|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 835 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 756 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Adjustment of refund amounts due towards the amounts found payable under the Amnesty Scheme - refund under Kerala VAT Act - HELD THAT:- Although it is the specific case of the learned Government Pleader that, under the Amnesty Scheme, there is no provision for an adjustment of refund amounts towards amounts found payable by an applicant seeking the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, the adjustment in question does not in any manner offend the Amnesty Scheme or do violence to its language.
The department has not preferred any appeal against the said order so as to cast any doubt on the entitlement of the petitioner for the refund amount. In that scenario, when amounts are liable to be paid by the petitioner to the department for the purposes of getting the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, an adjustment of the refund amounts due to the petitioner towards whatever amount is found payable by the petitioner, would not in any manner offend the terms of the Scheme because it is simply an adjustment towards the payment to be made under the Scheme.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 755 - SUPREME COURT
Release of detained goods - applicability of ‘Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012’ - grievance of the petitioner firm is that the Customs authorities are refusing to release these two later consignments despite completion of required formalities - It was held that there is no reason as to why the later consignments of the petitioner firm, which have been withheld, should not be treated alike.
HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the respondent shall file his reply within two weeks from today. List after two weeks.
-
2020 (7) TMI 754 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accrual of income - retention money on contract included in the Assessee's income for the AY.2009-10? - whether tribunal wrong in holding that the retention amounts cannot be considered as income of the Assessee because such amounts were still to be received, when the Assessee follows the Mercantile System of Accounting and income is to be assessed on "accrual basis"? - HELD THAT:- Assessee's own case for the previous Assessment Year 2008-2009 has been decided in favour of the Assessee [2014 (11) TMI 1233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Since the issue raised in this appeal had already been decided against the department by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Ignified Boilers India Ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 726 - SC ORDER] and in Commissioner of Income Tax v. East Coast Constructions & Industries Limited [2006 (12) TMI 574 - SC ORDER] no question of law arises for consideration. Decided in favour of the Assessee
-
2020 (7) TMI 753 - ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL) AHMEDABAD BENCH COURT-I
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - exclusion of limitation period got extended as period consumed in the course of such proceedings in computing the limitation period - applicability of Section 22(5) of the SICA, 1985 - HELD THAT:- It is noted that there is no dispute as regard to supply of goods, quality or price thereof. It is also noted that confirmation of outstanding amount as on 31.12.2004 was made on 11.01.2005 by the Corporate Debtor. It is further noted that no reply either to notice served u/ s 8 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or to this application has been filed by the Corporate Debtor. Admittedly, the Corporate Debtor was registered with BIFR under SICA, 1985 in the year 2005 and during the course of those proceedings the debt payable by the Corporate Debtor got acknowledged. Thus, there remains no doubt as regard to the amount of outstanding debt. The only aspect which we require to examine is whether debt is due and payable in law or in fact i.e. it is not barred by limitation.
It is apparent that this sub-section (5) is applicable for entire Section 22 because of the expression "this Section" used in this sub-section. Further, this sub-section provides for automatic exclusion of the period of suspension of proceedings or remedy for the purpose of computation of limitation for the enforcement of any right, privilege, obligation or liability u/s 22(1) or by virtue of declaration in sub-section 3 of Section 22 - there are no hesitation in holding that extension of limitation based on exclusion of suspension period as prescribed in 22(5) of SICA, 1985 is applicable only to suit for recovery of money and not to an application filed u/ s 9 of IBC, 2016. In the instant case, the right to sue admittedly arose in 2004 and acknowledgement of debt was made on 11.01.2005. Application u/ s 9 of IBC, 2016 has been filed on 24.11.2017, hence, it is clearly barred by limitation.
It emerges from the perusal of the Section 22(1) of SICA, 1985 is that there is exception or exit route to such automatic suspension i.e. proceedings or suit as specified u/ s 22(1) can be instituted or proceeded further with the consent of BIFR/AAIFR. This means that right to remedy is available. Thus, the question arises, in case, a person chooses not to exercise that right/ remedy, can such person still claim exclusion of suspension period for the purposes of computation of limitation. In case, a person who is not a part of such reference and does not exercise such right/ remedy with consent, then, in our considered opinion, such person is not entitled to claim extension of limitation period by virtue of exclusion of period of suspension because in such situation he sits on the fence and watching and not bothered of limitation to secure his right/remedy. Doctrine of latches also applies in this case.
