|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 2600 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee can challenge the inclusion of share income from a firm in his individual income during reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference made by the assessee regarding the inclusion of share income from a firm in his individual income during reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a medical practitioner, contended that the share income from the firm should have been excluded from his individual income as it belonged to the joint family. The original assessment was reopened based on information received, resulting in an increase in the total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim, stating that the issue was not raised during the original assessment proceedings and, therefore, could not be raised during reassessment. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the assessee, leading to a reference to the High Court.
The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, which deal with reassessment proceedings. The Court emphasized that the expression "such income" in section 147 refers to items of escaped income that need to be assessed or reassessed. The Court held that in reassessment proceedings, only items of escaped income are to be assessed, not the entire income afresh, including items already concluded in the original assessment. The Court highlighted the significance of section 152(2), which grants the assessee the right to claim dropping of reassessment proceedings only in cases falling under section 147(b) and not under section 147(a.
The Court referred to relevant case laws, including V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT and Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. CIT, to support its interpretation of the provisions. It concluded that the plain meaning of section 147 and the specific provision in section 152(2) do not allow the assessee to challenge items included in the original assessment during reassessment proceedings under section 147(a). The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the assessee cannot contest the inclusion of share income from the firm in his individual income during reassessment proceedings.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue, upholding that it was not permissible for the assessee to challenge the inclusion of share income from the firm in his individual income during reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court made no order as to costs for the reference.
-
1985 (11) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of compensation received for relinquishing partnership rights.
2. Classification of surplus from disposal of undertaking as business income.
3. Allocation and quantification of compensation components.
4. Assessment of capital gains on retirement from partnership.
5. Taxability of compensation as income or capital gains.
6. Deductibility of compensation paid under restrictive covenant u/s 37.
7. Nature of compensation paid to outgoing partners.
8. Reasonableness of compensation allocation for restrictive covenant.
9. Enduring advantage from restrictive covenant compensation.
10. Sustainability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of Compensation Received for Relinquishing Partnership Rights
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee for relinquishing rights in partnership firms cannot be taxed as revenue receipt. The compensation was attributable to the share in assets, goodwill, and restrictive covenant, and thus, it was not taxable as revenue.
Issue 2: Classification of Surplus from Disposal of Undertaking as Business Income
The Tribunal concluded that the disposal of the undertaking cannot be treated as a business in itself, and the surplus realized therefrom by the assessee cannot be taxed as business income. The compensation was considered a distribution of assets among partners.
Issue 3: Allocation and Quantification of Compensation Components
The Tribunal had valid material to allocate the compensation towards the share in assets, goodwill, and restrictive covenant. The allocation was found reasonable based on the facts of the case.
Issue 4: Assessment of Capital Gains on Retirement from Partnership
The Tribunal held that there was no 'transfer' involved under the Income-tax Act, 1961, when a partner retires from a partnership. Thus, the assessee cannot be assessed to capital gains tax on the surplus realized.
Issue 5: Taxability of Compensation as Income or Capital Gains
The Tribunal ruled that the compensation received by the assessee cannot be taxed as income or capital gains. The compensation attributable to the restrictive covenant was treated as a capital receipt, not liable to income-tax.
Issue 6: Deductibility of Compensation Paid Under Restrictive Covenant u/s 37
The Tribunal held that the amount referable to the restrictive covenant agreed to by the parties should be allowed as a deduction u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act. The compensation paid for the restrictive covenant did not result in an enduring advantage.
Issue 7: Nature of Compensation Paid to Outgoing Partners
The Tribunal concluded that the compensation paid to outgoing partners should not be considered as the sale price to acquire the entire business. It was partly for the restrictive covenant and thus deductible.
Issue 8: Reasonableness of Compensation Allocation for Restrictive Covenant
The Tribunal's quantification of the compensation components into three parts, including the restrictive covenant, was based on valid materials and was reasonable.
Issue 9: Enduring Advantage from Restrictive Covenant Compensation
The Tribunal found that the compensation paid for the restrictive covenant did not bring any enduring advantage to the assessee-firm. Therefore, it was treated as a revenue outgoing.
Issue 10: Sustainability of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The Tribunal held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained in the assessee's case. There was no contumacious conduct, and the assessee had placed all materials before the authorities.
Conclusion:
All questions were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The compensation received by the assessee for relinquishing partnership rights was not taxable as revenue receipt or capital gains. The compensation paid for the restrictive covenant was deductible as a revenue outgoing. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
-
1985 (11) TMI 4
The petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought quashing of criminal proceedings for an offence under section 278 of the Income-tax Act. The High Court dismissed the petition as there was no abuse of court process or gross injustice apparent on the record. The parties were directed to appear in the trial court on December 13, 1985.
-
1985 (11) TMI 3
Issues:
1. Application of net profit rate on passenger hire and luggage hire receipts.
2. Allocation of expenses between passenger hire and luggage hire receipts.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Application of net profit rate on passenger hire and luggage hire receipts
The case involved a dispute regarding the application of a net profit rate on both passenger hire and luggage hire receipts. The assessee, a registered firm earning income from bus operations, filed a return for the assessment year 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's account books and made a best judgment assessment under section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, estimating passenger and luggage receipts. The Income-tax Officer calculated profit at 22.5% on passenger receipts but did not allow any deduction for expenses on luggage receipts. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially allowed deductions, which the Tribunal upheld. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was justified as the assessee was not required to incur additional expenses for earning luggage receipts. The Tribunal's conclusion was found to be fully justified based on the facts, and no legal principle was found to support the assessee's claim for applying a net profit rate to luggage receipts.
Issue 2: Allocation of expenses between passenger hire and luggage hire receipts
The second issue revolved around the allocation of expenses between passenger hire and luggage hire receipts. The assessee argued that in previous years, both receipts were clubbed for applying a profit rate, whereas in the relevant year, only passenger receipts were subjected to the profit rate. The court found that no additional expenses were incurred for earning luggage receipts apart from possible coolie charges. Therefore, the deduction of Rs. 3,000 allowed against luggage receipts was deemed sufficient to cover any additional expenditure. The court concluded that the expenses claimed against luggage receipts were adequately covered by expenses allowed against passenger receipts. Consequently, the court answered both questions against the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the allocation of expenses and the application of profit rates.
In conclusion, the court's judgment favored the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the issues raised by the assessee regarding the application of profit rates and allocation of expenses between passenger hire and luggage hire receipts. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference, with the counsel's fee set at Rs. 200, if certified.
-
1985 (11) TMI 2
Issues:
1. Application of net profit rate on passenger hire and luggage hire receipts.
2. Justification of expenses claimed against passenger and luggage receipts.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the application of net profit rate on passenger hire and luggage hire receipts and the justification of expenses claimed by the assessee. The assessee, a registered firm earning income from plying buses, filed a return for the assessment year 1974-75 showing gross receipts of Rs. 1,93,780. The Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment, estimating passenger and luggage receipts and computing profit. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially allowed deductions, which the Tribunal upheld, leading to the reference before the High Court.
The main contention was whether the Tribunal was justified in not applying a net profit rate to luggage receipts and in holding that the expenses claimed against luggage receipts were covered by expenses allowed against passenger receipts. The court found that during earlier years, both passenger and luggage receipts were clubbed for applying the profit rate, but in the relevant year, only passenger receipts were subjected to the profit rate. The court held that no separate deduction for expenses against luggage receipts was necessary, as the assessee did not incur significant additional expenses for earning luggage receipts. The deduction allowed against luggage receipts was deemed sufficient to cover any possible additional expenditure, such as coolie charges. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was justified based on factual findings, and no legal principle required a different outcome.
Ultimately, the High Court answered both questions against the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The court held that the Tribunal was justified in not applying a net profit rate to luggage receipts and in determining that the expenses claimed against luggage receipts were already covered by expenses allowed against passenger receipts. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference, including counsel's fee.
-
1985 (11) TMI 1
Held that the capital asset acquired by the assessee, namely, the technical know-how in the shape of drawings, designs, charts, plans, processing data and other literature falls within the definition of " plant " and is, therefore, a depreciable asset - hence payment made by the assessee to the foreign collaborator was attributable wholly towards the acquisition of a depreciable asset
-
1985 (10) TMI 288
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court.
2. Finding of subletting the property.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Basti, for recovery of rent and ejectment from a specific land. The Defendants objected that the suit should be under the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, which was accepted, and the suit was transferred. The Small Cause Court decreed the suit for ejectment and rent on 25th October 1983, leading to the current revision challenging the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court and the finding of subletting.
2. The first contention raised was regarding the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The revisionists argued that the suit was not cognizable by the Small Cause Court, and the decree was without jurisdiction. However, the court analyzed the facts and legal provisions, including Section 15(1) of the Act and Article 4 of the Second Schedule. It was established that the suit for eviction of a lessee from a non-residential roofed structure falls under the Small Cause Court's jurisdiction. The court further held that the revisionists, having initially agreed to the transfer of the case to the Small Cause Court, were estopped from challenging the jurisdiction later.
3. The second contention pertained to the finding of subletting the property. The court upheld the lower court's finding, stating it was a factual determination without legal infirmity. As possession had been delivered to the landlord, the dispute was limited to rent and damages for use and occupation. The court ruled that until possession was returned, the tenant was liable to pay rent, justifying the decree for arrears of rent and damages. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs, bringing closure to the legal dispute.
-
1985 (10) TMI 287
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in disposal of representation.
2. Proper application of mind in the order of detention.
3. Non-disclosure of intelligence report.
4. Denial of representation by counsel or non-lawyer friend before the Advisory Board.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Delay in Disposal of Representation:
The petitioner argued that the representation made against the detention on November 24, 1984, received by the Chief Minister's office on November 28, 1984, and disposed of only on January 28, 1985, was delayed, thereby vitiating the detention. The court noted that another representation by the Khed Taluka Maratha Seva Sangh was received on November 29, 1984, and disposed of expeditiously by December 13, 1984. The High Court had previously determined that the delay in disposing of the petitioner's representation did not prejudice the detenu's case, as the representation was essentially a second one on the same grounds. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, concluding that no tenable submission on the score of delay could be made.
2. Proper Application of Mind in the Order of Detention:
The petitioner contended that the detention order was based on the flimsy statement of an accomplice, Sabnis, and lacked proper application of mind. The court emphasized that the satisfaction required for detention under the law is subjective and not for the court to test the adequacy of the material. The detaining authority had accepted Sabnis's statement linking the detenu to the contraband, and this satisfaction was reached on a bona fide basis. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and rejected the submission.
