|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1244 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1025
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of quashing the assessment due to non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2).
2. Applicability of the limitation period for notice u/s 143(2) in returns filed in response to notice u/s 148.
3. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer (AO) to present views during appellate proceedings.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of Quashing the Assessment Due to Non-Issuance of Notice u/s 143(2)
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment on the grounds that the AO did not issue a mandatory notice u/s 143(2) before completing the assessment. The CIT(A) found that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued, which is mandatory for assuming jurisdiction. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hotel Blue Moon, which stated that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory and not merely procedural. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessment was void ab initio due to the lack of proper jurisdiction.
Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation Period for Notice u/s 143(2) in Returns Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148
The Revenue argued that the limitation period for issuing a notice u/s 143(2) does not apply to returns filed in response to a notice u/s 148. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the requirement of issuing a notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148. The CIT(A) cited various judicial decisions, including those of the Madras High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for reassessment proceedings.
Issue 3: Opportunity for the AO to Present Views During Appellate Proceedings
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) quashed the assessment without giving the AO an opportunity to present his views during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had called for the records of the AO and found that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a jurisdictional requirement, and its absence renders the assessment proceedings void. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice u/s 143(2), which is a jurisdictional requirement. The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory for reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 and that its absence renders the assessment void ab initio. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was set aside to the file of the AO to issue a notice u/s 143(2) and proceed in accordance with the law.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1024
Whether the owners of jenmom lands in the Malabar area 1 are the proprietors of the soil and the minerals underneath the soil - In Present case, a `jenmi '2 holds jenmom 3 lands as absolute owner and has proprietary rights over both the soil and subsoil. The ryotwari settlement made by the British Government in the Malabar area of the erstwhile Madras Province only obligated the jenmis to pay revenue to the State but did not in any way affect their proprietary rights in the lands. Nor did the ryotwari settlement have the effect of transferring and vesting the ownership either of the land or the subsoil (minerals) to the State. In support of this submission, the appellants heavily relied on a judgment of this Court in BALMADIES PLANTATIONS LTD. & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1972 (4) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT] and also a standing order of the Board of Revenue of the erstwhile Madras
HELD THAT:- there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth sub- soil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership of sub- soil / mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process. In the instant appeals, no such deprivation is brought to our notice and therefore we hold that the appellants are the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in their lands. We make it clear that we are not making any declaration regarding their liability to pay royalty to the State as that issue stands referred to a larger Bench.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1023
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) by Ld. CIT(A) for non-compliance with notice u/s 143(2)/142(1).
Summary:
The assessee appealed against the penalty imposed by the assessing officer u/s 271(1)(b), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings due to non-compliance with a notice u/s 143(2)/142(1). The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) was levied, and this decision was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee, being aggrieved, appealed before the Appellate Tribunal.
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel referred to a previous Tribunal order in the case of Kamdhenu Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT, where it was held that non-compliance is deemed waived if the assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144. As the assessment order in the present case was passed u/s 143(3), following the precedent, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(b) was deleted.
Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, and the order was pronounced in open court on the mentioned date.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1022
Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order u/s 143(3) for disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Facts: The assessee, a non-banking finance company, earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 13,89,40,620 for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee disallowed Rs. 9,00,907 for earning the exempt income. The Assessing Officer calculated disallowance u/r 8D at Rs. 1,22,90,682. Additional disallowance of Rs. 15,11,000 was made due to the huge fund managed by the assessee.
Decision: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) excluded depreciation from disallowance, providing relief of Rs. 7,22,000. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, stating that once rule 8D is found excessive, the expenditure claimed in the Profit & Loss account must be examined for disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, considering the substantial exempt income earned by the assessee from fund deployment.
Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1021
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A)-LTU, Bangalore for the assessment year 2008-09 regarding deletion of additions under sundry creditors and annulment of assessment order due to late notice u/s 143(2).
Deletion of additions under sundry creditors:
The appeal by Revenue and cross-objection by assessee were directed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions of Rs. 28,95,779 under sundry creditors for the assessment year 2008-09. The CIT(A) found that the increase in trade creditors was due to business growth, with confirmatory letters provided for major creditors. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiries and added the entire sum without proper reasoning. The CIT(A) upheld the deletion, emphasizing the need for speaking orders and application of mind. The Tribunal agreed, noting that all credits were trade credits, not cash, and confirmed trade creditors were provided for most of the amount. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Annulment of assessment order due to late notice u/s 143(2):
The cross-objection by the assessee sought to annul the assessment order due to a notice u/s 143(2) being issued beyond the stipulated period. However, since the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the cross-objection was deemed superfluous and dismissed as infructuous. Ultimately, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1020
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Confirmation of the penalty by the CIT(A).
3. Alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
4. Assessment of the existence of liabilities u/s 41(1) of the Act.
Summary:
1. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue in the appeal was the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income. The AO had added Rs. 1,05,79,672 to the total income of the assessee, treating the liabilities shown as ceased to exist u/s 41(1) of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee failed to provide confirmations from creditors, and the enquiry letters sent to the creditors returned unserved.
2. Confirmation of the penalty by the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, holding that the assessee had intentionally concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of liabilities as required under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) concluded that the claim made in the return of income was incorrect or false, resulting in concealment of income.
3. Alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not file any supporting evidence regarding the liabilities and failed to provide current addresses of the creditors. The Tribunal noted that the liabilities were not genuine and had ceased to exist. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and rejected the assessee's alternate plea that the addition should be made in the earlier year.
4. Assessment of the existence of liabilities u/s 41(1) of the Act:
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the existence of liabilities, and the AO's investigation revealed that the liabilities were non-existent. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving the genuineness of liabilities lies with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income, justifying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a non-bona fide claim and failed to substantiate the existence of liabilities, thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1019
Addition under Section 68 - Held that:- We find that the confirmation filed during the appellate proceedings was not accepted by the CIT(A) for the reason that the confirmation did not contain the complete address of the party, although it contained the PAN number of the lender. We are of the view in the interest of justice one more opportunity be granted to the Assessee to furnish the necessary evidence with respect to the receipts of loans. We therefore, remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer and direct him to verify the evidence submitted by the Assessee and thereafter decide the issue
Unaccounted investment in land - Held that:- Remit the issue to the file of Assessing Officer and direct him to furnish the copy of the statement recorded of Shri Intwala and also allow the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Intwala. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter pass the necessary orders as per law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1018
Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement including Melas & Tamashas - dance bars - High Court declared that Sections 33A and 33B of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 are ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - held by the High Court that dance performed by the bar dancers can not fall within the term “freedom of speech and expression” as the activities of the dancers are mainly to earn their livelihood by engaging in a trade or occupation -
Held that:- We do not agree with the submission of Mr. Subramanium that the impugned enactment is a form of additional regulation, as it was felt that the existing system of licence and permits were insufficient to deal with problem of ever increasing dance bars. We also do not agree with the submissions that whereas exempted establishments are held to standards higher than those prescribed; the eating houses, permit rooms and dance bars operate beyond/below the control of the regulations. Another justification given is that though it may be possible to regulate these permit rooms and dance bars which are located within Mumbai, it would not be possible to regulate such establishments in the semi-urban and rural parts of the Maharashtra. If that is so, it is a sad reflection on the efficiency of the Licensing/Regulatory Authorities in implementing the legislation. 120. The end result of the prohibition of any form of dancing in the establishments covered under Section 33A leads to the only conclusion that these establishments have to shut down. This is evident from the fact that since 2005, most if not all the dance bar establishments have literally closed down. This has led to the unemployment of over 75,000 women workers. It has been brought on the record that many of them have been compelled to take up prostitution out of necessity for maintenance of their families.
In our opinion, the impugned legislation has proved to be totally counter productive and cannot be sustained being ultra vires Article 19(1)(g).
We are also not able to agree with the submission of Mr. Subramanium that the impugned legislation can still be protected by reading down the provision. Undoubtedly, this Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) (2008 (2) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT) upon taking notice of the previous precedents has held that the legislature must be given freedom to do experimentations in exercising its powers, provided it does not clearly and flagrantly violate its constitutional limits, these observations are of no avail to the appellants in view of the opinion expressed by us earlier. It is not possible to read down the expression “any kind or type” of dance by any person to mean dances which are obscene and derogatory to the dignity of women. Such reading down cannot be permitted so long as any kind of dance is permitted in establishments covered under Section 33B.
We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Subramanium that the provisions contained in Section 33A can be declared constitutional by applying the doctrine of severability. Even if Section 33B is declared unconstitutional, it would still retain the provision contained in Section 33A which prohibits any kind of dance by any person in the establishments covered under Section 33A.
In the present case, the restrictions in the nature of prohibition cannot be said to be reasonable, inasmuch as there could be several lesser alternatives available which would have been adequate to ensure safety of women than to completely prohibit dance. In fact, a large number of imaginative alternative steps could be taken instead of completely prohibiting dancing, if the real concern of the State is the safety of women.
Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the conclusions reached by the High Court.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1017
Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are whether the transactions attracting provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are genuine and whether penalty under section 271D can be imposed based on journal entries without actual receipt of cash loan.