In the present case, the Operational Creditor was part of scheme under consideration of BIFR and had also filed a suit no. 315/2009 on 23.03.2009 before Civil Judge, Vadodara seeking a decree for the impugned sum which is still alive as the permission to withdraw the same with a liberty to file afresh has been granted by the Civil Court vide its order dated 05.11.2019. The Applicant sought consent of BIFR by filing MA No. 603 of 2010 which was allowed by the BIFR on 20.11.2012 with the condition that decree awarded by the Civil Court will not be executed without prior approval of BIFR - it is the date of consent by BIFR which is to be considered for the purpose of computation of limitation period even though appeal was filed against such consent for the reason that appeal is continuation of original proceedings.
In the present case, the Corporate Debtor confirmed the outstanding balance as on 11.01.2005 though right to sue accrued on earlier date, hence, limitation has to be computed from 11.01.2005. Reference u/s 15 of SICA 1985 was made in 2005 (which has been numbered as 83 of 2005) but neither date of filing nor date of registration thereof is on record, hence, we are left with no option but to estimate date of filing/registration as per the provisions of Section 15 of SICA, 1985 which provide that a reference could be made only on the basis of last Audited Balance Sheet. In the present case, the reference has been made admittedly on the basis of Audited Financial Statement on 31.03.2005 which could have been audited and approved as per the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 latest by 30.09.2005, hence, a reference could be made only thereafter - if we exclude period from filing of reference i.e. 01.10.2005 till 20.11.2012, the time lirnit for filing a fresh suit/ application comes to an end in early 2015 itself after excluding period from 11.01.2005 till 30.09.2005. We further note consent of AAIFR has been taken in Appeal No 76 of 2014 vide order dated 17.09.2014. Even when, this date is considered, the time limit for filing of a fresh suit/ application comes to an end on 06.01.2017 if we take the period from filing of reference i.e. 01.10.2005 till such consent order of AAIFR on 17.09.2014 after excluding the period from 11.01.2005 till 30.09.2005. We again state that even assuming that such extended period is available to present application which has been filed on 24.11.2017, then also, such application is time barred as having been filed after expiry of extended period of limitation. Thus, Considering the legal aspects as well as factual matrix, we hold that in all possible situations, the application remains time barred.
The Operational Creditor exited from rehabilitation process of the Corporate Debtor while such rehabilitation was under consideration of BIFR/AAIFR for the simple reason that a substantial hair-cut had to be born. The object of SICA, 1985 was to rehabilitate the sick entity which is also an object of IBC, 2016. In the present case, there is no dispute that the corporate debtor is having financial crunch/ sickness for very long period. The Operational Creditor is also pursuing separate suit for recovery of its money which is still alive. Can such person be allowed or considered eligible for initiating insolvency proceedings having conducted in this fashion. Thus, for this reason also, this application is not maintainable.
Application dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 752 - ITAT MUMBAI
Chargeability of late fee under section 234E - whether Late fee can be levied prior to 1.6.2015, i.e. prior to enactment of section 234E? - diversified views of various High courts on issue - CIT(A) has decided the issue by following the decision of honourable Gujarat High Court in case of Rajesh Kourani [2017 (7) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Though CIT(A) has noted the decision of Sri Fatheraj Singhvi[2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] which is in favour of the assessee he has chosen not to follow the same also distinguished the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] by referring that the said decision was in connection with penalty - HELD THAT:- CIT appeals has totally erred in distinguishing the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of vegetable products. The ratio arising from the said decision is that if two constructions are possible the one in favour of assessee should be applied. In the present case we note that the decision of honourable Karnataka High Court is in favour of the assessee. Accordingly we follow the said decision on the touchstone of ratio arising from honourable Supreme Court decision in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra). No decision contrary to this from the honourable jurisdictional High Court has been brought to our notice. Furthermore as referred by the assessee in grounds of appeal the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee
-
2020 (7) TMI 751 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake - Addition u/s 68 - cases relied upon were ignored to be considered - company was dealing in providing the accommodation entries - addition was raised on account of third party statement - assessee alternate plea was that the assessee was earning the commission by providing accommodation entries, the only amount of commission could be added to the assessee’s taxable income and not entire amount of transaction - HELD THAT:- As stated that the applicant used to issue accommodation entries on commission basis @ 0.02% to 0.10%. On the basis of the said information, the noticed u/s 153C of the Act was issued. The assessment u/s 153C was completed treating the 4% as income. Subsequently, the PCIT-4 passed the order u/s 263 of the Act and thereafter the assessment u/s 144/142(1) r.w.s. 153C of the Act was competed by assessing the 100% addition. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
The applicant/appellant had produced the order of co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s. Chaitali Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd and Gold Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd. The said cases were related to same search in which the commission was assessed @ 0.15% of total deposits but the alternate contention was not dealing with the Hon’ble ITAT, therefore, the present Miscellaneous Application has been filed.
After perusing the order dated 25.03.2019, we noticed that the decisions in the case of Chaitali Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Gold Star FinvestPvt. Ltd. were not dealt with. Subsequently these decisions were confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Applicability of these cases may effect the merits of the case also. So by not dealing these cases, there is mistake apparent on record, therefore, we recall the order dated 25.03.2019. Registry is directed to refix the case in due course of time.
These Miscellaneous Applications are hereby also allowed accordingly.
-
2020 (7) TMI 750 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Licit acquisition and possession of the exotic animals/birds - Issuance of direction to enable the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the officers of Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, to inquire from the 'declarants' under the newly introduced "Voluntary Disclosure Scheme" - HELD THAT:- Apparently, by introducing this "Voluntary Disclosure Scheme" the Central Government has given an option to all citizens to voluntarily declare their stock of exotic species named under the Appendices I, II and III of CITES, if any with them, within six months from the concerned date in June, 2020. The Scheme requires citizens to submit themselves to the provisions of the scheme and to thereafter maintain the statutory record as prescribed under the Scheme for any addition or reduction in declared stock of exotic species. This would enable the Government to have a unified information system available for stock of exotic species at the State/Central level. This would also enable the Central Government to introduce further provisions regulatory as well as penal, after giving this window of six months for voluntary disclosure by allowing immunities only to those, who opt to file their voluntary disclosure declaration within this six months window. Immunity is not provided to the declarants opting to disclose the stock after this limited window of six months.
After expiry of this six months' window, the Scheme clearly states that-". For any declaration made after 6 months of the date of issue of this advisory, the declarer shall be required to comply with the documentation requirement under the extant laws and regulations."
It is settled law that Government shall speak in same voice. The Central Government, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, through Wildlife Division has already introduced the "voluntary disclosure scheme" in wider public interest by announcing immunity for a limited window of six months to promote and invite voluntary disclosure declaration from all concerned. The scheme so introduced by the Central Government shall be promoted by all the departments in wider public interest. During this limited interregnum of six months, any inquiry or action against procession, breeding or transportation of exotic species within India by officers of any government agency or department, whether of Central or State, would be wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unsustainable and would defeat the purpose of the voluntary disclosure scheme. In this period of six months, whosoever declares the stock of exotic species and thereby submits himself to registration and further requirements of the scheme, shall have immunity from any inquiry into source of licit acquisition or possession of the voluntarily declared stock of exotic species - thus, dragging the declarant and chasing him for subjecting him to any penal or confiscatory measures under any enactment in connection with such timely and voluntarily declared stock of exotic species would be highly unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal, being contrary to legitimate expectation.
Thus, no such directions as sought by the petitioner can be issued - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 749 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking directions to restrain the 2nd petitioner from exercising powers of Managing Director of the company and to change the signatories of the bank accounts of the companies - seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to act as an interim Managing Director - Challenge on the ground that the running company is brought to a standstill by the action of the NCLT interdicting financial transactions till 7.8.2020, without any justification and without hearing the counsel appearing for the company and the Managing Director - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the company petitions nine in number were pending before the NCLT. In the impugned order itself, the NCLT refers to the prayers in the company petitions and post the matter for hearing of the I.A. to 7.8.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the proper course of action is to file an appeal before the NCLAT. It is submitted that such a course of action is presently rendered impossible due to the prevailing pandemic situation in the country and the petitioners are disabled from travelling to Delhi to prefer the appeal in view of the restrictions and the rising number of cases in the country.
Though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the writ petitions are not maintainable without the NCLT on the party array, in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases, especially in view of Ext.P6 request for adjournment made by the counsel for the petitioners before the NCLT, the passing of an order interdicting all financial transactions by running companies would create serious prejudice to the company. The technical objection raised that the NCLT is not made a party to these proceedings, according to me, should not stand in the way of the consideration of these writ petitions in the peculiar circumstances prevalent at present.
The petitioners should be permitted to carry out the dayto- day financial transactions as are necessary for the conduct of the companies - Petition ordered.
-
2020 (7) TMI 748 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of appeal before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) - the NCLAT has closed its functioning as one of its employees is suffering from Covid-19 - HELD THAT:- The doors of justice cannot be closed. Let NCLAT find out a way for online hearing in such a situation - the NCLAT is requested to start the hearing of the matter on interim stay, immediately on reopening.
SLP dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 747 - ITAT JAIPUR
Computation of capital gain - Disallowance of indexed cost of improvement claimed on sale of plot - computing the long term capital gain as against long term capital loss computed by the assessee - whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that agreement with contractor and his affidavit in respect of expenditure incurred on cost of improvement looks an afterthought story without any material & basis - HELD THAT:- The assessee owns a plot of land measuring 200 sq yards and a part of the said plot measuring 133.33 sq yards, has been sold during the year. On perusal of the sale deed so executed by the assessee, the description of the property sold is shown as residential plot no. 10 Plot No.10, Bajrang Nagar, Village- Cha Getor, Tehsil-Sanganer, District Jaipur and even the site plan attached with the sale deed depicts the plot of land and doesn’t show any constructed area thereon. At the same time, there is averment towards the end of the said sale deed that in the plot so sold, there is constructed area of 900 sq feet. We therefore find inconsistency in the sale deed so executed so far as the exact description of the property is concerned.
It unusual that construction of 900 sq feet as so claimed by the assessee has taken around eight months time to construct and thereafter, as soon as construction was completed, the assessee has sold the property in less than a month. If the intention of both the parties was to sell and purchase a constructed property, in such a scenario, the description of the property so stated in the sale deed should have been a constructed property instead of a plot of land. Further, what stops the assessee in submitting the affidavit of buyer and the photographs of the property in support of its claim rather than merely relying on a third party averments. Therefore, the third party averments can come to the aid of the assessee once it is proved that there was actual construction and then, in support of cost of construction, such averments may be examined along with proof of actual payment which again is absent in the instant case.
We are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to discharge the necessary onus placed on him in support of his claim of construction on the property at the time of sale and cost of construction as so claimed has therefore rightly been rejected by the lower authorities and the matter is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2020 (7) TMI 746 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - statutory remedy to file an appeal before the appellate authority available - Validity of assessment order - petitioner submits that the petitioner instead of filing an appeal, has approached this Court and as such, some delay has occurred - HELD THAT:- Once a statute provides for effective remedy, the High Court must refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to examine correctness of the assessment order by this Court.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal. If such appeal is filed in accordance with law within ten (10) days, the appellate authority may examine the same and pass appropriate order. As an interim measure, to enable the petitioner to file an appeal, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive step against the petitioner for a period of two weeks - Petition closed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 745 - ITAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- As learned counsel rightly contends, this appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable in view of the recent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The mandatory limit for cases in which Revenue can challenge the relief granted by the CIT(A) now stands enhanced to ₹ 50 lakhs. This concession granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is retrospective in effect inasmuch as it applies to all pending appeals as well. In view of the above position, the appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable and must be dismissed as such.
On re-verification at the end of the Assessing Officer it comes out that the tax effect of more than ₹ 50 lakhs is being involved in the appeal or the appeal falls within the exemption clause of the Circular, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application to recall the Tribunal order. The application should be filed within time limit prescribed in the Act.
-
2020 (7) TMI 744 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- This Bench has no doubt that the Corporate Debtor M/s. Katara Spinning Mills Limited had a total debt of ₹ 23.90 crores and also defaulted on OTS-2018 and OTS-2019 schemes - the Bench concludes that the nature of Debt is a “Financial Debt” as defined under section 5 (8) of the Code. It has also been established that there is a “Default” as defined under section 3 (12) of the Code on the part of the Debtor. The two essential requirements, i.e. existence of ‘debt’ and ‘default’, for admission of a petition under section 7 of the I&B Code, have been met in this case.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (7) TMI 743 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Continuation of proceedings after the end of the assessment year - section 29(6) of UP VAT Act - HELD THAT:- When the First Appeal was being heard and the applicant's case was that no proceeding against him could be continued as per section 29(6) of the Act, then a complete stay of the recovery ought to have been there.