3. Non-Disclosure of Intelligence Report:
The petitioner claimed that the grounds of detention mentioned contact between the detenu and Yusuf Herro based on an intelligence report, which was not furnished to the detenu, thus violating Article 22 of the Constitution. The court noted that the Special Secretary had clarified that no independent intelligence report was placed before him and that the detenu's involvement with Yusuf Herro was based on Sabnis's confessional statement. The High Court had previously found no force in this point, relying on a precedent where privilege was claimed against disclosure of intelligence sources. The Supreme Court concluded that sufficient material had been disclosed to the detenu and no prejudice was caused by the non-disclosure of the exact intelligence report.
4. Denial of Representation by Counsel or Non-Lawyer Friend:
The petitioner argued that the detenu's request to be represented by a lawyer or a non-lawyer friend before the Advisory Board was not entertained, affecting the guarantee of limited defense. The court referred to the precedent set in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, which held that a detenu does not have the right to legal representation before the Advisory Board but can be assisted by a non-lawyer friend. The Advisory Board had inquired whether the detenu had brought a friend, which he had not. The Board assessed that the detenu was capable of representing himself. The court found no prejudice in the detenu's representation before the Advisory Board and agreed with the State's position that the detenu was in a fit condition to represent his case effectively.
Conclusion:
Since all four submissions advanced by the petitioner were rejected, the writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the order of detention and found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner.
-
1985 (10) TMI 286
Issues Involved:
1. Heritability of statutory tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act.
2. Transferability of statutory tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act.
3. Validity of licenses created by statutory tenants before 1973.
4. Correctness of previous judgments in Vasant v. Dikkaya and Chandrakant Jasinath Thakur v. Narayan Lakhanna Shetty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Heritability of Statutory Tenancy:
The court examined whether a statutory tenant governed by the Bombay Rent Act retains heritable interest in the premises. The term "statutory tenant" is used to describe a tenant whose contractual tenancy has been terminated. The court considered various Supreme Court decisions, including Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi and J.C. Chatterjee v. S.K. Tandon, which held that a statutory tenant has no estate or interest in the premises and only a personal right to protection from eviction. However, the court also examined Damadilal v. Parashram and V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, which suggested that statutory tenants retain certain heritable interests. The recent decision in Gian Devi v. Jeevan Kumar clarified that statutory tenants have an estate or interest in the premises, and tenancy rights are heritable. Therefore, the court concluded that a statutory tenant retains heritable interest, but only to the extent provided by Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.
2. Transferability of Statutory Tenancy:
The court analyzed whether a statutory tenant retains transferable interest in the premises. According to Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, a lessee has the right to transfer his tenancy rights unless there is a contract to the contrary. This right continues for statutory tenants, subject to the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act prohibits subletting or transferring tenancy rights unless specifically permitted by the tenancy agreement. The court categorized tenants into two types:
- Category 'A' tenants, who are specifically entitled to sublet under their tenancy agreement, retain the right to transfer their interest even after becoming statutory tenants.
- Category 'B' tenants, who are not specifically entitled to sublet, cannot transfer their interest due to the prohibition in Section 15.
3. Validity of Licenses Created by Statutory Tenants Before 1973:
The court considered whether a statutory tenant could have created a valid license before 1973. Section 5(4A) of the Bombay Rent Act defines "licensee" and "licensor," and Section 15A provides that licensees in occupation on 1st February 1973 become tenants. The court referred to the distinction between lease and license, noting that a license can only be granted by someone with a transferable interest in the property. Therefore, a statutory tenant of Category 'A' could create a valid license if they had the right to transfer their leasehold rights under the original contractual tenancy. Category 'B' tenants, lacking such rights, could not grant valid licenses.
4. Correctness of Previous Judgments:
The court reviewed the correctness of the judgments in Vasant v. Dikkaya and Chandrakant Jasinath Thakur v. Narayan Lakhanna Shetty. These judgments had held that statutory tenants could not transfer their interest. However, the larger Bench in Gian Devi v. Jeevan Kumar clarified that statutory tenants retain certain rights, including the ability to transfer interest if allowed under the original contractual tenancy. Thus, the court concluded that the previous judgments were not entirely correct. Category 'A' tenants can transfer their interest irrespective of being contractual or statutory tenants, while Category 'B' tenants cannot transfer their interest either before or after the termination of their contractual tenancy.
Conclusion:
The court answered the referred questions as follows:
1. A statutory tenant retains heritable interest, but only to the extent provided by Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act.
2. A statutory tenant retains transferable interest only if they had such interest as a contractual tenant.
3. A statutory tenant could create a valid license before 1973 only if their original contractual tenancy allowed them to transfer their leasehold rights.
4. The decisions in Vasant v. Dikkaya and Chandrakant Jasinath Thakur v. Narayan Lakhanna Shetty are not entirely correct in stating that no statutory tenant can transfer their interest. Category 'A' tenants can transfer their interest, while Category 'B' tenants cannot.
The matter was referred back to the learned single Judge for further hearing, and the reference was answered accordingly.
-
1985 (10) TMI 285
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 66,000 as income from undisclosed sources under Section 68 of the IT Act.
2. Addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources under Section 68 of the IT Act.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 13,400 out of transportation account.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 9,410 out of traveling expenses.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,400 out of establishment expenses.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 1,250 under the head general charges.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition of Rs. 66,000 as Income from Undisclosed Sources under Section 68 of the IT Act:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 66,000 as the firm's income from undisclosed sources under Section 68 of the IT Act. The cash was deposited in the name of Shri Ramesh Krishna Mehrotra, but the ITO found no details of the depositor's address. The firm initially claimed the deposit was made by Shri Kamal Krishna Mehrotra on behalf of his brother, Ramesh Krishna Mehrotra. However, Kamal Krishna Mehrotra denied depositing the amount during his examination under Section 131. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the firm failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a confirmatory letter or affidavit from Ramesh Krishna Mehrotra. The Tribunal concluded that the authorities were justified in treating the amount as income from undisclosed sources.
2. Addition of Rs. 10,000 as Income from Undisclosed Sources under Section 68 of the IT Act:
The ITO added Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources, citing incomplete confirmatory letters and lack of evidence regarding the depositor, Shri Anand Kishore Agarwal. The CIT(A) affirmed this, noting that the assessee failed to provide sufficient opportunity to produce the confirmatory letter or affidavit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee did not discharge the initial onus of proving the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the depositor.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 13,400 out of Transportation Account:
The ITO disallowed Rs. 13,400 claimed as transportation charges due to inadequate evidence, such as unsigned vouchers and lack of vehicle details. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing inconsistencies in the signatures and lack of corroborative evidence. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the ITO should have summoned Shri Subhash, the alleged transporter, to verify the payments. The Tribunal found the disallowance improper and deleted it, noting that the authorities did not doubt the trips made by the trucks.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 9,410 out of Traveling Expenses:
The ITO disallowed Rs. 9,410 claimed as traveling expenses for Shri U.S. Halwasiya and Shri Pritam Goel, citing lack of evidence such as hotel bills and taxi receipts. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the firm did not own a car and failed to provide confirmatory letters from car owners. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the assessee withheld material evidence and failed to prove that the expenses were incurred for business purposes.
5. Disallowance of Rs. 2,400 out of Establishment Expenses:
The ITO disallowed Rs. 2,400 claimed as salary for a driver, noting that the firm did not own a car. The CIT(A) affirmed this, stating that the driver, Nanhey, had already been paid for transportation charges and was not produced as a witness. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the assessee failed to prove the services rendered by the driver and withheld material evidence.
6. Disallowance of Rs. 1,250 under the Head General Charges:
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance under general charges to Rs. 750, which the Tribunal found fair and reasonable. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding, noting that no interference was called for.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the disallowance of Rs. 13,400 out of the transportation account but upholding the other disallowances and additions made by the CIT(A).
-
1985 (10) TMI 284
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee-firm qualifies as an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in passing orders under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the assessee-firm qualifies as an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee-firm, engaged in the construction of thermal power stations and other building activities, was initially allowed investment allowance by the ITO on new plant and machinery installed for carrying out its business. The Commissioner, however, opined that the assessee-firm was not engaged in manufacturing, construction, or production, and thus should not have been treated as an industrial undertaking eligible for investment allowance. The Tribunal considered the Full Bench decision in the case of ITO v. Hydle Constructions (P.) Ltd., which held that companies engaged in construction activities could be treated as industrial undertakings if they met the relevant criteria. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee-firm could be considered an industrial undertaking under Section 32A(2)(6)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus eligible for investment allowance.
2. Whether the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue:
The Commissioner argued that the ITO's orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because the ITO did not provide specific reasons for allowing the investment allowance and did not ascertain the relevant facts to determine whether the assessee qualified as an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal noted that the ITO, by allowing the investment allowance, implicitly considered the assessee as an industrial undertaking. However, the ITO did not explicitly state the reasons for this conclusion. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the lack of detailed reasoning and fact-finding by the ITO rendered the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
3. Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in passing orders under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal acknowledged the Commissioner's authority under Section 263 to revise orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner directed the ITO to make fresh assessments after considering the relevant facts and the definition of an industrial undertaking. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment orders but clarified that the matter should remain open before the ITO, who must decide the issue afresh in light of the Tribunal's observations and in accordance with the law.
Separate Judgments Delivered by the Judges:
Judicial Member's View:
The Judicial Member agreed with the Commissioner that the ITO's orders were erroneous due to the lack of detailed reasoning and fact-finding. He supported the Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment orders and directed the ITO to make fresh assessments.
Accountant Member's View:
The Accountant Member disagreed with the Judicial Member, arguing that the ITO had made relevant inquiries and verified the claims before allowing the investment allowance. He believed that the Commissioner's sole objection was based on the nature of the assessee's business as a contractor, which was contrary to the Full Bench decision in Hydle Constructions (P.) Ltd. The Accountant Member opined that the assessment orders should be restored, and the Commissioner's orders under Section 263 should be set aside.
Third Member's Opinion:
The Third Member sided with the Accountant Member, emphasizing that the Full Bench decision in Hydle Constructions (P.) Ltd. explicitly held that contractors engaged in construction activities could be considered industrial undertakings eligible for investment allowance. He concluded that the ITO had made the necessary inquiries, and there was no need for further investigation. The Third Member recommended setting aside the Commissioner's orders and restoring the assessment orders.
