|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1080 Records
-
2021 (5) TMI 1000
Waiver of demurrage and detention charges on the goods - one time relaxation, as per Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is pending with the first respondent on the entitlement of the petitioner for one time relaxation, as per Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 and the order passed by this Court in M/S. DIAMOND NUTS, VERSUS THE PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER (E) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GROUP I) TUTICORIN, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [2021 (6) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], directing to the first respondent to fumigate the goods through an accredited treatment provider, by providing one time relaxation to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003, this writ petition is closed at present, with liberty to the petitioner to renew this application, pursuant to the orders of the first respondent in M/S. DIAMOND NUTS.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 999
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - jurisdiction of proceedings initiated against the petitioner - heavy cost for the harassment caused to petitioner -HELD THAT:- This court notices that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in 2017 which was originally placed before the Division Bench wherein the order in RAMESHWAR SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2017 (9) TMI 1953 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] was passed on 20.09.2017.
The prayer clause of the writ petition shows that the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the order which his bank account was free zed and secondly he has also prayed to declare the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as without jurisdiction and ultra wires of the Act of 2002 - While passing the order on 20.09.2017, the Division Bench noticed that the saving account had already been seized and so far as apprehension of coercive steps are concerned the petitioner was left free to move appropriate application subsequently.
The preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding maintainability of the second stay application that it goes beyond the scope of the writ petition, is found to be without basis. The petitioner has by way of the second stay application prayed in the proceedings which have now been initiated from the proceedings arising out if the ECSI case No.2040 for which the writ petition is pending before this Court, in view thereof, this Court would not oust the petitioner’s second stay application - With regard to the new submission of learned Additional Solicitor General with regard to the two parallel remedies this court finds that presenting oneself before the Adjudicating Authority which is department itself, cannot be said to be an alternate remedy available to an individual.
The contention of learned ASG is that the respondents have no knowledge about the contents of the case filed by Anil Kumar Gadodia or of the order passed by the Supreme Court way back on 06.05.2021 cannot be accepted to be correct and truthful - Since the petitioner as well as Anil Kumar Gadodia are commonly arrayed as defendants in the complaint filed under Section 5 (5)of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. I would respectfully follow the order passed by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gadodia’s case and restrain the respondent/s from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner in the meanwhile as directed by the Supreme Court.
The writ petition of Anil Kumar Gadodia has been directed to be listed before the Supreme Court on 19.07.2021, list this case thereafter on 26.07.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 998
Seeking leave to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2021 (5) TMI 997
Suspension of petitioner who was serving as Assistant Registrar in Tamil Nadu Medical Council - failure to produce basic qualification certificate - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that due to current Covid-19 situation and the other difficulties expressed by the petitioner herein in getting his S.S.L.C certificate from the 3 rd respondent, the last date to submit his written submission has to be extended so as to give him fair opportunity to defend his case. At the same time, the document which are sought by the petitioner herein vide letter dated 12.04.2021, whether it is relevant or not, it is for the delinquent to decide and not the management. Therefore, whatever documents sought by the petitioner has to be permitted for perusal by the petitioner, provided it is available with the 1 st respondent.
The time fixed by the 2 nd respondent/Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council under impugned communication dated 19.05.2021 is extended upto 30.06.2021.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 996
Recovery of amount without of issuance of SCN - Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable within eight weeks - In the meanwhile, the goods lying with the respondent/s shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee.
List this case again in fourth week of July, 2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 995
Exemption u/s 11 - Registration application made u/s 12AA denied on the ground of non-submission of certain details - Denial of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On one hand the assessee contends that the provisions of principles of natural justices were not followed by the Department and the opportunity of hearing was not properly accorded to the assessee in this case and on the other hand, the facts demonstrate as from the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) that he could not arrive at proper satisfaction as regards the genuineness of the activities of the trust since the relevant details as called for by the Ld. CIT (Exemption) were not uploaded in the ITBA portal by the assessee.
The provision of section 12AA of the Act mandates that the satisfaction has to be arrived at by the Ld. CIT (Exemption) before granting any registration under the said provisions. The satisfaction can only be arrived at once all the relevant details are placed before him - one more opportunity should be given to the assessee and accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) and restore the matter back to his file for re-adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (5) TMI 994
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - HELD THAT:- Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks time to get instructions from the Petitioner in that regard.
Post the matter along with W.P. No. 2723 of 2021 on 12.05.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 993
Addition being the amount of PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) - Delayed employees contribution of PF and ESI - as per assessee amount remitted to the concerned accounts before the due date of filing the return of income - HELD THAT:- As decided in ELICO LIMITED case [2020 (11) TMI 698 - ITAT HYDERABAD] no disallowance could be made in respect of employees contribution of PF and ESI if the same are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 992
Reversal of locking the Input Tax Credit - operation of the appellate order, by which reversal is made - submission is that the Revisional Authority has passed the order impugned without application of mind, merely paraphrasing the words of the statute with no reference to the facts of the case, or other material on record to reach his conclusion in favour of passing an interim order of stay - violation of principles of natural justice.
HELD THAT:- The State shall clarify in its instruction the aforesaid fallacy urged on behalf of the petitioner.
Lay this matter as fresh again on 20.05.2021 before the appropriate Bench.
-
2021 (5) TMI 991
Waiver of demand notice - glitches in the operation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as submitted by petitioner - request for hearing or the detailed reply rejected - HELD THAT:- As ordered Pending hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the operation of the assessment order passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Act dated 23rd April 2021 and the notice of demand in Form No. 156 dated 23rd April 2021 as well as the show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A and 271AAC of the Act dated 23rd April 2021 are stayed.
Respondents to file their reply on or before 18th June 2021, with copy to the other side.Rejoinder, if any, to file on or before 25th June 2021, with copy to other side.
List the matter to 30th June 2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 990
Waiver of demand notice - glitches in the operation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as submitted by petitioner - request for hearing or the detailed reply rejected - SCN as why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order - Petitioner responded to the same and sought opportunity of hearing and requested for adjournment in order to respond to the draft assessment order due to lock-down - despite that order of assessment notice of demand has been raised - HELD THAT:- Ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted till the next date, which reads thus :-
“b. pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, implementation and operation of the impugned order and the Notice of Demand (Exhibits: “A” and “B” hereto) and this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order and/or the Notice of Demand;” - Stand over to 21/06/2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 989
TP Adjustment - arm’s length price ‘ALP’ adjustment of ₹ 1,20,78,616/- qua interest on receivables involving its overseas Associated Enterprise ‘AEs’ - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the instant argument since such a short term deposit cannot be taken at par with an international transaction u/s.92B of the Act since the latter involves foreign currency and overseas market conditions. In addition to this, learned lower authorities have also not adopted any comparable in the very segment as well so as to come to the conclusion that the assessee’s receivables in case of overseas AEs involved more than the market practice of reasonable time period. We keep in mind all these clinching aspects and direct the TPO to delete the impugned ALP adjustment in issue. The assessee’s former substantive ground stands accepted in the above terms
Addition u/s 43B - disallowance pertaining to employees provident fund - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that learned lower authorities held that the same had to be deposited before the due date prescribed in the corresponding statute than the due date for filing Section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case in tune thereof relies on Section 36(va) read with explanation thereto that it is not Section 43B but the former provision which is applicable in such an instance.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing stand. We take note of the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in both Section 36(va) as well as Section 43B by inserting corresponding Explanations that although the impugned employees provident fund comes under the former provision only, the same is applicable from 01-04-2021 onwards. Meaning thereby that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04-2021. We thus delete the impugned employees provident fund disallowance for this precise reason alone. Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 988
Seeking deferment of collection of school fees including reduction of fees - violation of Fundamental rights - violative of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or not - whether the impugned enactment stands the test of reasonableness and rationality and balances the right of the educational institutions (private unaided schools) guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in the matter of determination of school fees? - HELD THAT:- The Act of 2016 has been enacted by the State legislature. It was enacted as it was noticed that the earlier enactment on the selfsame subject did not include provision of appeal against the orders of fee determination by the Fee Determination Committee. It was also noticed that there are large number of private schools (approximately 34,000) and a single fee determination committee cannot determine the fee of such schools in a proper manner in time. For that reason, the Act of 2016 came into being to provide for regulation of collection of fees by schools in the State of Rajasthan and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. It extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan and applies to both aided and unaided schools.
The appellants having failed to substantiate the challenge to the validity of the relevant provisions of the Act of 2016, must also fail with regard to the challenge to Rules 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 of the Rules of 2017.
The fee structure determined by the school Management can be altered by the Adjudicatory Authorities only upon recording a negative finding on the factum of amount claimed towards school fees relating to particular activities is an essential expenditure or otherwise; and that the fee would be in excess of reasonable profit being ploughed back for the development of the institution or otherwise. The recovery of excess amount beyond permissible limit would result in profiteering and commercialisation. In our opinion, therefore, even Rule 11 is a relevant and reasonable provision and does not impact or abridge the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
An uniform direction of deduction of 15 per cent of the annual school fees in lieu of unutilised facilities/activities and not on the basis of actual data schoolwise, is granted.
The conclusion of the High Cour is upheld, in rejecting the challenge to the validity of the impugned Act of 2016 and Rules framed thereunder. However, we do so by reading down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act in the manner indicated in paragraphs 28; 37/38 and 42 respectively of this judgment. These provisions as interpreted be given effect to, henceforth, in conformity with the law declared in this judgment.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 987
Seeking release of prisoners on interim bail/parole based upon the situation in the concerned State - prevailing COVID-19 situation - seeking direction to State Legal Service Authorities to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures of National Legal Service Authorities on the functioning of the Undertrial Review Committees - seeking direction to High Powered Committees/ High Courts to identify and release the vulnerable categories of prisoners on an urgent basis - seeking direction to DG Prisons to publish the prisonwise occupancy rates of UTPs/ Convicts/Detenues on their website monthly - seeking direction to High Powered Committees / monitoring teams to prioritise healthcare in prisons and scrutinise the prisonspecific readiness and response plans as directed by this Hon'ble Court - seeking direction to State Governments/ Union Territories to undertake a vaccination drive in the prisons across their respective States/ Union Territories.
HELD THAT:- This Court, being the sentinel on the qui vive of the fundamental rights, needs to strictly control and limit the authorities from arresting accused in contravention of guidelines laid down by this Court in ARNESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR [2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] - the rapid proliferation of the virus amongst the inmates of congested prisons is a matter of serious concern. The High Powered Committees constituted by the State Governments/Union Territories shall consider release of prisoners by adopting the guidelines (such as inter alia, SOP laid down by NALSA) followed by them last year, at the earliest. Such of those States which have not constituted High Powered Committees last year are directed to do so immediately. Commissioner of Police Delhi shall also be a member of the High Powered Committee, Delhi.
Due to the immediate concern of the raging pandemic, this court has to address the issue of decongestion - the High Powered Committee, in addition to considering fresh release, should forthwith release all the inmates who had been released earlier pursuant to our order 23.03.2020, by imposing appropriate conditions. Such an exercise is mandated in order to save valuable time.
It is directed that those inmates who were granted parole, pursuant to our earlier orders, should be again granted a parole for a period of 90 days in order to tide over the pandemic - lastly, the fight against the pandemic is greatly benefitted by transparent administration. In this regard, our attention was drawn to example of Delhi, wherein the prison occupancy is updated in websites. Such measures are required to be considered by other States and should be adopted as good practice.
Overcrowding of prisons is a phenomenon, plaguing several countries including India. Some prisoners might not be willing to be released in view of their social background and the fear of becoming victims of the deadly virus. In such extraordinary cases, the authorities are directed to be considerate to the concerns of the inmates. The authorities are directed to ensure that proper medical facilities are provided to all prisoners who are imprisoned. The spread of Covid19 virus should be controlled in the prisons by regular testing being done of the prisoners but also the jail staff and immediate treatment should be made available to the inmates and the staff. It is necessary to maintain levels of daily hygiene and sanitation required to be improved. Suitable precautions shall be taken to prevent the transmission of the deadly virus amongst the inmates of prisons.
