CNA Insurance’s Post

These instructions for rectifying assessment orders under Section 161 of the DGST Act 2017 emphasise the need to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and outline specific conditions and procedures for invoking rectification powers. - This instructions for rectifying assessment orders to correct errors apparent on the face of the record under Section 161 of the DGST Act, 2017. - It highlights the need for rectification due to difficulties faced by taxpayers and the reduction of unnecessary litigation, particularly in demand orders issued by Proper Officers for the FY 2017-18. - The instructions emphasise the confined nature of rectification powers to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act strictly. - It outlines specific conditions and procedures for rectification, including the recording of reasons for initiating rectification, time limits for making applications, and limitations on rectification powers. - This instruction also addresses scenarios where rectification may not be applicable, such as when an appeal is preferred to higher appellate forums or when the error involves debatable points of law or undisputed questions of fact. https://lnkd.in/gPZRVZJd

Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the scope and nature of Section 143A of NI Act as follows: a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall.” b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors. c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows: i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration. ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated.

Through bisection of Article 40, it can be gathered that for providing admissibility to the statement of an accused made in the police custody, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following ingredients:- (i) In pursuance of information so provided by the accused some fact not previously known to anyone be discovered; (ii) The discovered fact must be perceivable through senses; (iii) The fact so discovered must be distinctly related with the fact in issue. While taking advantage of the case, we intend to clarify that only such portion of the statement of an accused can be brought on record under Article 40 which relates to the discovery of a fact and not his confession about the crime. Article 40 vividly is an enabling provision whereby prosecution is permitted to bring on record only the portion of a statement or confession made by the accused in the police custody through which some fact having relevancy with the crime is discovered. In the instant case, through the evidence of Dilawar (PW.9) and Abid Ali ASI (PW.11), the statement of appellant was brought on record whereby he confessed to have sodomized the victim before strangulating him to death. Needless to mention here that since this portion was purely a confession, thus could not be brought on record. The prosecution, through necessary implication of Article 40, could only bring on record the disclosure of the appellant whereby he volunteered to lead the police and witnesses towards the recovery of dead body as this was a fact discovered through such statement. In order to prove during trial that the accused actually made a disclosure and subsequently led to the recovery of some fact, it is essential that a memo of his disclosure be prepared. Only the preparation of the memo testified by the witnesses will prove in subsequent trial that the fact was discovered in consequence of a lead and pointing out of the accused. Crl. A. No. 642 & Murder Reference 55-19 THE STATE VS NADEEM SHAH PLJ 2024 Cr.C 772

Facts decide most cases. But how do you work out the facts to decide a case on? It's trite: by admissible evidence and not on “evidence” that is inadmissible or that has not been admitted. The Court of Appeal in Moores v Goldhagen [2024] VSCA 25 considered an appeal from a judgment against a plaintiff where the Judge had rejected his evidence in part because of prior inconsistent statements. The prior inconsistent statements had been put to the plaintiff in cross examination. Counsel read out reports by third parties that contained statements inconsistent with his evidence in chief and he denied having made those statements to the makers of the reports. But the makers of the reports were never called to give evidence about the reports and the reports were not admitted otherwise. The Court of Appeal noted (at [117]) that, "mere references by counsel, (either in the course of the questioning of a witness, or in the course of making submissions, in respect of a particular piece of evidence) do not — we repeat, do not — constitute evidence before the court". The claimed prior inconsistent statements had not been admitted into evidence so could not be the basis for findings about the credit of the plaintiff. Appeal allowed. The case is an interesting read for other reasons, too. Jones v Dunkel inferences and the extent to which a failure for a party to give evidence can and should be used. The Court of Appeal described the trial as a “nightmare” saying that ‘[n]early everything that could go wrong, went wrong. Mr Moore was cross-examined for far too long, and his modest claim for damages occupied 13 sitting days” and, because of this, the terms on which it remitted the trial to the County Court.

Through bisection of Article 40, it can be gathered that for providing admissibility to the statement of an accused made in the police custody, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the following ingredients:- (i) In pursuance of information so provided by the accused some fact not previously known to anyone be discovered; (ii) The discovered fact must be perceivable through senses; (iii) The fact so discovered must be distinctly related with the fact in issue. While taking advantage of the case, we intend to clarify that only such portion of the statement of an accused can be brought on record under Article 40 which relates to the discovery of a fact and not his confession about the crime. Article 40 vividly is an enabling provision whereby prosecution is permitted to bring on record only the portion of a statement or confession made by the accused in the police custody through which some fact having relevancy with the crime is discovered. In the instant case, through the evidence of Dilawar (PW.9) and Abid Ali ASI (PW.11), the statement of appellant was brought on record whereby he confessed to have sodomized the victim before strangulating him to death. Needless to mention here that since this portion was purely a confession, thus could not be brought on record. The prosecution, through necessary implication of Article 40, could only bring on record the disclosure of the appellant whereby he volunteered to lead the police and witnesses towards the recovery of dead body as this was a fact discovered through such statement. In order to prove during trial that the accused actually made a disclosure and subsequently led to the recovery of some fact, it is essential that a memo of his disclosure be prepared. Only the preparation of the memo testified by the witnesses will prove in subsequent trial that the fact was discovered in consequence of a lead and pointing out of the accused. Crl. A. No. 642 & Murder Reference 55-19 THE STATE VS NADEEM SHAH PLJ 2024 Cr.C 772

A brief analysis for issues in Sec 128A- Issue- Section 128A is going to be very useful for every taxpayer engaged in litigation. But the drafting of this section have many issues. E.g Clause C os sub sec one, talks about the order passed u/s 107(11), 108(1) and 113(1). These orders can be passed against the notice u/s 73 and 74. But prima facie the scheme is only for Sec 73 proceedings. Thus one may get confused. The literal interpretation of this section will mislead one. As if we see proviso 1 to Sec 128A it specifically talks about the cases shifted from 74 to 73. That indicates that the section primarily don't give any benefit to the proceedings initiated u/s 74. But the cases which are shifted from 74 to 73, in pursuance of section 75(2) will only be covered. It will open a case for dual interpretation.

There is no shortage of statutory penalties provided in the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS in general has operated under the assumption that it has the authority to access and take action to collect these penalties. As has become increasingly common, taxpayers in litigation with the IRS are challenging the facts and law applicable to their particular case, but also challenging the procedures followed by the IRS in handling the case. Thanks for the insights Mark Luscombe!

Join us for the for the March 1 weARE webinar: “How Academics Can Influence Accounting Policy, Regulation, Standard Setting, Litigation, and Enforcement: The Experiences of an Academic Fellow at the SEC” Learn more and register at https://lnkd.in/eMDjf5Xg   #AAAHQ #accounting #webinar #SEC #standardsetting #accountingpolicy #academics

🚨🤔 New opinion article 🤔🚨 Are you prepared for HMRC investigations? Learn what triggers them and how to avoid scrutiny. https://lnkd.in/evXKfSnu

Receiving a Statutory Demand as a debtor is likely to be a worrying time, and it is important to act on the matter immediately.   Partner, James Carpenter, discusses what can be done when you receive a Statutory Demand, including common grounds for dispute.   Read the full article here - https://lnkd.in/eGpsPhMg