Under such circumstances, it is being provided that while the First Appeal would be heard and decided within a period of four months from the date of presentation of this order, the disputed demand as was being made by the Department shall remain stayed for a period of four months or till the disposal of the First Appeal, whichever is earlier.
Revision disposed off.
-
2020 (7) TMI 742 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of claim of set-off of “B/f unabsorbed Short Term Capital Loss against the current year’s income from Short Term Capital Gain - claim of the assessee is not tenable in view of the fact that in his statement recorded u/s 132(4), the assessee has not claimed the adjustment of brought forward loss on account of the short term capital gain declared - whether or not, the brought forward short term capital loss which has been duly allowed by the department in the earlier years is eligible to be set off against the short term capital gains of the current year declared by the assessee ? - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has filed the computation of income correctly. The computation filed is as per the scheme of computation provided in the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Section 74 clearly provides for set off of short term capital losses which can be allowed to be carried forward and set off against income, if any, under the head “capital gains” assessable for the assessment year in respect of any other capital asset.
The statute confers carry forward and set off of losses hence the same cannot be denied in the absence of any specific provisions or conditions laid down in the same statute to disallow such benefits. It is a fact on record that the short term capital loss which has been incurred in the assessment year 2007-08 and the same has been allowed by the revenue to be carried forward till the assessment year 2010-11, hence, the same cannot be disallowed to be set off against the short term capital gain earned by the assessee during the assessment year 2011-12. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 741 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Imposition of a pre-deposit in appellate proceedings before the DRAT - Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT:- Upon examining Section 18(1), it is found that the first proviso indicates that different fees would be prescribed for filing of appeals by borrowers and by persons other than borrowers. This proviso has been inserted because an appeal under Section 18 may be filed by any aggrieved person. By way of illustration, a lessee, a person, other than the borrower, claiming title over the mortgaged/charged property, or any any other person affected by the measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act could be an aggrieved person. Thus, such aggrieved persons are not always borrowers. Consequently, the second proviso regarding pre-deposit applies only when the appellant is a borrower.
The word “borrower” is defined in such a manner as to include a guarantor. This stands to reason inasmuch as a guarantor's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, a borrower is required to pre-deposit 50% of the amount of the debt due from him either as claimed by the secured creditor or as determined by the DRT, whichever is less. The third proviso empowers the DRAT to reduce the pre-deposit to an amount not less than 25% of the debt for reasons to be recorded in writing.
The pre-deposit provision (the second and third proviso) in Section 18 is applicable only to borrowers, as defined in the SARFAESI Act. In addition, the DRAT is vested with the discretion to reduce such pre-deposit to not less than 25% of the debt. Hence, the provision cannot be said to be arbitrary, onerous or unreasonable. Mr. Subramaniyan had also contended that his appeal before the DRAT was in respect of the dismissal of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the order of the DRT should not be construed as an order under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act - Once the Section 5 application is rejected, it is tantamount to a rejection by the DRT of the Section 17 application and a refusal to interfere with the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4).
Thereafter, the only statutory recourse available to the borrower is to appeal under Section 18 to the DRAT, which functions as an appellate forum and not as a court of first instance - there are no reason to strike or even read down Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act and the second proviso thereto - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 740 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - election of the present Appellant, namely, Shri Arjun Panditrao Khotkar to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly for the term commencing November, 2014 - presentation of the nomination papers - entirety of the case before the High Court had revolved around four sets of nomination papers that had been filed by the RC. It was the case of the present Respondents that each set of nomination papers suffered from defects of a substantial nature and that, therefore, all four sets of nomination papers, having been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer of the Election Commission, one Smt. Mutha, (RO), the election of the RC be declared void.
HELD THAT:- The major jurisdictions of the world have come to terms with the change of times and the development of technology and fine-tuned their legislations. Therefore, it is the need of the hour that there is a relook at Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, introduced 20 years ago, by Act 21 of 2000, and which has created a huge judicial turmoil, with the law swinging from one extreme to the other in the past 15 years from STATE (NCT. OF DELHI) VERSUS NAVJOT SANDHU @ AFSAN GURU [2005 (8) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT] to ANVAR P.V VERSUS P.K. BASHEER AND OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 1007 - SUPREME COURT] to Tomaso Bruno [2015 (1) TMI 1307 - SUPREME COURT] to SONU @ AMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [2017 (7) TMI 1366 - SUPREME COURT] to Shafhi Mohammad [2018 (1) TMI 1402 - SUPREME COURT].
