|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1172 Records
-
2021 (6) TMI 1172 - CUTTACK HIGH COURT
Inclusion of name in the draft gradation list - determination of seniority - HELD THAT:- Though the petitioner was deputed to Samal Barrage UP School, he had never been permanently absorbed in the said school and his lien had been continuing with Angul District Education Cadre. But fact remains, after filing the original application, the Block Education Officer cancelled the deputation of the petitioner on 09.09.2014, pursuant to which he was relieved w.e.f. 15.10.2015 from Samal Barrage UP School by the Executive Engineer, Samal Barrage, by virtue of the office order dated 12.09.2015. Accordingly, the petitioner joined in Chhendipada Primary School under Block Education Officer, Angul on 16.09.2014. Thereby, it is made clear that his lien with parent education district was continuing, pursuant to which he had been allowed to join in Chhendipada Primary School, wherefrom he was placed on deputation to Samal Barrage UP School. Therefore, the petitioner's name should have been included in the draft gradation list prepared by opposite party no. 3 with all consequential benefits.
In TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [1991 (12) TMI 285 - SUPREME COURT], the apex Court held that the word "lien" originally means "binding" from the latin "ligament" and its lexical meaning was "right to retain".
It is apt to refer here the legal maxim "Expressio Unius est exclusion alterius" i.e. if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and any other manner are barred.
The opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are directed to fix seniority of the petitioner, as per Explanation-I to Rule-15 of Rules, 1997, in the draft gradation list dated 01.09.2012 published by opposite party no. 3, taking into account his date of appointment as 22.09.1981, and extend all consequential benefits, as due and admissible to him in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking directions for conducting a fresh inquiry under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - whether an award passed by a Lok-Adalat can be considered an award of the court under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of Section 28A of that Act? - HELD THAT:- The referring court or the court for which such Lok Adalat is organised does not come into the picture so far as such determination is concerned. In fact, in the case of a reference under clause (ii) of Section 19(5) of the LSA Act, it is the authority or committee organising the Lok Adalat, which itself refers the case or matter to the Lok Adalat. The court, for which such Lok Adalat is organised, is not concerned even at the stage of the reference. The award made by the Lok Adalat does not have to go back to that court to enable it to make it a part of its decree. The award itself is final and binding (and not appealable) as between the parties. It is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and executable as such. There is nothing in this scheme of things for treating an award passed by a Lok Adalat as a deemed decree of that court which made the reference to the Lok Adalat or for which the Lok Adalat was organised.
There is nothing to suggest that if the award is in a compensation dispute in a land acquisition matter, any third party should thereby be entitled to apply for re-determination of its compensation under Section 28A of the LA Act. As a matter of principle, it is not possible to say that that eventuality (i.e. entitlement of a third party to apply for re-determination of its own compensation after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat) inevitably follows as a corollary or consequence from such award.
The award of Lok Adalat having to be treated as an award of the reference court under Part III, does not follow as an inevitable sequitur, to come to such consequence the legal fiction contained in Section 21 of the LSA Act will have to be actually extended to import two other fictions, namely, that the award of Lok Adalat should be deemed (i) "a decree of the court which has referred the matter to the Lok Adalat", and (ii) "a decree passed under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894" - It would be an artificial extension of the legal fiction and not a necessary corollary of the original statutory fiction; it would be extending the original fiction beyond its statutory purpose.
Karnataka High Court in Vasudave [2007 (8) TMI 825 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has, relying on the provisions of the LA Act, CPC and LSA Act, and in particular, the amendment to the CPC by introduction of Section 89, held that the award of a Lok Adalat made on a reference brought before it falls within the expression 'award of the court' under Section 28A of the LA Act. So also, Gujarat High Court in ALL GUJARAT JAHER BHANDHKAM MAJOOR MANDAL VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT [2014 (12) TMI 1427 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has taken a view that as per Section 21 of the LSA Act, not only is an award in a land acquisition matter made by Lok Adalat a decree of a Civil Court but an executable award of the Reference Court and could be relied on for the purpose of Section 28A of the LA Act.
The case of RAMBHAU MAHADEORAO TEMBHURKAR AND ORS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS [2015 (8) TMI 1578 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] cited by Mr. Tajane is on an altogether different point. It holds, on a principle of equality before law, that it was impermissible to accord different treatments to owners of similar lands based on two different acquisition statutes (namely, the LA Act and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, in that case). Relying inter alia on the statement of law in Girnar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra [2011 (1) TMI 1343 - SUPREME COURT], the Division Bench of court in that case held that the provisions of Section 28A of the LA Act would apply to acquisitions under the MID Act. The ratio of this judgment has no application to the facts of present case.
There are no infirmity with the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by which he refused to entertain the Petitioner's application under Section 28A of the LA Act based on the award of Lok Adalat in LAR No. 18 of 2011. The award of Lok Adalat in that LAR cannot be construed as an award of the court made under Part III of the LA Act - petition dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1170 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Recovery of VAT dues - removal of first charge of Government - priority over the movable and immovable properties of borrower of petitioner bank as secured creditor - bank can proceed further to auction the properties to recover its dues or not - HELD THAT:- The position prevailing on record is that the properties in question have been mortgaged with the petitioner bank undisputedly by registered mortgage deed and encumbrance certificate has also been issued to the petitioner bank incorporating the charge of the bank over the property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has taken all steps strictly under the provisions of the Act to realize the dues of the mortgaged property and it is only at that stage, the respondent No.4 has come out with a plea that they have got first charge over the property to realize their dues.
This Court is of the opinion that a case is made out by the petitioner to call for an interference. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 21.4.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently, it is held that since the petitioner bank is having a clear charge over the property by virtue of the aforesaid circumstance, it has got first priority over the secured assets and not the State Government by virtue of the provisions of the VAT Act, 2003.
The petition stands allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1169 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Interim bail - petitioner has already spent more than two years as an under-trial prisoner - charge sheet against the petitioner already stands filed - HELD THAT:- Even the case of an under-trial or a convict falls within the categories set out by the HPC, and he does not have any indivisible right to claim that he ought to be granted interim suspension/bail, as the case may be. Each case is required to be considered on its own merits by taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the HPC.
In the present case, the petitioner is a young man of 27 years of age, whose conduct in jail has been certified to be good and he is not alleged to be previously involved in any case.
In these circumstances, merely because that the other co-accused are absconding, cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner the benefit available under the recommendations made by the HPC. There are no reason to believe the bald statement of the respondent that in case the petitioner is released on interim bail, he will tamper with the investigation.
Petition allowed by granting interim bail to the petitioner for a period of 45 days, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1168 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme denied - Forms 1 and 2 rejected as petitioner’s revision application filed u/s 264 was not pending as on the specified date, i.e., 31.01.2020 - as contended by the petitioner, that the limitation for filing a revision application stood extended by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) Circular till 31.03.2021 - whether period spanning between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021 stood excluded for the purposes of limitation?
HELD THAT:- To our minds, the matter requires examination.
Accordingly, issue notice. Counter-affidavit will be filed within the next four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.
Revenue will accept Forms 1 & 2 filed by the petitioner, on 23.03.2021, along with 100% of the disputed tax. Mr. Aggarwal says that, according to the petitioner, ₹ 16,81,546/- is payable towards “100% of the disputed tax”.
The respondent, therefore, pending the adjudication of the petition, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, will accept Forms 1 & 2 with 100% of the disputed tax. In case, according to the respondent/revenue, 100% of the disputed tax figure, is at variance with the aforementioned amount, the same will be indicated to the petitioner and necessary corrective action will be taken by the petitioner.
Revenue will also take next steps in the matter which will be, as indicated above, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and will bear in mind, while taking next steps in the matter, the deadline, which presently, we are told, expires on 30.06.2021.
Given the aforesaid directions that have been issued in the matter, Mr. Aggarwal says, he does not wish to press the interim application any further. CM is, thus, closed.
List this matter on 22.09.2021.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1167 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of 30% of tax as required under Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the order in STA Nos. 749 & 750/2016, which remains in force and not having been stayed, taking note the peculiar facts of the case including that the petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking, that for the same products in the assessment proceedings for the year April, 2014 to March, 2015 the Tribunal had ruled that the products are leviable with tax at 5.5.%, it would be appropriate that the deposit for the purpose of consideration of his application for stay under Section 62(4)(c)(i) be waived considering the order in STA Nos. 749 & 750/2016. However, it is clarified that in the event the order in STA Nos. 749 & 750/2016, is set aside in S.T.R.P.No.102/2018, the petitioner would be relegated to the same stage of his interim relief being subject to deposit as contemplated under Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Act.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off while clarifying that the petition is being disposed off only as regards to the limited aspect of deposit to be made for seeking stay under Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Act.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1166 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Non-consideration of the entitlement of the petitioner for refund of 25% amount already deposited - error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.10.2020 indicates that neither the argument that an interim order was passed by the DRT in favour of the borrower on the same date was made nor any argument was made that the remaining 25% amount was deposited by the petitioner at the time of e-auction should be refunded. On a pointed quarry by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny that in fact no prayer to that effect was made in the prayer clause of the memo of writ petition. The order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court therefore cannot be faulted for something which was not argued before it. Rehearing under the garb of review is not permissible.
The review petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1165 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Validity of assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C - non appearance by assessee - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing None appeared before us on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has also not filed any written submissions or furnished evidence to justify his stand.
In this situation, we are of view that the assessee is not interested to pursue his appeals. Further from the order sheet, it is apparent that the appeals were posted for hearing on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the earlier occasions. Moreover, the appeals are also time barred by one day and the assessee has not filed delay condonation petition. For the above stated reasons,hereby hold that the appeals of the assessee are devoid of merits and accordingly disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1164 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Rejection of comparables on application of turnover filter following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating [2011 (8) TMI 952 - ITAT BANGALORE]
Companies functionally dissimilar cannot be used as comparables to determined the ALP of risk mitigated contract service provider like that of assessee before us.
Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd - Application software segment of the said concern is not comparable to the assessee's segment of IT services.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1163 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Permission to appellant to reexport the jewellery since the consignee had not cleared the consignment from the Customs - applicant submits that if the jewellery is not reexported immediately the designs get outdated resulting in huge pecuniary loss - HELD THAT:- The Final order has only set aside the penalties under Section 112, 114 and 114AA. It is undisputed that the jewellery was sent by the appellant to M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Noida for re-conditioning who had not cleared it from the Customs. No redemption fine has been imposed upon the applicant nor has any notice been issued to the applicant for confiscation of the jewellery. If Revenue succeeds in its appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, the penalties imposed upon the applicant may be restored.
The applicant is directed to submit a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lakhs in favour of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi with a copy of this Order and keep the Bank Guarantee alive till the disposal of the appeal filed by the Department before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad - application disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1162 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - previous bail application stood rejected mainly on the ground that some cash has been recovered from some of the co-accused and some of the co-accused are still at large - Importance of an affidavit - HELD THAT:- Strangely, it is found that the affidavit accompanying the petition has been filed by one Tophan Pradhan who is the advocate's clerk-in-charge. Curiously enough, the advocate's clerk has sworn that he is looking after the case on behalf of the petitioner. This Court fails to understand as to how an advocate's clerk can swear an affidavit claiming to be "looking after" a case before this Court in gross violation of the Orissa High Court Rules.
An affidavit is an affirmation of truth. It is a willing declaration made in writing, signed by a deponent and accompanied by an oath to prove the veracity of its contents. In India, the law on affidavits is governed by Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further, every High Court, in furtherance of its own requirements from an affidavit, has framed its own Rules. The very essence of an affidavit lies in the fact that the person deposing the same, affirms on oath that all the representations made in the affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge - Noting the importance of an Affidavit, courts have strongly deprecated the practice of affidavits being sworn by someone who has no knowledge of the facts or who has no means of achieving said knowledge.
It is trite law that an affidavit shall always be confined to such facts as the deponent has his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on whose statements of his belief may be admitted, provided that the grounds thereof are stated.
It is clear that Rule 4(iii) of the Orissa High Court Rules contemplates that in cases where this court exercises appellate powers, as in cases involving civil or criminal revision as well as cases where the Court is exercising its power of Review, a specific exception has been made wherein the affidavit by the parties may be dispensed with and the accompanying affidavit can be filed by an advocate's clerk. This specific exception was made, perhaps, keeping in mind that in certain cases, as aforementioned, the records of the case are already present in the records of the Court - Furthermore, a perusal of Rule 14 and Rule 15 of the Orissa High Court Rules which lays down how an affidavit is to be framed by the declarant, the Court while accepting the affidavit of a declarant casts a strict responsibility on them to make certain disclosures to ensure that the facts, statements, etc. contained in the affidavit are based on personal knowledge or on belief which can be traced back to its sources.
This practice of advocate's clerks filing affidavits is unacceptable. The Registry is directed to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits which form part of petitions/applications under the original jurisdiction of the Court, made in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules.
This Bail Application being defective, is accordingly dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1161 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Failure to make the balance payment for auction sale - right to forfeit - forfeiture clause to be used as a penalty or not - HELD THAT:- The right to forfeit must be balanced against the corresponding principle enshrined in the rule against unlawful enrichment. While an auction purchaser is liable for the further expenses incurred by the secured creditor in conducting a second auction sale, the secured creditor cannot forfeit the entire money that has been tendered without having suffered loss commensurate with the quantum of money deposited and proposed to be forfeited. A forfeiture clause, at the highest, may indicate the maximum amount that may be forfeited to compensate the other party for the breach committed by the party in default. But the amount of forfeiture, unless it is a small percentage of the total consideration, cannot be well in excess of the loss or damage suffered by the party not in breach.
There are times that Courts presume that they have the extraordinary authority to enlarge the time. A kind of mercy jurisdiction is also resorted to at times without the Court being mindful of the fact that the exercise of such authority may prejudice another who may not be before the Court or may amount to granting undue favour to a person merely because he has approached the Court - The petitioner in either case should have been aware of his obligation to make the payment within the time the payment was due and merely because the second surge hit after February 18, 2021 or the lockdown was imposed sometime thereafter is not, by itself, enough ground to ignore the default committed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the secured creditor will be free to advertise for the fresh sale of the assets. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to participate in the auction for such purpose. If the petitioner is successful once again, in respect of both the properties, and if the quantum of bid in either case is lower, it is the lower amounts that the petitioner would have to pay together with all expenses incurred by the secured creditor in conducting the fresh sale and the diminution of price together with the interest thereon from the date of the original auction - Even if the petitioner is not the highest bidder, if there is a lower amount at which either property is sold, the petitioner will have to make good the difference together with the interest from the date of the original auction till the date of payment and the reasonable costs that the secured creditor may have incurred for conducting a fresh auction.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1160 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Filing of fresh claims after Resolution Plan is approved - demand of outstanding water tax dues - HELD THAT:- The settled legal position is that once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC and meets the requirements of Section 30 (2) of the IBC, it is binding on all creditors, guarantors, employees and other stake holders. From the point of view of the company that is undergoing the reconstruction, it cannot after the resolution plan is approved, be faced with fresh claims pertaining to the very period for which the plan has been approved.
This has been explained by the Supreme Court in The Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta [2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that A successful resolution Applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution Applicant who successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor.
In the present case, once the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, and affirmed by the NCLAT in appeal, it was not open to Opposite Party No.2, which in fact participated in the resolution plan by submitting a claim, to again raise a demand for the very period covered by the resolution plan. In other words, no claim for the period between December 2009 up to 7th November 2017, the date of approval of the resolution plan could have been raised by Opposite Party No.2. Such demands to the extent they cover the period up to 7th November, 2017 are plainly unsustainable in law.
Opposite Parties 1 to 3 will revise their demand by limiting it to the period from 7th November, 2017 and in the first instance issue a show cause notice (SCN) to the Petitioner giving it a reasonably sufficient time to reply to it - Thereafter the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 will proceed to pass appropriate orders to finalise the demand after verifying the claim of the Petitioner that it has been paying the water tax dues from January, 2019 onwards - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1159 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Fraudulent issue of GDRs - Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market - Responsibility of directors - officers in default - Investigation in the issuance of the GDR revealed that the GDR was not issued with a proper consideration and without making adequate disclosure under the Listing Agreement - As alleged account charge agreement was an integral part of the loan agreement which allowed Whiteview to avail the loan in order to subscribe to the GDR issue which was fraudulent - charge against the appellant was that he was a Director and was part of the resolution by which the first resolution was passed by the Board of Directors for issuance of the GDR and for opening an account with Banco - HELD THAT:- Merely because the appellant was present when the resolution dated July 27, 2006 was passed, no conclusion can be drawn that this was the starting point of the fraudulent arrangement for issuance of GDR and for opening a bank account.
Resolution does not given any indication that the appellant had knowledge beforehand that the GDR issue was the purpose to manipulate the price or the market or that a fraud would be played upon the shareholders and the investors.
Finding of the WTM that the resolution of the Board of Directors dated June 27, 2006 provides execution of a pledge or execution of a charge agreement is wholly erroneous, perverse and based on no evidence. The resolution also does not stipulate that the proceeds could be utilized by the bank as security in connection with a loan taken by another entity.
Appellant cannot be debarred only on the basis of being present in the resolution of the Board of Directors dated July 27, 2006. In the absence of any evidence that the appellant had a role to play in the issuance of the GDR, the mere presence of the appellant in the resolution of the Board of Directors dated July 27, 2006 does not make him liable for the alleged fraud that had been committed by the Company.