Appropriate steps shall be taken for transportation of the released inmates of the prisons, if necessary, in view of the curfews and lockdown in some States.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 986
Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and they seek time to file counter-affidavit to the present petition - Let needful be done within four weeks with advance copy to the other side. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Renotify on 16.08.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 985
There is neither an appearance on behalf of the respondents, nor have the respondents filed a counter-affidavit - Counter-affidavit, if any, will be filed within the next five weeks, albeit, subject to payment of cost.
Proof of cost will be placed on record - List the matter on 25.08.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 984
Faceless assessment u/s 144B - No personal hearing provided - Whether any standards, procedures and processes have been framed by revenue in terms of sub-clause (h) of clause (xii) of Section 144B(7)? - HELD THAT:- Since the statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the respondents/revenue cannot veer away from the same. See RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION (UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION OF AMITY GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS) [2021 (6) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
We are of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order, dated 23.04.2021, as also the consequential notices, issued under Section 156 and 270A of the Act, are set aside.
Liberty is, however, given to the respondents/revenue to proceed from the stage of the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order.
Respondent/revenue will grant a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. The concerned officer will conduct the hearing via video-conferencing mechanism. For this purpose, prior notice, indicating the date and time, will be served on the petitioner, through its registered e-mail. Respondent/revenue will, after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner, pass a fresh order, albeit, as per law.
-
2021 (5) TMI 983
Petitioner awes certain amount to the Government of India on account of settlement of certain dispute which was resolved under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - petitioner approached the authorities for allowing him to pay the due amounts in instalments, which, however, did not elicit any positive response from the authorities - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that it may not necessary to dwell on the aggregate amount the petitioner is supposed to pay, except the amount which the petitioner has admitted and willing to pay in this petition. As regards other liabilities, if any, it is a matter to be considered by the authorities on its own merit in accordance with law. However, as far as the amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- is concerned which is the subject matter of consideration in this petition, the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid admitted amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- within 45 days from today. As regards the dues mentioned by Mr. Keyal, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for payment and in instalments, if the authorities agree.
It is made clear that till payment of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- within the aforesaid 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as regards the said amount.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 982
Validity of order of Magistrate in which he has ordered for police investigation after taking cognizance - it is alleged that the Magistrate had the power to call for police investigation, but he had previously not taken cognizance of the offences - prime contention of the petitioner is that the Magistrate having previously taken cognizance of the offences, cannot revert to calling for police investigation - Non-payment of GST - HELD THAT:- The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences disclosed in the complaint. His action of perusal of the case record which led to his decision to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. at a later date clearly establishes application of mind on his part onthe allegations made in the complaint and which led to his making up his mind about the requirement of carrying out examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Had the Magistrate perused the case records and was of the opinion that before deciding to take cognizance of the offence it was necessary to call for the police investigation, it was open for him to do so - The very fact that after perusal of the case record he was persuaded that there is a requirement of examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, would establish that he had already taken cognizance of the offence. It is well settled that the stage of examination of witness under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. would not arise before taking cognizance by the Magistrate. Thus, these two twin facts namely, the perusal of the case record by the Magistrate and the decision that he arrived on upon perusal of the case records of examining the witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. would leave no manner of doubt that on 27.11.2020 itself he had taken cognizance of the offences. It was thereafter not open for him to change the course and revert back to the initial option of requiring police investigation and calling for police report. - Unfortunately, on 02.01.2021 this is precisely what he did.
In the said order, he has recorded that after hearing the learned P.P. and after perusal of the complaint, he was of the opinion that before taking cognizance, the matter may be investigated by the police. In the process, the learned Magistrate lost sight of the fact that the stage of taking cognizance had already been crossed on 27.11.2020 itself.
This does not put an end to the complaint lodged before the concerned Magistrate, who shall proceed further in accordance with the law from the stage of taking cognizance of the offences disclosed - the impugned order dated 02.01.2021 is quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 981
Money Laundering - freezing of petitioner’s bank account - It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned order had been passed without providing it with a copy of the show-cause notice or an opportunity to place on record its objections thereto - HELD THAT:- In order to avoid any further controversy in this matter, it would be in the interest of justice to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the Show-Cause Notice.
The petitioner is granted 10 days’ time to respond to the Show-Cause Notice dated 08.10.2020. The Adjudicating Authority will thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after duly considering the petitioner’s response to the show cause notice - Petition allowed.
........
|
