|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 1396 Records
-
2021 (4) TMI 1076
Denial of interest on the penalty refunded - section 11BB of CEA - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PORT) , KOLKATA VERSUS CORONATION SPINNING INDIA [2015 (8) TMI 442 - SC ORDER] has clearly held that interest of only refundable duty is admissible under Section 11BB had not that of penalty and fine - the appellants are not entitled to any refund of interest on penalty amount under Section 11BB.
As regard, the appellant’s contention that the revenue cannot recover the same, as no demand show cause notice has been issued. I find that the said issue cannot be decided in the present proceedings.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1075
Appointment of valuer for ascertaining the value of the land of the corporate debtor (CD) being industrial in nature - HELD THAT:- On perusal of this memo dated 14.01.2021, it appears that there are two demands in it. One is about charges over the change of land use (CLU) amounting to ₹ 23,96,30,131; another is Property & Fire Tax amounting to ₹ 17,82,443. The point taken into consideration is, this memo was issued only after Honourable Supreme Court upheld the order passed by Honourable NCLAT. With regard to second item, in case it is to collect any property tax, it has to proceed against the successful bidder if any tax is payable after liquidation process is closed, because this applicant has not raised its claim before sale process.
The Honourable NCLAT also factually observed that the agriculture land falling into high potential zone is not permitted to allow industrial units to come up. It has further held that the land was sold on "as is where is" basis. Besides this, Honourable NCLAT has held that no final agreement was entered into for conversion. On the observations above, when the Honourable NCLAT dismissed the Appeal by upholding the order of this Bench stating that the land is agriculture in character, then the appellant before NCLAT approached Honourable Supreme Court, there also it was held that the Supreme Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of NCLAT. It is not that Honourable Supreme Court has not examined the issue after MCF filed an affidavit; it indeed examined the affidavit of MCF, and then only made observation of non-interference, therefore the Honourable Supreme Court has set this issue at rest by giving finality to the order of NCLAT.
Once any finality is achieved over any issue, the order that has given finality will be binding on all the interested parties. Here whether the land is to be considered as agricultural or industrial in character has already been decided by NCLT, then by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and finally by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore such order cannot be reopened and examined by this Bench.
There are no merit in this application seeking conversion and revaluation of the assets already sold to the successful bidder - application dismissed - List all other pending applications for hearing on 06.04.2021.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1074
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditor - pre-existing dispute between the parties prior to the issuance of the alleged demand notice - HELD THAT:- There has been no admission of operational debt by the respondent. In fact, there has been a dispute regarding the quality of the goods being supplied by the applicant. Further the corporate debtor on 20.05.2019 vide an email already intimated the applicant regarding the substandard quality of the goods supplied by them and the losses that were incurred by the corporate debtor on using the same supplied materials. There was existence of dispute much prior to the issuance of notice under Section 8 of the Code. Respondent has raised dispute with sufficient particulars. The amount of claim raised by the applicant clearly falls within the ambit of disputed claim. The claim of dispute suggests the need of elaborate investigation. In the facts it is reiterated that existence of genuine dispute in the present case cannot be ruled out.
As per Section 9 (5) (ii) (d) of the Code provides that adjudicating authority shall reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility - Petition is thus rejected.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1073
Seeking to condone the delay of 379 days in filing an Application for restoration of the Petition - HELD THAT:- This Application has been filed and Learned Counsel for the Applicant was heard. Learned Counsel for the Applicant repeatedly insists that on the fault of the erstwhile Counsel, the Applicant should not be penalised as the non appearance of the erstwhile Counsel for the Applicant had made this Tribunal to dismiss the Petition for default.
The Applicant was genuinely misled in view of non appearance of the representative of the Applicant before this Tribunal which had left to the dismissal of the Application for this cause. The same has also been compounded further by the uploading of an order on 02.11.2018 which has been as rightly pointed out by Learned Counsel for the Applicant had misled the Applicant as if the Application is still pending on the file of this Tribunal and even though the same has been disposed of as dismissed for default on 08.10.2018 itself and thus we find a merit in the submissions made by the Applicant.
The delay of 379 days in filing the Application seeking for restoration of the Petition stands condoned.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1072
Seeking to restore the name of the Company in the Register of Companies - Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The Company has not deposited heavy cash in its Bank Account during the period of demonetization. Copy of Bank statement along with demonetization affidavit is enclosed to the Application. We are satisfied with the reasons shown by the Applicant for restoration of the name of the Company in the register of companies maintained by the Respondent - By exercising the powers conferred on this Tribunal under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rule 87-A of NCLT (Amendment) rules 2017, R/w. NCLT Rules, 2016 and basing on the assurance given by the Learned representative for Applicant Company would be making good all pending statutory compliances on restoration of the Company, it seems to be a fit case to order restoration of the Company by RoC (H) in the interest of the Company, its shareholders and the Creditors.
The Registrar of Companies, the respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Company as if the name of the company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies - application allowed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1071
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- This Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the Operational Creditor has proved its case by placing evidence that default has occurred for which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay. The Operational Creditor has also placed on record of proof of sending notices to the Respondent/Corporate Debtor for their appearance and for making submissions also along with the requirements as stipulated under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016 for the purpose of initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. In these circumstances, having satisfied with the submissions made by the Petitioner/Operational Creditor, this Adjudicating Authority is inclined to admit the instant Application.
Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1070
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Debt - demand Notice u/s 8 of IBC has never been received by the Corporate Debtor - HELD THAT:- The Demand Notice U/s. 8 dated 05.04.2019 is recorded and annexed as Annexure A- 4. It was sent by speed post and in rejoinder the Operational Creditor has also produced on record the postal track report as Annexure-1 (Page No. 18 of the rejoinder) which shows that the Demand Notice was sent at correct Registered address of the Corporate Debtor and it has been delivered to the Corporate Debtor - the Demand Notice was served to the Corporate Debtor but Corporate Debtor did not reply to the notice either by pointing pre-existing dispute or the fact that it has made payment of the amount of the debt as claimed by the Operational Creditor.
It is the defence of the Corporate Debtor that in fact some amount is receivable from them but we hold that defence of set off or counter-claim is not available under the IBC, 2016. We also make it clear that if Corporate Debtor had any defence, he certainly would have replied the Demand Notice within 10 days of its receipt - the Operational Creditor established that there is an Operational Debt more than ₹ 1,00,000/- (as per Sec. 4 of IBC, 2016) due and payable by the Corporate Debtor and Corporate Debtor committed the default in paying the same in spite of receipt of notice U/s. 8 of IBC.
This Application is defect free - Adjudicating Authority is further satisfied that the Operational Creditor has proved its case by placing evidence that default has occurred for which the Corporate Debtor was liable to pay - application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1069
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - financial creditors or not - Homebuyers - Tripartite agreement - fulfilling the threshold limit or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- As per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 dated 28.12.2019 Financial Creditors who are homebuyers of Real Estate Project can file a Petition U/s 7 of the Code, 2016, jointly only if there are 100 of such homebuyers or if they are 10% of total homebuyers, whichever is less. However, in the instant Petition, only one Homebuyer has filed the case which neither amounts to 10% of the total class of Financial Creditors nor 100 Financial Creditors. The Petitioner, therefore, fails at the very threshold. It is also seen that in the instant case, as per the Construction agreement, the default has occurred on 01.07.2013. The CP is filed on 17.09.2019, i.e. almost 6 years after the cause of action and default.
In the instant case the Petitioner is before this Tribunal mainly to execute its decree and hence would not be eligible to file a Petition for execution of the decree received from the NCRC. We may add that if home buyers who obtain decrees from other fora also, such as from RERA, are permitted to file petitions under the IBC, that would defeat the purpose of the above referred amendment in section 7 of the Code laying down the threshold of 100 or 10% home buyers, whichever is less - Hence, as per the decision in the case of Sushil Ansal [2020 (8) TMI 396 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] while remedies are available to a home buyer elsewhere, as also under IBC (with the aforesaid threshold), once he receives a decree, the same cannot be brought for execution by invoking Section 7 of the IBC.
