1029-CESTAT-MUM – D. P. Jain Co. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur.