Indure?s imports

SC has quashed the Calcutta HC judgement that refused central sales tax exemption to Indure Ltd, which had imported MS Pipes for NTPC?s Farakka super thermal power project. It directed the department to refund the sales tax liability already deposited by the firm ?under protest? with 6% simple interest within three months. Besides imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Revenue, it said that in case of default the department would be liable to pay compound interest on the deposited amount at 12% p.a. The court noted that the imported items were in fact used by NTPC in its ash handling plant without altering originality and thus the imports of MS Pipes from Daewoo Corporation were an integral part of the contract and exempt from the levy.

While filing tax returns, Indure had claimed benefit under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as a sale in the course of import. All the fora rejected the firm?s plea in October 2001. The firm argued that in view of the terms of Import Export Policy, supplies made in such projects were to be treated as ?deemed exports? and exempted from sales tax. But the tax authorities rejected this, arguing that imports were not mandatory under the contract.

FCIL?s ex-brass

The SC has quashed a criminal complaint filed against former senior officials of sick Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd (FCIL) by Indian Explosives Ltd (IEL). Senior FCIL officials VP Shrivastava and AK Mukherjee (now deceased) had challenged the Calcutta HC judgement that refused to quash IEL?s complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The apex court said no prima facie case had been made out against the accused that they had fraudulently induced IEL to enter into the contract. Besides, IEL was fully aware of FCIL?s financial health at the time the contract was entered into, it said.

Chandigarh housing

The SC has dismissed the appeal of Chandigarh Housing Board, which had refunded only part of the earnest money and other outstanding dues to 53 co-operative housing societies. The court upheld the National Consumer Commission?s order that asked the board to refund the amount within three months. However, the board did not refund the full amount or the 18% interest. As per the Chandigarh Allotment of Land to Co-operative House Building Societies Scheme 1991, no society was eligible for allotment if any of its members or their spouses owned a house or a flat in Chandigarh. Around 53 societies challenged the scheme in the Punjab and Haryana HCs that dismissed the petitions while holding that the members are not entitled to claim refund of 18% interest. Apprehending that they may have to wait indefinitely for getting the flats, some members through their respective societies applied for refund of the amount. However, the board remitted the amount of earnest money to them after deducting 10%. Aggrieved by the forfeiture of earnest money, the members filed complaints before the Consumer Commission that allowed their pleas.

indu.bhan@expressindia.com