sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
News Headlines »
 Don’t invest in the names of multiple family members to avoid paying income tax
 Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Relief Measures by Banks in Areas affected by Natural Calamities) Directions 2018 – SCBs
 Tax on gifts? Always tax-free, if received from relativesa
 Notification No. 76/2018 – Customs Ministry Of Finance
 The only receipt that remains tax-exempt
 Central Goods and Services Tax (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2018
 Know how you can save tax on capital gains
 CBDT extends deadline Income tax return (ITR) filing
 Notification Ministry Of Finance
 Gifts from relatives are always tax-free
 Notification No. 85/2018 - Customs (N.T.) Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs

Why the govt loses in the SC so often
April, 07th 2008
The government loses most indirect tax cases in the Supreme Court. I am not in possession of exact data but when I read the judgements I find that the predominant number of judgements are against the government. We have got competent lawyers in Additional Solicitor Generals and senior counsels. But then why do we lose? Truth be told, the reason is that the cases where the government files appeal to the Supreme Court are mostly without merit. In this treatise, I am discussing one of those cases where the legal position was so clearly and heavily against the government that it makes me wonder why this appeal was ever filed at all.
The issue here was about the date of determination of rate of duty of imported goods. In the case of goods which are cleared for home consumption, it is the date when the documents for clearance are filed. But in the case of warehoused goods under section 68 of the Customs Act, it is the date when clearance documents are filed for clearance from warehouse. There is another Section 49 which allows the goods to be kept in warehouse but it is clearly mentioned in this Section that they are not treated as warehoused goods. It is popularly known as warehousing without being warehoused. Goods kept under Section 49 can be before or after payment of duty. Therefore, once the goods have paid duty and have been kept under Section 49, the question of applying the rate of duty at the time of clearance from the warehouse under Section 68 does not arise. This is because it is written under Section 49 itself that warehousing provisions do not apply for goods kept under this Section.
Even then in this case the Commissioner Customs wanted the importer to pay higher rate of duty when the duty increased at the time when the goods were kept in a warehouse under Section 49. The Tribunal set aside the Collectors order. The Tribunal held that once full duty has been paid by the importer and the clearance for home consumption has been permitted by the Customs Officers, any subsequent enhancement of the rate of duty would not be leviable on the goods which remain stored in the warehouse under the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. This was an absolutely right order. However, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. This process needed permission from the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Additional Solicitor General whose permission is necessary before filing such an appeal. It was surprising that such permission was given. Expectedly, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and upheld the order of the Tribunal with the observation that nothing more remained to be paid by the importer.
Such cases where there is no merit at all should never go to the Supreme Court. The question to how to prevent them. I can suggest the following:
(a) There should be a regular monthly session of the full Board to consider why the Supreme Court has set aside the appeals by the department in the previous month.
(b) The Attorney General also, it is respectfully suggested, should have a monthly review of cases lost and of reasons why.
(c) A task force should be established to analyse the last hundred cases lost.
(d) Our lawyer finance minister may like to chip in his bit and he, I am sure, can find the solution better than others.

Sukumar Mukhopadhyay
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Web Application Development Web based Software Solution Web Application Deployment Web Application Solutions Web Application Software Development Web Application Deployment Web Application Programming Web Application Design and Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions