|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1664 Records
-
2022 (9) TMI 1426
Interim Application seeking orders to open the sealed envelope and disclose the voting results of the meeting of the Debenture Holders convened - Holding of the meeting was pursuant to the orders of this Court - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the submission of the Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, particularly considering the order dated 10th August, 2022 of the Supreme Court. The meeting of the debenture holders was convened by Respondent No.2 on 13th May, 2022. Pursuant to orders of this Court dated 31st March, 2022 and 6th April, 2022 in Interim Application (L) No [2022 (5) TMI 1510 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25571 of 2021 filed by the Plaintiff.
The voting results of the said meeting had been placed in the sealed envelope pursuant to order dated 10th May, 2022. The contention of the Mr. Mustafa Doctor that the voting has not taken placed in accordance with said SEBI’s circular can be considered on the opening of the sealed envelope containing the voting results. The order of the Supreme Court dated 30th August, 2022 holds that the SEBI’s circular has retroactive application and voting would have to be as per the ISIN wise voting.
The sealed envelope containing the voting results of the meeting held on 13th May, 2022 shall be opened and made available to the Advocates for the parties in order to assist the Court as to whether the requisite majority as required in accordance with the circular of SEBI dated 13th October, 2020 has been achieved during the course of the meeting. The voting results shall not be publicised prior to such determination. This shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present proceedings.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1425
Dishonour of Cheque - petitioner has been asked to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the order - discretion of Magistrate to impose interim compensation in terms of Section 143-A of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the petitioner, as well as the complainant (s) are directed to appear before the trial court on 07.09.2022 and move a joint application, bringing to the notice of the court the present order passed by this court - The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, would indicate the date to both the parties for finally arguing with respect to the deposit as per the provisions of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1424
Assessment u/s 153A - Unsecured loan u/s 68 - incriminating material found during the search or not? - HELD THAT:- As in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action and duly following the judgements in the cases of CIT (Central-III) vs. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Meeta Gutgutia [2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] hold that the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in the instant case was not justified and therefore is quashed.
Thus we hold that the addition made vide the assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material is not sustainable. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1423
Jurisdiction of Single Member (Adjudicating Authority) - Money Laundering - Validity of the Provisional Attachment Order - It was the submission of learned Senior Counsel who contended that a single member cannot possibly be recognised to be an Adjudicating Authority duly constituted in terms of Section 6 of the PMLA.
HELD THAT:- The issue of whether a single member can act as the Adjudicating Authority has been duly considered and answered by a Division Bench of the Court in J. Sekar V Union of India [2018 (1) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that There can be single-member benches of the AA and the AT under the PMLA. Such single-member benches need not mandatorily have to be JMs and can be AMs as well.
Although the Court is aware that the aforesaid decision has been placed in abeyance in an appeal preferred by the Directorate, albeit preferred with respect to certain unrelated aspects of that decision, it also bears in mind the salutary principle that while a stay of a judgment may defer its enforcement inter partes, it does not efface the dictum thereof.
The writ petitions shall stand disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to appear before the concerned Adjudicating Authority and take all objections as may otherwise be permissible in law.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1422
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe - disallowance of the Directors’ remuneration claimed as the current year’s revenue expenditure, whereas according to AO this amount forms part of the indirect expenses of the project and accordingly the same is capital in nature - HELD THAT:- We noted that the Assessee has not completed any project as per the Profit and Loss Account but had claimed the Directors’ remuneration as current year’s revenue expenditure. According to the Assessing Officer, this forms part of the indirect expenses of the project only and hence is not allowable. For this reason, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer.
We noted that in the case of TANMAC India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – I, Pondicherry [2017 (1) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has considered an identical situation by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kelvinator of India [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] and held that “What is sought to be done by the re-assessment ought to have been achieved by scrutiny assessment proceedings. Having missed the bus earlier, the Department cannot be permitted to avail of the extended time limit in the absence of any new or tangible material - Thus we quash the re-assessment and allow the appeal of the Assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1421
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe - recording reasons beyond four years - Addition u/s 68 - material seized during the search and seizure operation on Shri S.K. Jain and his brothers - HELD THAT:- As in the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of BPTP Ltd [2020 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as been held that the recorded reasons except of using the expression ‘failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts’ do not specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee.
In the cases when the AO intends to initiate reassessment proceedings beyond a period of four years, but, before expiry of six years from the date of issuance of notice, then, the proviso to section 147 of the Act comes into play and the AO is bound to follow the same as per the mandate of the provision. The escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the rider set up by the proviso to section 147 of the Act. If this condition precedent is not satisfied, the bar would operate and no action u/s 147 of the Act can be initiated against the assessee for reassessment proceedings.
Reasons supplied to the Petitioners, does not contain any such allegation. Consequently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the rider against taking action u/s 147 of the Act after a lapse of four years remains unfulfilled and unsatisfied and in absence of any allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the relevant assessment year, any action taken by the AO u/s 147 of the Act beyond the period of four years would be without assumption of valid jurisdiction.
Therefore, respectfully following the proposition rendered in the case of BPTP Ltd. (2020 (1) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT), in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Anand Developers (2020 (2) TMI 995 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), we hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act based on the reasons recorded and the consequent reassessment are without jurisdiction as no action u/s 147 of the Act could be taken beyond the period four years in absence of compliance of proviso to section 147 of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1420
Validity of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) - as per assessee default is due to Covid-19 pandemic - HELD THAT:- We find that the Assessing Officer finalised the assessment order on 24/08/2021 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. While finalizing the assessment order, no variation in the returned income or assessed income was made in four assessment orders. Moreover, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act.
We find that before ld CIT(A) the assessee specifically contended that there was severe Covid-19 pandemic during the relevant period and everybody is doing work with safety measures and that his Accountant were busy in audit work. The submissions of assessee was not accepted as bonafide explanation with the scope of section 273B. Though, the Assessing Officer levied penalty for two default, however, the ld CIT(A) restricted it to one default only. In our view, the assesse has shown sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 273B in his submissions before ld CIT(A) and the ld CIT(A) ought to have accepted the same. In our view the assessee has shown sufficient cause within the scope of section 273B of the Act.
The notice dated 02/12/2020 was issued to the assessee. In response to said notice, the assessee sought adjournment on 14/12/2020. The adjournment was allowed to assessee and on the request of assessee, the hearing of the case was fixed on 01/01/2021 and again for 11.01.2021. In our view, once AO himself allowed adjournment, the cause of action for non-compliance was waived on that moment itself. In our view, the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty for one default is also liable to be set aside.
Assessee has shown sufficient cause for noncompliance before ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) was having co-terminus power thus, he ought to have deleted the entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) or 272A(1)(d). We find that the assessee has relied on various case laws, wherein coordinate benches of Tribunal have taken view that when the assessment was framed under Section 143(3), merely because the assessee could not make compliance for single hearing due to bonafide reason on the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act cannot be imposed on the assessee for such bonafide default due to reasons beyond his control. In view of aforesaid factual and legal position, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed.
Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) - We noted that the provisions of Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act are pari materia with the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) - AO levied the penalty for alleged non-compliance of notice dated 02/12/2020 as levied in earlier years which we have already deleted. Therefore, considering the principle of consistency, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act for both the years are also deleted.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1419
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - violation of the terms of license - HELD THAT:- The issue is based primarily only on documents which can be construed to find out as to in how many cases if at all there has been violation of licenses - Beyond that we are not required to comment and thus we make the order dated 29th June, 2021 absolute with the stipulation that the appellant(s) will continue to cooperate in the investigation.
Criminal appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1418
Seeking grant of bail - petitioner’s involvement in a vast GST evasion scam, causing a loss to the exchequer of Rs. 6 crores - petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family - HELD THAT:- The mobile numbers of the petitioner and other details prima facie connect him with the commission of the offence. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner - Any observation made is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1417
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - time limit for disposal of Misc. application - Period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The provisions of sub section (2) of section 254 stipulates the time limit for disposal of Misc. application filed at any time within 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1)
Tribunal had passed the order under section 254(1) of the Act on 24.01.2018 meaning thereby any Misc. application filed under section 254(2) of the Act with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record is to be disposed of at any time within 6 months from the end of the month in which the order was passed i.e. before 31.07.2018. In the case of the assessee the Misc. applications were filed on 24th September, 2018 which is beyond the period of 6 months for disposal of the Misc. applications set out in the provisions of section 254(2) meaning thereby the Misc. applications should have been filed before 31st July, 2018. The assessee filed petition requesting for condonation of delay in filing Misc. applications.
Nowhere in the statute provides for condonation of delay in filing Misc. applications before the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act . Condonation of delay in filing Misc. applications by the Tribunal is beyond the powers of the Tribunal in the absence of any specific provision in the statute. In the circumstances the Misc. applications filed by the assessee are liable to be rejected. Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1416
Money Laundering - scheduled or predicate offence - non-application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the appellant was taken in custody on 19.06.2019 and has remained in custody since then. Thus, the appellant has completed more than three years of actual custody in connection with the offence in respect of PML Act.
It has been brought to notice that Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 have not yet been arrested and though the cognizance in the matter has been taken, charges are yet to be framed.
Considering the entirety of the matter and the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen, the appellant is entitled to the relief of bail, subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1415
Rectification Application - condonation of delay in preferring Miscellaneous Application - HELD THAT:- It appears from the records that initially during the proceeding of quantum appeal before us on a number of occasions the matter was fixed for hearing but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under that circumstance, having no alternative, the Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to dismiss the appeal with a firm belief that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.
Hence, the instant application before us. We would like to mention that there is no provision of condonation of delay in preferring Miscellaneous Application before us. Hence, we find that the Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable and, thus, dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1414
Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80IA - Whether characteristics of contract agreements clearly indicate that these are “work contracts” and the assessee cannot be said as developer of these facilities? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 [2022 (1) TMI 1276 - ITAT DELHI]. According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking into the facts of the present case, we are the considered view that appellant is entitled to claim deduction 80IA, which was wrongly denied. We set aside the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 801A has claimed by the appellant. Ground No. 1 is allowed.
Provision for maintenance for the project executed by the assessee - AO has held that this provision has been made on estimated basis and unascertained liability - assessee claimed that these are mandatory expenses and provision has been made on the basis of its past experience and on scientific basis, therefore, such provision is an allowable expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the assessee has been claiming that provision for maintenance has been made taking into account contractual provision, operating turnover of the year, type of project period of maintenance and other relevant factors - HELD THAT:- At the time of completion of the contract, liability arises in the hands of the assessee company to provide free maintenance to the various contractees for the period specified in the agreement. This liability arises at the time of the completion of the project itself and obviously the expenditure required can only be estimated on the basis of past experience, nature of the contract, type of the project and turnover of the assessee in that particular year. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee claimed that estimate has been made on best estimated basis based upon the experience in the construction industry and therefore, the objection of the Assessing Officer that the liability has not arisen during the year as it has been quantified on estimated basis is not correct.
Fact not disputed by the AO in the assessment order that all along the provision for maintenance of expenses have been allowed to the assessee company except the disallowances made in A.Y. 1985-86 and 1995-96.
We find that the same matter of provision for maintenance stands adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. The assessee has been providing for expenses to be incurred on demobilization, maintenance and other expenses since by inception of the Company. The same has been allowed by the Department all along except in the Assessment Years 1985-86, 1995-96 & 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. In these years, the A.O. disallowed the aforesaid provisions. Further, in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), in the assessment year 1985-86, 1995-96 and 2001-02 and 2002-03, these were allowed on the basis of the aforesaid judicial analysis - we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
MAT computation u/s 115JB - Income from foreign Contracts (Malaysia and Sri Lanka) – u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Exclude the income which is subject matter of dispute under this ground of the appeal from the ambit of the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The ground of the appeal is according allowed.
Advances Written off - disallowance made by the AO on account of advance written off - no details regarding advances written off has been filed by the assessee before the AO - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that the expenditure was already allowed in the year in which the material was purchased and the same cannot be allowed twice when the same has been returned by the sub-contractor - On going through the facts, we decline to interfere with the ratio of the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed.
CSR Expenses - AO treated as non-allowable business expenditure - HELD THAT:- The issue of deduction of CSR expenses read with Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) w.e.f. 1st April 2015 has been examined by the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Jindal Power Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 203 - ITAT RAIPUR] we hereby direct the AO to delete the disallowance.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(iii) - HELD THAT:- As argued before ld. CIT(A) that the case of assessee is covered with the decision in the case of M/s ACB India Vs. ACIT [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where held that the disallowance u/s 14A cannot be more than 0.5% on the average of the investments made on which the assessee received the dividend income. CIT(A) held that in the present case, the assessee has submitted the details of the dividend received and also worked out the disallowance following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which works out to Rs. 137.105 Lacs.
CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court restricted the amount to Rs. 137.105 lacs and determined at Rs. 134.585 lacs owing to the disallowance of Rs.2.52 lakhs made by the assessee.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, keeping in view, the average investments, the disallowance of Rs. 134.585 lacs ( Rs. 137.105 – Rs.2.5 lacs) made by the Revenue u/r 8D(2)(iii) by considering 0.5% of the average investment of Rs.271.21 Cr. is hereby sustained.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1413
TP Adjustment - determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE) - Comparable selection - high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover - HELD THAT:- We hold that the 3 companies whose turnover is more than Rs.200 Crores as listed in the chart below should be excluded from the list of the comparable companies.
Deduction of interest paid on CCD’s - Whether the revenue authorities were justified in treating the CCDs as Equity and disallowing claim for deduction of interest paid on CCD’s? - HELD THAT:- Disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained on the basis that CCDs were in the nature of equity. Tribunal has ruled that the definition of convertible debentures given by RBI is in the context of FDI policy to exercise control on future re-payment obligations in convertible foreign currency. Such definition of the term convertible debentures cannot be applied in other context such as allowability of interest on such debentures during pre-conversion period or regarding payment of dividend on such convertible debentures during pre-conversion period or regarding granting of voting rights to the holders of such convertible debentures before the date of conversion. The same principle will apply to the other corporate laws cited by the DRP in its directions.
Whether on the basis of book entries by which the interest was not debited in the profit and loss account but claimed in the computation of income, the disallowance can be sustained? - On this aspect, the law is well settled and laid down in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that, the way in which entries are made by an assessee in his books of account is not determinative of the question whether the assessee has earned any profit or suffered any loss. It is undisputed that the assessee has deducted TDS on the entire interest expenditure. The assessee while benchmarking interest payment to Associated Enterprise for the purpose of Sec.92 has benchmarked the entire interest amount of Rs.6.09 Crores. Thus, looked at from any perspective, the claim of the assessee for deduction of the sum deserves to be accepted. Disallowance of the said sum of interest expenses and the consequent addition to the total income is therefore deleted. The relevant ground of appeal of the assessee Ground is accordingly allowed.
Disallowance of actual RSU cost recharge made to the holding company on account of allotment of its shares to the employees of the Company - HELD THAT:- The law by now is well settled by the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in the case of Biocon Ltd. [2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein it was held that expenditure on account of ESOP is a revenue expenditure and had to be allowed as deduction while computing income. The Special Bench held that the sole object of issuing shares to employees at a discounted premium is to compensate them for the continuity of their services to the company. By no stretch of imagination, we can describe such discount as either a short capital receipt or a capital expenditure. It is nothing but the employees cost incurred by the company. The substance of this transaction is disbursing compensation to the employees for their services, for which the form of issuing shares at a discounted premium is adopted.
The said decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of BIOCON Ltd. [2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Therefore the issue in so far as this Bench of ITAT is concerned is concluded by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Pendency of identical issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be the basis not to follow decision of jurisdictional High Court.
In the present case, there is no dispute that the liability has accrued to the assessee during the previous year. There is no reason why this expenditure should not be considered as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee. We therefore hold that the claim of the assessee has to be allowed. Grd.No.11 is accordingly allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1412
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation - non-speaking order - doctrine of merger - HELD THAT:- This Court while deciding the case M/S Chandrasen, Sarda Nagar, Lucknow vs Union of India and others [2022 (9) TMI 1047 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] had held that the order of cancellation of registration or any other order passed either on administrative or on judicial side is without any reason and prima facie, without application of mind, the same does not stand the test of scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Following the said judgment rendered in the case of M/s Chandrasen (Supra), the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
The order dated 03.01.2022 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the respondent along with the reply to show cause notice and the certified copy of this order within three weeks from today - the writ petition is allowed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1411
Exemption u/s 11 - cancellation of registration u/s 12AA(3) based on money laundering activities carried out by the assessee with Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation - whether the CIT (Exemption) [CIT(E)] was justified in cancelling the registration granted in favour of the respondent society that too with retrospective effect? - tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent taking note of the fact that the opportunity to cross-examine the persons who were in charge of the company which had extended a donation of Rs.50 lacs to the assessee was fatal - HELD THAT:- On facts the tribunal found that the amount of Rs.50 lacs was being utilised for purchase of property and, therefore, even though the receipt of donation has to be treated as unexplained receipt of the assessee as per Section 68, the addition cannot be made because the assessee itself has applied the entire receipt for the objects of the assessee society. Further, the learned tribunal after taking note of the various decisions of the High Court, on facts, found that the assessee has shown the donation as corpus fund and had applied the same by advance money to the land and building which was shown in the balance-sheet as at 31.3.2011 which was placed before the tribunal in the form of a paper book.
