Page 23 - Banking Finance May 2019 N
P. 23

LEGAL UPDATE


          States cannot withdraw            Looking for 'substantial question of law'
          tax incentives                    The Supreme Court recently found fault with the Delhi High Court for dismissing
                                                                     the appeal of the Income tax department at the
                                                                     threshold itself, with the high court observing that
                                                                     it did not raise "any substantial question of law".

                                                                     According to Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,
                                                                     the high court can hear appeals against the ruling
                                                                     of the tax tribunals if they raise important issues.
                                            In this case of the assessment year 1999-2000, between CIT and Nokia India,
                                            the telecom company objected to the notice issued to it by the assessing officer
          Denial of fiscal incentives offered to  arguing that it was based on "change of opinion". The appellate tribunal agreed
          industries set up in certain states to  with it, and the high court dismissed the appeal of the department in a short
          encourage development and gener-  order. The Supreme Court found that there were, in fact, four "substantial ques-
          ate employment continues to be a  tions" involved. It drafted them and returned the case to the high court for
          matter of dispute reaching the Su-  reconsideration.
          preme Court. In the latest case, Bajaj
          Auto Ltd vs Union of India, the two-  Supreme Court ruling for Dharmada charity
          wheeler     manufacturer     in   If a manufacturer collects money for charitable purposes and the buyer pays it
          Uttarakhand challenged the        voluntarily, it would not be part of the transaction value
          demand of three levies - the Cational  of the sale of goods. The payment may have been shown
          Calamity Contingency Duty, the Edu-  in the invoice along with the price of goods, but the pay-
          cation Cess and the Higher Exucation  ment, usually called Dharmada, should not automatically
          Cess. It cited the exemptions     be added to the excise duty, the Supreme Court ruled
          granted to special category states,  recently in two judgments. There were differences among
          including those in the northeast, to  various adjudicating authorities down below and even among Supreme Court
          claim that it was not liable to pay the  judges. So the matter had been referred to a larger bench. The Dharmada charity
          three levies.                     was collected by JSW Steel Ltd while selling pig iron. M/s D J Malpani collected
          The high court rejected the claim.  Dharmade in the sale of chewing tobacco. The companies have been fighting
          On appeal, the Supreme Court      their cases for more than a decade with varying results. In the JSW case, the
          quashed the state government or-  manufacturer lost its argument. The Supreme Court trawled various past judg-
          ders, stating that when excise duty  ments and gave a definitive answer in these two decisions.
          is exempted, the three levies which
          are of the same nature also must be  Finance company to pay compensation
          exempted. Exemption notifications  The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of the National Consumer
          must be given a liberal interpreta-                  Commission and asked a finance company to compensate
          tion, though no violence should be                   a widow for "unnecessarily dragging her through legal
          done to the language used in the law,                proceedings on account of its deficiency of service." In
          the judgment clarified.                              this case, Ashatal vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, a
          The court has been passing such                      person took a loan from the finance company. the loan
          judgments in favour of industries  was secured through an insurance policy issued by a sister company of the fi-
          which had established units in the  nance company. After paying the first installment and insurance premium, the
                                            person died. The company demanded further installments towards the loan. His
          northeastern states. After the prom-
          ise given to these states a decade  wife asked the company to recover the loan through the insurance policy. The
          ago, the authorities have been try-  company refused to do so. Therefore, the woman moved the consumer court.
          ing to withdraw excise benefits on  Though the succeeded in the district and state consumer fora, the National
                                            Commission rejected her plea. She moved the Supreme Court. It found fault with
          one ground or another.
                                            the National Commission.

            BANKING FINANCE |                                                                  MAY | 2019 | 23
   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28