After the judgment was reserved, the respondent have submitted a short note contending that the appellant was also chairman of the audit committee and remuneration committee which fact is reflected in the annual report of 2009-10 - As per MCA circular dated March 2, 2020 civil or criminal proceedings should not be unnecessarily initiated against the independent directors or non executive directors unless sufficient evidence exists to the contrary. We also find that Reserve Bank of India issued a circular dated April 23, 2015 indicating that non-whole time director should not be considered as a defaulter unless it is conclusively established that the default had taken place with his consent or connivance.
Cogent evidence must come forward to the effect that a non executive non promoter independent director was aware of the fraud that had been played by the Company or that he was involved in the issuance of the GDR or that GDR was being issued with his connivance. Only then such non executive non promoter independent directors should be booked. Merely because he was part of the resolution of the Board of Directors would not make him liable.
In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order insofar as it relates to the appellant cannot be sustained and is quashed. The appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1158 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Withholding rate of tax in respect of dividend - India-Swiss DTAA - HELD THAT:- Revenue, cannot but accept that the issue raised in the present petition is covered by the judgement of this Court in ‘Concentrix Services Netherlands B V v/s. Income Tax Officer TDS & Anr.’[2021 (4) TMI 1051 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
A certificate under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be issued in favour of the petitioner, indicating therein, that the rate of tax, on dividend, as applicable qua the petitioner is 5% under India-Swiss DTAA.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1157 - ITAT PUNE
Revision u/s 263 - Error computing capital loss - such loss is not allowable for the reason that the assessee has shown the cost of acquisition on entire three plots wrongly but in actual fact, the assessee sold his 30% share in three commercial plots admeasuring 3,310 sq. mtrs only as against 4.200 sq.mtrs. - as per CIT AO did not apply his mind at all on this working, without there being any discussion, he passed an assessment order - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the assessment order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer, which is on record, determined the same amount as returned by the assessee wherein we note that no discussion or whatsoever made with regard to the purchase of plot, selling of the said plot and cost of acquisition etc., Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons recorded by the learned Principal learned Commissioner of Income-Tax in the impugned order, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax in invoking the jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of the Act in quashing the assessment order dated 17.06.2016 treating the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and thus the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax is justified and thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1156 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking modifications in the guidelines issued in Bhandari Engineers-II - HELD THAT:- The modifications are directed to be incorporate in the guidelines.
These directions are being issued by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 30 and 151 and Order XXI Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 106 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Paras 54 to 83 reproduced in paragraph 6 of this judgment are substituted in Bhandari Engineers-II Judgment and the modified judgment is attached hereto and is named as Bhandari Engineers-III Judgment. The Execution Courts shall henceforth follow Bhandari Engineers-III in execution cases.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1155 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of seized goods - gold and bullion of foreign origin and certain other electronic goods - curtailing the power of the adjudicating authority with a direction to pass an order in a particular fashion - HELD THAT:- Such a direction could not have been issued when the relief sought for by the writ petitioners was for allowing them to re-export the goods. Further more, we find that the learned Writ Court has gone into certain factual aspects which are not normally gone into by a Writ Court, prior to the commencement of the adjudication process.
The appellants have made out a prima facie case and the writ appeals are admitted - List these writ appeals for further directions on 15.09.2021.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1154 - ITAT MUMBAI
Ex-parte proceedings has dismissed the appeal by CIT(A) of assessee on technical ground i.e. wrong mention of section under which the Order appealed is passed - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground that there is no provision to rectify mistake in Form No.35 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has mentioned section 143(1) instead of section 143(3) of the Act. It is trite law that rules of procedure are meant as hand made of justice to facilitate attainment of justice in an orderly way. Rigid interpretation of rules would sometime result in injustice and travesty of its purpose, therefore, the rules have to be interpreted liberally for advancement of justice.
Rejecting appeal by taking pedantic or hyper-technical view on technical defects would result in miscarriage of justice and multiplicity of litigation. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue involved in the appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law.
The assessee is directed to rectify the defect(s) in Form No.35. Liberty is granted to the assessee to furnish modified grounds of appeal, if so advised. The impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (6) TMI 1153 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Extension of the Amnesty Scheme - cap on the late fees to be collected - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts would indicate that the petitioner has complied with the Scheme requirements substantially in time, except for last stage of remittance of the quantified amount, where there was a delay of 9 days.
This is an issue which several assessees all over the Country are facing and it is time that the Board apply its mind to the same and came out with a viable solution.
The petitioner is permitted to remit the amount quantified in Form 3 along with interest at the rate of 15%, in terms of Notification No.13 of 2016 dated 01.03.2016 and Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 under which service tax is levied, from 01.07.2020 till date of remittance before the third respondent, within a period of one (1) week from today - List on 29.06.2021.
........
|