Conclusion:
The majority opinion favored the view that the assessee-firm qualifies as an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance, and the ITO's assessment orders should be restored. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and the orders passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 were set aside.
-
1985 (10) TMI 282
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Labour Courts and Industrial Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Disputes Act are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court in terms of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. Whether the Board of Nominees and Co-operative Tribunals under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Labour Courts and Industrial Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Disputes Act:
Nature of Power Exercised:
The Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act) are vested with the judicial power of the State. They adjudicate disputes between employers and employees, which involves compulsory adjudication and resolution of disputes in a judicial manner. The Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank (AIR 1950 SC 188) held that these tribunals discharge judicial functions, although they are not courts in the technical sense.
Source of Power:
The power of these tribunals emanates from the statute itself and not from any agreement between the parties. Sections 7, 7A, and 10 of the I.D. Act provide for the constitution and functioning of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, indicating that their authority is derived from the statute.
Manner of Exercise of Power:
These tribunals follow judicial procedures similar to those followed by civil courts. They have powers akin to those of civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, including summoning and examining witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses (Section 11 of the I.D. Act).
Finality and Authoritativeness of Decisions:
The awards made by these tribunals are binding and final, as provided under Sections 17 and 19 of the I.D. Act. Even though the appropriate government has some power to modify or reject the awards in specific circumstances under Section 17A, the awards remain binding and authoritative.
Conclusion:
Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the I.D. Act are courts within the meaning of Sections 2 and 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They possess all the essential attributes of a court, including the judicial power of the State, statutory origin, judicial procedure, and the finality of decisions.
2. Board of Nominees and Co-operative Tribunals under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961:
Nature of Power Exercised:
The Registrar's nominees and Co-operative Tribunals under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act exercise judicial powers of the State. They adjudicate disputes related to the constitution, management, or business of co-operative societies in a manner similar to civil courts.
Source of Power:
The power of these authorities is derived from the statute itself. Sections 96, 98, and 150 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act provide for the constitution and functioning of the Registrar's nominees and the Co-operative Tribunal.
Manner of Exercise of Power:
These authorities follow judicial procedures, including summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and examining witnesses on oath (Section 99 of the Act). They conduct hearings and make awards in a judicial manner.
Finality and Authoritativeness of Decisions:
The decisions and awards made by the Registrar's nominees and the Co-operative Tribunal are final and binding, as provided under Sections 101 and 166 of the Act. They cannot be challenged in any court except for want of jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The Registrar's nominees and Co-operative Tribunals under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act are courts within the meaning of Sections 2 and 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They satisfy all the essential criteria of a court, including the exercise of judicial power, statutory origin, judicial procedure, and the finality of decisions.
Summary:
The Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Industrial Disputes Act, as well as the Board of Nominees and Co-operative Tribunals under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They possess the essential attributes of courts, including the exercise of judicial power, statutory origin, judicial procedure, and the finality and authoritativeness of their decisions.
-
1985 (10) TMI 281
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the charging of compound interest by the Bank is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act of 1938 and the Usurious Loans Act of 1918.
2. The applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act to the loan transaction between the Bank and the agriculturist.
3. The constitutional validity of Section 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act.
4. The interpretation and scope of Section 21-A in relation to the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and the Usurious Loans Act.
5. The federal distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States concerning banking and agricultural indebtedness.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Charging of Compound Interest:
The plaintiff, a Bank, appealed against the judgment dismissing its suit for recovery of a loan amount from an agriculturist. The loan agreement provided for compound interest, which led to the principal amount swelling significantly. The defendant, an agriculturist, contended that the charging of compound interest was contrary to Section 13 of the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act of 1938 and the Usurious Loans Act of 1918. The courts below upheld this contention, leading to the plaintiff's appeal.
2. Applicability of Section 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act:
The Bank argued that Section 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act, enacted in 1984, rendered the judgments based on the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and the Usurious Loans Act inapplicable. Section 21-A states that a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be reopened by any court on the ground that the rate of interest charged is excessive. The court noted that Section 21-A forbids reopening transactions on the ground of excessive interest but does not prevent reopening on other grounds such as usurious, extortionate, or unconscionable interest rates.
3. Constitutional Validity of Section 21-A:
The court assumed the constitutional validity of Section 21-A for the sake of argument but questioned whether it could override the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and the Usurious Loans Act. The court emphasized that Section 21-A's prohibition is not universal and only applies to cases where the interest rate is deemed excessive. The court held that the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, which provides statutory relief to farmers, is not overridden by Section 21-A.
4. Interpretation and Scope of Section 21-A:
The court differentiated between the grounds for relief under the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and Section 21-A. The former provides relief based on statutory prohibitions against compound interest and excessive rates, while the latter only addresses excessive interest. The court concluded that the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act operates independently of Section 21-A and continues to apply to loans given to agriculturists.
5. Federal Distribution of Legislative Powers:
The court examined whether Section 21-A falls within the Union's legislative powers under the item of "Banking" in the Union List. The court held that "Banking" does not encompass the denial of relief for agricultural indebtedness, which is a state subject. The court emphasized that the Constitution grants states exclusive power to legislate on agricultural indebtedness, and this power cannot be overridden by federal laws on banking. The court cited historical context and constitutional debates to support this view.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Bank's appeal, upholding the lower courts' judgments that the charging of compound interest on loans to agriculturists is contrary to the A.P. Agriculturists Relief Act and the Usurious Loans Act. The court also held that Section 21-A of the Banking Companies Regulation Act does not override these state laws and is not applicable to agricultural loans. The court further questioned the constitutional validity of Section 21-A, suggesting it may violate Article 14 by enforcing unjust transactions.
-
1985 (10) TMI 280
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.
2. Validity of the notice for demolition of the Express Buildings.
3. Allegations of mala fide and politically motivated actions.
4. Authority of the Lt. Governor in administering Union properties.
5. Compliance with the Master Plan, Zonal Development Plans, and municipal bye-laws.
6. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
7. Validity of the Engineer Officer's notice of re-entry.
8. Quantum of conversion charges and their determination.
Summary:
1. Constitutional Validity of Notice of Re-entry:
The petitioners challenged the notice of re-entry dated March 10, 1980, issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office, under cl.5 of the lease-deed, alleging breaches of cls. 2(5) and 2(14). The Supreme Court held that the notice was invalid due to non-compliance with cl.6 of the lease-deed. The Court emphasized that the lessor must follow due process of law, which implies filing a suit for enforcement of the right of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.
2. Validity of Notice for Demolition:
The notice dated March 1, 1980, issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), Municipal Corporation, to demolish the new Express Building under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was challenged. The Court found that the construction was sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority and in conformity with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. The notice was deemed arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Allegations of Mala Fide and Politically Motivated Actions:
The petitioners alleged that the impugned notices were issued with mala fide intent and political vendetta. The Court noted the sequence of events and the actions of the Lt. Governor, which indicated a misuse of power. The Court held that the notices were issued in bad faith and were politically motivated, thus invalidating them.
4. Authority of the Lt. Governor:
The Court examined whether the Lt. Governor was the successor of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and had the authority to administer Union properties. It was held that the Lt. Governor could not usurp the functions of the Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing, in relation to the lease. The administrative control over the Land & Development Office was transferred to the Ministry of Works & Housing in 1959, and the Lt. Governor had no authority in this matter.
5. Compliance with Master Plan, Zonal Development Plans, and Municipal Bye-laws:
The Court found that the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 was in conformity with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan for D-II area. The Master Plan did not prescribe any FAR for the press enclave, and the Zonal Development Plan permitted an FAR of 400 for the commercial areas. The construction did not violate any municipal bye-laws.
6. Application of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, holding that the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. acted upon the permission granted by the then Minister for Works & Housing. The Union of India was precluded from contending that the permission was illegal or invalid. The successor government was bound by the decisions of the previous government.
7. Validity of Engineer Officer's Notice of Re-entry:
The notice of re-entry issued by the Engineer Officer on March 10, 1980, was found to be invalid as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of cl.6 of the lease-deed. The Court emphasized that the lessor must follow due process of law, which involves filing a suit for enforcement of the right of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.
8. Quantum of Conversion Charges:
The Court discussed the quantum of conversion charges payable by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. for the new Express Building. It was noted that the determination of conversion charges involves technical expertise and should be adjudicated by an impartial tribunal or through a duly constituted suit. The Court restrained the Union of India from taking any steps for termination of the lease for non-payment of conversion charges until the final determination of the amount.
-
1985 (10) TMI 279
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of income-tax liability under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of changing the method of accounting from 'mercantile' to 'cash system'.
3. Determination of income for application towards trust objects under section 11(1)(a).
4. Taxation of notional income.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Income-tax Liability:
The core issue was whether the income-tax liability of Rs. 76,972 could be deducted under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the payment of income-tax was a necessary outgoing and should be deducted before determining the net income available for application or setting apart for charitable purposes. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that income-tax is a charge on income and must be considered before ascertaining the net income. The High Court upheld this view, agreeing that the income derived from property must be determined on commercial principles, which includes deducting all outgoings like income-tax.
2. Justification of Changing the Method of Accounting:
The assessee switched from the mercantile system to the cash system of accounting in the assessment year 1972-73 due to non-receipt of interest income from deposits. The Tribunal supported this change, stating that the income must be computed on general commercial principles rather than on a notional basis. The High Court concurred, noting that there is no prohibition in the Act against changing the method of accounting if done bona fide. The Court emphasized that the change was necessary due to the financial difficulties faced by the depositary companies and was a prudent decision to reflect the real income of the trust.
3. Determination of Income for Application Towards Trust Objects:
For the assessment year 1971-72, the question was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income-tax liability must be deducted before determining the surplus available for application towards charitable purposes. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the income must be determined on commercial principles, and all outgoings, including income-tax, must be deducted to ascertain the surplus income. This surplus is what can be applied or set apart for the purposes of the trust under section 11(1)(a).
4. Taxation of Notional Income:
For the assessment year 1972-73, the issue was whether the assessee could be taxed on notional income that was not actually received. The Tribunal held that the assessee had not received any income in the commercial sense and was therefore not obligated to apply any income towards the trust's objects. The High Court agreed, stating that taxing notional income would render the benevolent provision of section 11(1)(a) nugatory. The income must be actually available for application or accumulation in the hands of the trustees.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decisions for both assessment years, supporting the deduction of income-tax liability and the change in the method of accounting. The Court emphasized that income must be determined on commercial principles, including the deduction of all outgoings, and that notional income should not be taxed. The reference was disposed of in favor of the assessee with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 278
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property in bamboos passed to the Company soon after they were severed or extracted from the land.
