Tag: tax evasion

Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an activity amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, only if it satisfies a two-fold test: it must bring about a transformation resulting in a distinct product with a new identity, character, or use, and this new product must be commercially marketable. The court emphasized that both prongs of this test must be cumulatively satisfied. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Quippo Energy Ltd., was engaged in the business of leasing "Power Packs," which were containerized gas generating sets (Gensets). It imported fully assembled Gensets, which were assessed by Customs as electric generating sets. To facilitate leasing and transportation between customer sites, the appellant placed these imported Gensets into steel containers. S...
Read More
Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that its continuation after a conclusive settlement order granting immunity from penalty was an abuse of process. The Revenue's action was in blatant disregard of its own binding circulars which mandated prosecution only after penalty confirmation by the ITAT. Facts Of The Case: A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the appellant's residence on 24.04.2016, leading to the seizure of unaccounted cash. Based on this, the Revenue initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, alleging a wilful attempt to evade tax. The appellant's petition before the High Court to quash these proceedings was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More
Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...
Read More