Tribunal also found that the application of the said fund was admittedly for a charitable purpose in tune with the objects of the assessee society. Tribunal noted that the revenue did not dispute the fact that the donations received by the respondent were not applied for charitable purposes. On the grounds mentioned in the order the tribunal came to the conclusion that the activities of the assessee society cannot be terminated to be ingenuine or it cannot be held that the their activities are not in accordance with the objects of the assessee trust.
Revenue placed reliance on the decision of Batanagar Education and Research Trust[2021 (8) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT] On going through the said decision we find that the same is factually distinguishable as in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court brought out the answers which were culled out from the managing trustee of the said trust. A questionnaire had been given by the department. In the case on hand the tribunal has noted that in spite of specific request made by the assessee for cross-examination of two persons, namely, Sri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta and Sri Kishen Bhawshingka which was rejected on the ground that the assessee society has indulged in ingenuine activities. In fact, substantial part of the order passed by the learned tribunal has been devoted on the correctness of denial to afford an opportunity to cross-examine those two persons.
Thus, we find that the tribunal has considered the factual position and granted relief to the assessee - Appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1410
Revocation of petitioner’s Customs Broker License - compliance with the time limitation or not - Petitioner submits that the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license having been passed beyond the period of 90 days as mandated under Regulation 17 (7) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of Asian Freight Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs [2016 (8) TMI 1362 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] which is not found applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since in the said case the show cause notice was challenged which was issued beyond the period of 90 days under Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR, 2018 and without giving reply to the same and time to complete the proceedings were still few months away as appears from concluded paragraph 58 of the aforesaid judgment petitioner had filed the Writ Petition challenging the said show cause notice while in the instant case petitioner has not come up at the stage of show cause notice and that the time was still available to complete the impugned proceeding rather petitioner has come up before this Court at the stage when the final adjudication order has already been passed beyond the statutory period of limitation of 90 days without any explanation for violation of such period of limitation prescribed under the aforesaid Regulation 17 (7).
One more important fact liable for consideration in this case is that in this case order of suspension of the license was challenged before the Tribunal which stayed the order of permanent suspension of the petitioner’s license which is still existing.
Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report under Regulation 17 (5) of the said regulation has specifically found that the allegations of violation of Regulation 10 (m), (n) and (q) under CBLR, 2018 against the petitioner as “not proved”. It also appears from record that the order of suspension of petitioner’s license though it was stayed by the order of the Tribunal on 23rd August, 2022 but before such order of stay and during the pendency of the stay application before the Tribunal the respondent authority passed the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license.
The issues involved in this Writ Petition is a pure question of law with regard to interpretation of Regulation 17 (7) of the CBLR, 2018 and as to whether time prescribed under the said Regulation for completion of the proceedings and passing of the final order within 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is directory or mandatory and this Writ Petition on this legal issue should be heard on affidavits by the respondents - the impugned order of revocation of petitioner’s license dated 11th July, 2022 shall remain stayed till 31st January, 2023 or until further order, whichever is earlier.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1409
Recovery of accumulated credit transitioned by it in terms of Section 140 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - Input Service Distribution - HELD THAT:- Mr Harpreet Singh, who appears on behalf of respondents, says that he will examine the judgments and accordingly, return with instructions.
List the matter on 10.10.2022.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1408
Seeking grant of relief by way of interim order - HELD THAT:- There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issues involve require affidavit from the respondents for final adjudication.
List this matter for final hearing in the monthly list of January, 2023.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1407
Maintainability of assessment / re-assessment order - existence of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 48 of the VAT Act - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the decision in the case of STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS VERSUS TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED [2022 (12) TMI 264 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] where it was held that The provisions make it abundantly clear that an assessment or re-assessment of a dealer had to be made by way of an order before exercise of powers under Section 22 of the VAT Act can be made, that too, within the period of five calendar years from the date of order of assessment. It is only in the event of passing an order, period of five calendar years, which is the limitation period, can be reckoned from the date of order of assessment.
Application disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