2. Whether the bamboos cut, but not transported on or before January 15, 1969, were liable to be charged at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20/- per ton under the Government Order dated December 31, 1968.
3. Whether the Company was entitled to the refund of the amount recovered in excess of Rs. 10/- per ton.
4. Interest entitlement from the date of suit till the date of decree and the rate of future interest.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Property in Bamboos Passing to the Company:
The primary question was when the property in the bamboos passed to the Company-whether it was when the bamboos were cut and extracted from the forest land or when they were actually lifted from the forest through a specified outpost. The court concluded that the property in the goods passed to the Company when the bamboos were cut and extracted. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of the terms of the agreement (Ex. D-1) and the application of Section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, which states that no property in goods is transferred to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Badri Prasad v. State of M.P., which supported the view that the property in the cut timber passes to the buyer when the trees are felled.
2. Enhanced Rate Applicability:
The court examined whether the bamboos cut but not transported before January 15, 1969, were liable to be charged at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20/- per ton as per the Government Order dated December 31, 1968 (Ex. P-3). The court concluded that the enhanced rate was not applicable to the bamboos cut and stacked before January 16, 1969, under the previous Government Order dated November 4, 1968 (Ex. P-2). The enhanced rate was to be effective from January 16, 1969, and did not retroactively apply to bamboos already cut and stacked.
3. Entitlement to Refund:
Given the conclusion that the enhanced rate did not apply to the bamboos cut before January 16, 1969, the court held that the Company was entitled to a refund of the excess amount recovered by the Government. The court found that the Government had unlawfully and unreasonably withheld the amount even after the Company issued a statutory notice and filed a suit for refund.
4. Interest Entitlement:
The court addressed the Company's cross-objection regarding the refusal to award interest from the date of suit till the date of decree and the low rate of future interest awarded by the trial court. The court found that the trial court erred in not awarding interest from the date of suit. Since the amounts were wrongly claimed and recovered, the Company was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit (August 25, 1972) till the date of decree (June 30, 1975).
Conclusion:
The appeal by the defendant (State of Karnataka) was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the plaintiff (Company) was allowed with costs. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,34,531/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. The appellant was to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the respondent in the appeal.
-
1985 (10) TMI 277
Issues Involved:
Whether a magistrate can make an interim order directing payment of maintenance pending disposal of an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Summary:
The petitioner applied u/s 125 of the Code for maintenance and sought an interim order, which the magistrate refused, citing lack of express provision. The provisions in Chapter IX aim to provide a preventive remedy for quick maintenance payment. The jurisdiction under Chapter IX is not purely criminal; it ensures a quick remedy to prevent starvation. The court must interpret the provisions to uphold the legislation's purpose. In the absence of express prohibition, it's appropriate to imply the magistrate's power to order interim maintenance. This is crucial for applicants awaiting final orders, ensuring they can survive until then. The court should possess necessary powers to make effective orders. The recognition of implied power won't lead to misuse, as safeguards can be implemented. The magistrate may require an affidavit to support the claim for interim maintenance. The provisions should be interpreted to allow magistrates to order interim maintenance, considering the nature of the jurisdiction u/s 125 of the Code.
The opinion is based on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Code. The dispute regarding maintenance is settled between the parties, rendering further orders unnecessary. The petition is disposed of.
-
1985 (10) TMI 276
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court could stay the confiscation proceedings under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Whether simultaneous proceedings for confiscation and criminal prosecution can occur under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.
3. Interpretation of sections 44(2), 44(2A), and 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.
Summary:
Issue 1: High Court's Power to Stay Confiscation Proceedings
The appeal questioned whether the High Court could stay the proceedings for confiscation of illicitly felled teak timber trees seized from the respondents under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondents had filed an application for stay of proceedings before the Authorized Officer under s. 44(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, pending the disposal of the criminal case. The High Court had directed the stay of confiscation proceedings, which the State challenged.
Issue 2: Simultaneous Proceedings for Confiscation and Criminal Prosecution
The Court examined whether there could be simultaneous proceedings for confiscation by the Authorized Officer under s. 44(2A) and a criminal case before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence under s. 20 of the Act. The Court concluded that the Act, as amended by Act 17 of 1976, contemplates two separate proceedings before two different forums: one for confiscation by a departmental authority and the other for the trial of the accused. The power of confiscation conferred on the Authorized Officer under s. 44(2A) is distinct from the power of the Magistrate under s. 45, and there is no conflict of jurisdiction.
Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 44(2), 44(2A), and 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967
The Court analyzed the statutory changes brought by Act 17 of 1976, which empowered forest officers to confiscate seized timber or forest produce and the implements used in committing forest offences. The Act provided for two separate proceedings: one for confiscation under s. 44(2A) by the Authorized Officer and another for trial and possible confiscation under s. 45 by a Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the power of the Authorized Officer to confiscate is not dependent on the outcome of the criminal trial.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order that stayed the confiscation proceedings. The Authorized Officer was directed to proceed with the inquiry for confiscation of the seized timber in accordance with the law. The Court affirmed that the Act provides for two separate and distinct proceedings, and there is no overlapping of jurisdictions between the Authorized Officer and the Magistrate.