Issue 1 - Section 269SS of the Act:
The Assessing Officer treated a cash loan received by the assessee from M/s. Lahari Green Park as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition under section 68 after observing that the cash loan was taken by the assessee from M/s. Lahari Green Park based on receipts and payments statement. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under section 271D were initiated by the Assessing Officer due to alleged contravention of section 269SS. The assessee contended that no cash loan was received and the additions were made solely on the basis of journal entries. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether the cash loan was actually received or if there were only journal entries, citing a previous ITAT order in the assessee's favor for a different assessment year.
Issue 2 - Penalty under section 271D:
The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271D on the assessee for an amount equal to the alleged cash loan received, despite the assessee's explanation that no cash loan was actually received. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty if it was found that no cash loan was actually received and there were only journal entries, in line with the ITAT's previous decision. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s direction, stating that no penalty can be imposed under section 271D based solely on journal entries without actual receipt of cash loan, as required by section 269SS.
In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the department's appeal, emphasizing that penalty under section 271D cannot be imposed without actual receipt of cash loan, as per the provisions of section 269SS.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1016
Time limit for claiming exemption u/()s 54 - Due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) - Held that the assessee can file return before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year - due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) is subject to the extended period provided u/s 139(4) - claim u/s 54 is allowed - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (7) TMI 1015
Valuation - determination of assessable value of the said metering units and suction units cleared by the appellant to their Bombay unit - difference of opinion - majority order.
Held that:- In view of the majority order demand of duty within the period of limitation is upheld, which is required to be quantified by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The interest liability would be examined by the Original Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law. However, the demand beyond the period of limitation is set aside along with setting aside of penalties imposed upon all the appellants.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1014
Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the deduction of bad debts claimed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09, specifically regarding the treatment of bad debts written off and provision for doubtful debts in the profit and loss account.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The AO contended that the assessee should have filed a revised return to increase the claim of bad debts written off, as per the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s CIT. Since no revised return was filed, the AO did not accept the increased claim. The assessee appealed before the First Appellate Authority.
2. The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and referred to a decision of the Third Member of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT v/s Hero Honda Finlease Ltd. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to allow the appellant to go into any ground of appeal not specified in the grounds of appeal if he is satisfied that the omission was not willful and unreasonable. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of bad debts written off by the assessee.
3. The facts of the case were found to be similar to the above-mentioned decision, and the CIT(A) allowed the claim of bad debts amount actually written off by the assessee. The department appealed before the Tribunal.
4. During the hearing, it was noted that the assessee had actually written off bad debts amounting to &8377; 1,87,70,011, and provisions made in the earlier year were disallowed. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) based on the decision in T.R.F. Ltd. v/s CIT, stating that it is enough if bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee to satisfy the conditions of the Income-tax Act.
5. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) to allow the deduction of bad debts claimed by the assessee.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed, and the order was pronounced after hearing the representatives of the parties on 26th July 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1013
AO estimated net profit at 12.5% of the gross contract receipts, rejecting books of accounts - Assessee being a subcontractor, lower rate should be applicable - HELD THAT - Assessee being a sub-contractor, its income should have been estimated at 5% on the subcontract receipts and the assessee is not entitled for any deduction towards depreciation.
Decision in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1012
Issues involved: Appeal against addition of speculation loss by AO and its deletion by CIT(A); Validity of sustaining the reopening of assessment by CIT(A).
Issue 1: Addition of Speculation Loss
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,95,13,114/- made by the AO on account of speculation loss. The AO found discrepancies in the opening stock of shares for the year under consideration, leading to the computation of speculation loss. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition citing the assessee's correct bifurcation of opening stock between shares and mutual funds, in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's treatment of income from mutual funds and shares as per the Supreme Court's decision was justified, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Issue 2: Validity of Reopening of Assessment
The assessee challenged the validity of sustaining the reopening of the assessment by the CIT(A). The reassessment was done on three grounds, including the turnover of Mumbai unit, opening stock of shares, and expenses allocated to speculation income. The Tribunal observed that except for the expenses allocated to speculative business, the assessee had been redressed for the issues arising from the reassessment. Regarding the expenses, the assessee had admitted the oversight during reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal deemed further adjudication on this ground as purely academic and unnecessary. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals, upholding the decisions made.
Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai heard cross-appeals by the Revenue and the Assessee against the CIT(A)'s order for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue's appeal regarding the addition of speculation loss was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld based on the correct bifurcation of opening stock by the assessee. The assessee's challenge against the reopening of assessment was also dismissed, except for a minor issue regarding expenses, which was deemed academic. Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1011
Maintainability of petition - efficacious alternative remedy of appeal - principles of Natiural Justice denied - Held that:- There has been violation of principles of natural justice and in such case alternative remedy is no bar. The order dated 20th December, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs is, therefore, set aside.