Appeals dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 739 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Playing Cards - legal or not - case of the prosecution is that the complainant, on his rounds along with two other Constables on 05.06.2020, around 06.30 pm, near Kaduthula Junction, found the petitioner and four others playing cards near a thorny bush and therefore, he arrested the accused, recovered the cards and money and registered the case for the offence under Section 12 of the Act - HELD THAT:- Though the issue in the present case on hand is pertaining to playing of cards in a private place, since in the status report filed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police on behalf of the Director General of Police, it has been stated that at present, there is no rule to regulate and license such online skill games, based on a query posed by this Court while admitting this petition, this Court is inclined to discuss the issue in detail - The gaming industry in India is undergoing a dramatic transition, not only in terms of its audience, but also in terms of the modes of participation and engagement. Gambling Laws in India prohibit betting or wagering and any act which is intended to aid or facilitate the same. For the purpose of regulating gaming in India, most of the Indian legislations differentiate between “games of skill” and “games of chance”. Gaming / Gambling, being a State Subject, India has laws which differ from State to State. Therefore, what is permitted in one State, may be an offence in another.
When the menace of lottery was at its peak, sucking the blood and life of several families, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 2003, has taken a rigid stand, with an iron hand and banned the sale of all lotteries, including online, within the territory of the State, by passing the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.20 Home (Courts II) Department dated 08.01.2003. This Government Order, though challenged before the Courts of law, still holds the field. By virtue of this order, the Government has thus prevented the suicidal deaths, who have not only lost their hard earned money but also their family peace and reputation, in the State - Similarly, when the menace of charging exorbitant interest, by way of 'daily vatti', 'hourly vatti', 'kandhu vatti', 'meter vatti', 'vattiku vatti', was in its prime, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in the year 2003, has enacted Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, thereby, wiped the tears of the affected people at large.
This Court hopes and trusts that this Government shall take note of the present alarming situation and pass suitable legislation, thereby, regulating and controlling such online gaming through license, of course, keeping in mind the law of the land as well as the judicial precedents in this regard. This Court is not against the virtual games, but, the anguish of this Court is that there should be a regulatory body to monitor and regulate the legal gaming activities, be it in the real world or the virtual world. Needless to say that if the Government intends to pass a legislation in this regard, all the stakeholders should be put in notice and their views should be ascertained - Since this Court is exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the above suggestions, this Court refrains from observing any further, leaving it to the Government.
Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 738 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - non-production of various documents - HELD THAT:- Ms. Dhanamadhiri was directed to produce the records to establish service of notice upon the petitioner prior to completion of assessment - while confirming that she is unable to produce the records, since the assessment files are in Tiruppur, she states, on instructions, that the notices do not appear to have been sent by Registered Post/Speed Post, but only via ordinary post. She would thus fairly state that another opportunity of hearing may be extended to the petitioner to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice.
The respondent is directed to redo the assessment and complete the same on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (7) TMI 737 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery of arrears of GST due - assessment year 2018-2019 (November 2018 to March 2019) - HELD THAT:- The petitioner, who is an assessee under the GST Act, is not disputing his liability to tax, or the quantum thereof, for the period in question. It only seeks an instalment facility to pay the admitted tax, together with interest thereon, in view of the financial difficulties faced by it during the Covid pandemic situation, when its business has come to a total standstill.
During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has established its bonafides by effecting a payment of ₹ 4 lakhs towards the tax liability for the period 2018-2019. It is also relevant to note that, as of today, there is no demand against the petitioner for the unpaid tax amount. Under the circumstances, since the petitioner is not disputing his liability, and wishes to put a quietus to the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent to accept the belated return filed by the petitioner for the period November 2018 to March 2019, without insisting on payment of the admitted tax declared therein - The respondents shall adjust the amount of ₹ 4 Lakhs paid by the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition, towards the admitted tax liability, and thereafter permit him to discharge the balance tax liability, inclusive of any interest and late fee thereon, in equal successive monthly instalments commencing from 25th August 2020 and culminating on 25th March, 2021.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