-
1985 (10) TMI 275
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease.
2. Validity of the notice for demolition under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
3. Allegations of mala fide and political motivation.
4. Authority of the Lt. Governor of Delhi.
5. Compliance with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans.
6. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
7. Determination of conversion charges.
Summary:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Notice of Re-entry:
The petitioners challenged the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office, dated March 10, 1980, under cl.5 of the lease-deed for alleged breaches of cls. 2(5) and 2(14). The Court held that the notice was invalid due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of cl.6 of the lease-deed. The notice was not merely exploratory but intended to forfeit the lease, which required due process of law.
2. Validity of the Notice for Demolition:
The petitioners also challenged the notice dated March 1, 1980, issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), Municipal Corporation, under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, for alleged unauthorized construction. The Court found that the construction was sanctioned by the Delhi Development Authority and in conformity with the Master Plan, making the notice invalid.
3. Allegations of Mala Fide and Political Motivation:
The petitioners alleged that the notices were issued with mala fide intent and were politically motivated. The Court found that the Lt. Governor acted with undue zeal and the notices were issued in bad faith, constituting misuse of power. The Court held that the actions were arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
4. Authority of the Lt. Governor of Delhi:
The Court examined whether the Lt. Governor was the successor of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and had the authority to administer the lease. It was held that the Lt. Governor could not usurp the functions of the Union of India in relation to the lease, as there was no notification under Art. 239(1) vesting such power in the Lt. Governor.
5. Compliance with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans:
The Court found that the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 was in conformity with the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan for D-II area. The Master Plan did not prescribe any FAR for the press enclave, and the Zonal Development Plan permitted an FAR of 400 for the area.
6. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The Court held that the permission granted by the then Minister for Works & Housing for the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 was binding on the successor government. The doctrine of promissory estoppel precluded the Union of India from questioning the validity of the permission granted.
7. Determination of Conversion Charges:
The Court noted that the determination of conversion charges required technical expertise and could not be adjudicated in the present proceedings. It was suggested that the Union of India could either legislate to provide a forum for adjudication or file a suit for recovery of conversion charges. The Court restrained the respondents from taking any steps for termination of the lease until the final determination of the conversion charges.
Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed. The Court declared that the construction of the new Express Building did not constitute a breach of the lease-deed and directed the respondents to refrain from enforcing the notices. The Union of India was directed to recover conversion charges through appropriate legal means.
-
1985 (10) TMI 274
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure and confiscation of gold bars, Exide battery, and motor cycle under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Validity of the petitioners' claims to the seized gold.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Act.
4. Exhaustion of alternative remedies and delay in filing the writ petition.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Seizure and Confiscation:
The officers of the Madras Custom House conducted a search on the night of 24-6-1974 and recovered 142.79 kilograms of opium from a premises. During the search, a Jawa motor cycle with two riders was stopped, and 16 gold bars weighing 4148 grams were found concealed in the Exide battery of the motor cycle. The riders did not possess any permit or authorization under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, leading to the seizure of the gold bars, Exide battery, and motor cycle. The seized gold was found to be between 23 and 24 carats of purity. The Additional Collector of Customs, Madras, ordered the confiscation of the 16 bars of gold and the Exide battery under Section 71(1) of the Act, and the motor cycle under Section 72 of the Act, with a redemption fine of Rs. 2,000 for the motor cycle. A personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the petitioner in W.P. 3155 of 1980.
2. Validity of the Petitioners' Claims to the Seized Gold:
The petitioner in W.P. 3155 of 1980 claimed that he was transporting the gold for one Vaidyanathan of Vedaranyam, who promised him Rs. 4,000 for the task. However, Vaidyanathan denied any knowledge of the petitioner or the gold. The petitioners claimed the gold was ancestral property imported into India before 1959. Despite opportunities, the petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. Two claimants, Amina Bi and Halima Nachiar, withdrew their claims, further weakening the petitioners' position. The appellate and revisional authorities also found no evidence to support the petitioners' claims, leading to the rejection of their appeals and revisions.
3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The petitioners argued that under Section 16 of the Act, the gold referred to did not include articles or ornaments but only primary gold, and since their possession did not exceed the limit prescribed under Section 16(5)(b)(ii), there was no need for a declaration. The court, however, found that the seized gold was primary gold, and its possession was prohibited under Section 8(1) of the Act unless held in the manner provided by the Act. The court referred to previous judgments, including Phanindra v. Union of India - AIR 1978 Cal. 544 and Vipin Maneklal v. Sushil Kumar - AIR 1983 Delhi 307, which supported the view that primary gold possession was illegal without proper authorization.
4. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies and Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The petitioner in W.P. 3155 of 1980 did not appeal or seek revision against the order of confiscation and approached the court after about four years. The court noted that the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies available under the law and dismissed the writ petition on grounds of laches.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and upheld the confiscation of the gold bars, Exide battery, and motor cycle. The petitioners failed to establish any right or interest in the seized gold, and their possession of primary gold was deemed illegal under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with costs, and the rule nisi was discharged.
............
|
9911796707