The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication - application disposed off.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1010
Issues involved: Implementation of directions of Division Bench, appointment of Information Commissioners at Central Information Commission, contempt petition.
Implementation of directions of Division Bench:
The judgment states that all directions of the Division Bench dated 15th February, 2012, except those subject to Special Leave Petition, have been implemented by the respondents. The only remaining issue pertains to the appointment of Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission. The respondent has initiated the appointment process as per the orders of the Supreme Court in a related matter. The implementation of the Division Bench decision is subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition or any further orders from the Supreme Court.
Appointment of Information Commissioners at Central Information Commission:
The counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the appointment process for Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission has been initiated in accordance with the interim orders of the Supreme Court in a related case. The respondent is awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, and if the petition is dismissed, the Division Bench decision will be implemented fully.
Contempt petition:
The counsel for the petitioner expressed that under the circumstances, they do not wish to pursue the contempt petition any further. Consequently, the Court accepted the statement and disposed of the petition as not pressed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1009
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the admission of additional evidences in contravention of Rule-46A of the IT Rules, 1962, the disallowance of commission under section 37 of the IT Act, and the applicability of TDS provisions under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
Admission of Additional Evidences:
The Revenue challenged the admission of additional evidences by the CIT (A) despite objections from the AO. The CIT (A) considered the additional evidences necessary for deciding the appeal and granted relief to the assessee based on the genuineness of the expenditure and services rendered. The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the violation of Rule-46A of IT Rules, 1962.
Disallowance of Commission u/s 37:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission paid by the assessee to a foreign party, Mr. John Victor Smith, amounting to &8377;1,13,24,831, due to lack of evidence and discrepancies in the agreement. The CIT (A) allowed the claim under section 37, stating that the genuineness of the payment was established through banking channels and the correlation between sales and commission. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the assessee fulfilled its onus.
Applicability of TDS Provisions:
The Revenue contended that the commission payment attracted TDS provisions under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, the CIT (A) held that since Mr. John Victor Smith was not assessable to tax in India, the TDS provisions did not apply. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A) that for invoking section 195 of the Act, the income must be chargeable to tax in India, and as such, upheld the CIT (A)'s decision.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decisions on the admission of additional evidences, disallowance of commission under section 37, and the applicability of TDS provisions.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1008
The High Court of Gujarat granted leave to amend prayer within three days. The Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of substantial questions of law regarding Customs Act and Central Excise Act. The appellant can make submissions on Question 2(c) during the final hearing. The case will be heard with other Tax Appeals.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1007
Issues involved:
The main issue for determination is whether the CPIO delayed or denied the information to the appellant, making himself liable for penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Facts:
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 25-4-2011 addressed to the CPIO, Dept. of Revenue, which was transferred to the CPIO, CESTAT on 6-5-2011. The appellant appealed against the transfer, and the first appellate authority partially allowed the appeal, directing the CPIO to provide specific information. The CPIO invited the appellant to inspect certain files but expressed inability to provide others. The appellant alleged that the information sought was not provided to him.
Decision:
After hearing both parties, the Commission decided to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO of Dept. of Revenue to explain why a penalty should not be imposed on him for causing a delay in providing the information. A separate show cause notice was also issued to the then CPIO, Shri Victor James. The Commission found that the CPIO had partially complied with the appellate authority's order in a reasonable time frame, considering the workload. A penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on Shri Victor James, and the East Delhi Municipal Corporation was directed to recover this amount from his salary and send a Demand Draft to the Central Information Commission.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1006
Bail application - offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30 and 38 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - illegal exports/smuggling of Narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances by courier mode - keeping in view the nature of contravention, whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail? - Held that: - when rules are made to permit and regulate operations of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, they cannot be in contravention of Section 8 of the act and the same need to be construed essentially keeping in mind exception to Section 8. Any other interpretation would make the provisions of the Act subservient to the rules and orders.
The huge quantity of psychotropic substances seized from the accused even when is not mentioned in Schedule I it would still become an offence under Section 8(C) read with Section 22 and he cannot be enlarged on regular bail for not having fallen under any of the exceptions carved out in the provision itself. Interpretation otherwise than this would render not only the Schedule to the Act otiose but would frustrate the very objective of the Act, particularly keeping in mind huge quantity of psychotropic substance seized from the applicant.
No case is made out to exercise discretionary powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the applicant - application dismissed - decided against applicant.
............
|
9911796707