We are also in agreement with the Respondent that since there is a Tripartite Agreement with the ICICI Bank Ltd. and the loan amount was disbursed by ICICI Bank Ltd., not only the cancellation can be done by the ICICI Bank but also the repayment can be done only to the ICICI Bank which would be the Financial Creditor in the instant case and not the Petitioner, as the Petitioner has handed over this right to this Bank as per the tripartite agreement. The ICICI Bank has not been made a party in the CP and the Petition suffers from non-joinder.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1068
Condonation of delay - delay of 266 days in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- We find the reason for the delay was due to Post demerger activities between the assessee and its group companies and finalization of accounts of its listed companies during the relevant period due to which the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. Considering the same and since the assessee desires to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme for the A.Y. 2013-14, in the interest of justice, We hereby condone the delay of 266 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to hear the appeal.
We are inclined to treat the instant appeal of the assessee as withdrawn relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Keyaram Hotels[2020 (11) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the instant appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 as withdrawn. However, we also make it clear that, if the assessee's case is not accepted in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme by the Revenue for whatsoever may be reason on a subsequent date, then the assessee shall be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to reinstate its appeal.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1067
Rate of interest on refund - rate to be fixed at the rate of 12% or not? - HELD THAT:- In view of the notification existing as on date i.e. No. 24/2014 vide which the Government has exercised its power even under Section 35FF of Central Excise Act for fixing the rate of interest that the said rate has specifically been fixed at the rate of 6% per annum. Further perusal of Notifications shows that Notification No. 17/2002 has been superceded by Notification No. 24/2014. Notification No. 64/2003 as has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Courts in the above said decision is the one which superceded non other than said Notification No. 17/2002. Hence none of the decisions as relied upon by appellant can apply.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1066
Scheme of amalgamation - seeking to dispensing the meetings of Equity Shareholders, Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors - Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal is empowered, under Section 230(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, to dispense with calling of a meeting of creditors or class of creditors, where such creditors or class of creditors, having at least ninety per cent value, agree and confirm, by way of affidavit, to the Scheme of Amalgamation. In the instant case, as detailed supra, the Applicant Companies have filed Certificates given by the Chartered Accountants certifying the number of Equity Shareholders of the respective Companies constituting 100% of Shareholding of the Applicant Companies and the number of Secured/Unsecured Creditors of the Applicant Companies constituting more than 90% have furnished consent affidavits.
No purpose would be served in directing the convening of the meetings in question. Therefore, it would be just and appropriate to dispense with the meetings as sought for, on the principle of case of doing business, and to facilitate the Company to file necessary second stage Petition seeking to sanction the Scheme, subject to fulfillment of all statutory conditions, after notice to the respective Statutory Authorities.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1065
Seeking to restore status/name of the Company - seeking 252 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the Registrar of Companies is conferred with power U/s. 248(1) to strike off the Company, if the Company has failed to commence its business within one year of its incorporation or a Company is not carrying on any business or operation for a period of two immediately preceding financial years and has not made any Application within such period for obtaining the status of a dormant Company U/s. 455. However, Section 248(6) states that the Registrar of Companies, before finally striking off Company, has to satisfy himself that sufficient provision has been made for the realization of all amounts due to the Company and for the payment or discharge of its liabilities and obligations by the Company within a reasonable time, and, if necessary, obtain necessary undertakings from the Managing Director, Director or other persons in charge of the management of the Company.
It is also not in dispute that the instant Company Petition is filed in accordance with law; there are no investigations pending against the Company; the Respondent has not opposed the Petition; and left the issue to Tribunal to consider the case subject terms and conditions. The Directors/Shareholders of the Company has undertaken to file all the returns, statements and documents that are required under the Companies Act, 2013 within the prescribed time. Therefore, in the interest of justice would be met, if the name of Company is restored as prayed for, however, subject to conditions mentioned below.
The Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, the Respondent herein, is directed to restore the name of the Company in the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka as if its name had not been struck off from the rolls of the Register, with restoration of all other consequential actions taken by the Registrar of Companies - petition disposed off.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1064
Seeking fixing of the CIRP costs and fee of the applicant along with directions to the Respondent No. 1 to pay the same - section 60(5) of the I & B Code, 2016 read with Regulations 33(2) of the Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process For Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is on record that CoC in its second meeting has not passed a resolution regarding approval of the fees of IRP nor regarding replacement of IRP with RP. In view of order of CIRP being impugned & set aside by NCLAT, the IRP as a prudent officer is required to change reasonably and in our view a sum of ₹ 4 Lakhs plus @18% GST to be paid to 'Interim Resolution Professional' as his fees for period of 61 days. In addition, ₹ 1,86,890/- towards other expenses and ₹ 2 lakhs for security charges and other charges also to be paid to IRP. Thus, Interim Resolution Professional is allowed a total amount of ₹ 7,86,890/- Lakhs approximately which is to be paid by the Respondent No. 2 which should be paid within two weeks.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1063
Scheme of amalgamation and merger - seeking to dispense with the convening and holding of the meeting of Shareholders, Unsecured Creditors of the Transferor Company - seeking to dispense with the convening and holding of the meeting of Shareholders, Secured & Unsecured Creditors of the Transferee Company and to convene the Meeting of Secured Creditors of the Transferor Company etc. - HELD THAT:- The Companies have followed extant provisions of Companies Act in framing the Scheme in question, which are duly approved by the Board of Directors of the Companies involved. The Statutory Auditors/Chartered Accountants of the Company have also issued respective Certificates by inter-alia certifying the details of shareholders, creditors, and compliance of accounting treatment as prescribed U/s. 133 of the Companies Act, 2013 with reference to the Scheme in question. The Applicant Companies have disclosed all the material facts relating to the Scheme in question and filed necessary documents along with the Application - the case, made out by the Applicants so as to grant relief as sought for, by dispensing with the meeting of the Shareholders of the Applicant Companies and Unsecured Creditors of the Transferor Company and convene the meeting of the Secured Creditors of the Transferor Company by appointing the Chairperson and Scrutinizer for convening the meeting, fixing venue, time, quorum etc. is accepted.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1062
Unexplained income u/s.69A - Addition on the ground that seized material i.e. Annexure A/1 indicates the total money receipt on sale of various plots - addition of subsequent assessment year is made in case of Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya (partner of assessee) in his individual capacity - HELD THAT:- We have noted that the AO made addition on the basis of seized documents by taking view that seized documents prima facie reflects the receipts of plot wise on-money in coded form. And that no explanation and evidences furnished by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) while deleting the addition held that there is no evidence on record to establish that assessee firm was involved in plotting of the scheme. Further, the addition on the basis of Annexure A/1 has been made in case of Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya for A.Y. 2007-08 ( in individual capacity vide PAN: AFHPB 0820 M). The firm was not in existence and it was formed by way of partnership deed dated 01.06.2007.
Assessee vehemently submitted before us that the firm came in to existence vide partnership deed dated 01.06.2007. Before us, no contrary evidences or material is place to show that the assessee-firm was in existence during the impugned financial year, if the firm was not in existence during the impugned financial year no assessment can be made on the non-existent (still to be born) entity. Therefore, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A) that addition of ₹ 3.16 crore in case of assessee-firm is unjustified, accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed for this sole reason. However, it is made clear that our observation in this case will not affect the additions made in individual capacity of partner of the assessee namely Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, in subsequent assessment years, which has to be examined by lower authorities independently.
Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1061
Transfer of shares - Petitioners are alleged to be non-shareholders of the Company, as early as 2007-2008 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, as per the contentions made by the Parties, it should be deemed that valid consideration has been paid, executed valid transfer deed and surrendered original share certificates to the Transferee. However, the Petitioner No. 1 alleges that he does not remember executing any share transfer form in connection to the R1 Company and even if executed, it would not bind on him as it is un-intentional. Similarly, while accepting to surrendering the impugned shares to the Respondents, he has further contended that they were given in different context and similarly about the consideration. Having signed Form for share transfer, surrendering original share certificates etc, the Petitioner is estopped from disputing them, that too, after lapse of considerable time. Moreover, the Petitioners are not strangers to the Company and pretending ignorance about the impugned transaction are baseless and untenable, and same are liable to be rejected and thus, those allegations/contentions are hereby rejected.
The Petitioners are admittedly aggrieved by the deletion of their names as Members in the Company, as early as on 21.02.2008, however, the Petitioners chose to file the present petition only on 03.08.2012 before the then Company Law Board (CLB), Chennai Bench, after lapse of more than four years on the pretext that they are aware of it only in the year 2012, and the grounds raised on behalf Petitioners are un-tenable and baseless. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners that the petition is within limitation is not at all tenable and liable to be rejected - Since, the Tribunal held that the Petitioners ceased to be Members of the Company as early as on 21.02.2008 and the Petition under Sections 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 are not maintainable. Therefore, the allegations with regard to acts of oppression and mismanagement do not arise.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1060
Maintainability of appeal being signed digitally - CIT(A)] dismissing the appeal holding that the Form No.35 has been not verified by the Managing Director nor any other Director and hence the appeal is not valid - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the provisions of Sec. 140 r.w. Rule 45 do require a managing director/director to sign and verify the appeal, but merely for the reason that on account of an inadvertent mistake the same had been digitally signed by the appellant company itself cannot justify the summarily rejection of the appeal by treating the same as invalid without confronting the said infirmity to the appellant.
It is a settled canon of interpretation of procedural law that normally its non-adherence does not result in illegality which would render the appeal incompetent, unless such non-compliance related to a substantive provision and had caused prejudice to the other party and may have the effect of taking away a settled right. In fact, we are of the considered view that law relating to procedure may always not prove fatal to the proceedings initiated by the assessee and it would be in the interest of justice, fair and equitable to provide an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the irregularity in regard to compliance to the procedural rules unless the non-compliance to the procedure is of such a nature that it necessarily creates a bar or takes away a substantive right vested in the other side.
Accordingly, in a case where the appeal is filed in accordance with the form but is not signed by the person specified under Rule 45, we are of the considered view that in all fairness the appellant should be granted an opportunity to correct this error rather than dismissing of the appeal as not maintainable when the same is otherwise complete in all respects and has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. To sum up, the nonadherence of some part of the rule per se may not be a ground for rejecting the memorandum of appeal and it will be more appropriate for the appellate authority concerned to have granted an opportunity to the assessee to remove the defect, if any, provided the appeal was in substantial compliance to the provisions of Rule 45 and has been filed within the period of limitation.
In all fairness the appeal of the captioned assessee merits to be restored to the file of the CIT(A) who shall after affording an opportunity to the assessee appellant to correct the aforesaid error, therein, dispose off the appeal on the basis of a speaking order in accordance with law
-
2021 (4) TMI 1059
Bail application - claiming false input tax credit on the basis of false sales invoices - HELD THAT:- The statement of accused was recorded and the accused in his statement has admitted that no goods were received by his firm dt his registered address from his suppliers and he claimed fake ITC on behalf of these fake firms. During investigation, the fifteen companies are found to be fake and the record of these firms and the E-way bill are filed with photographs of the persons which are found to be non-existent and even the premises of M/S Lotus Enterprises are not to be found on the address and on verification it was found that the address shown in the firm detail has never been running on the address and Mr. Omveer Singh was stated to be died on 31-07-2017, the death certificate and the panchnama of the company is also filed by the department and another panchnama of fake companies are found to be non-existent at the time of verification which clearly established that the accused has availed fake ITC credit on the basis of fake companies without doing any transactions with the firms.
The investigation in the matter is still under progress and the department has tried to interrogate the accused during investigation after taking permission from the Court but the accused on his health ground refused for being interrogated. As far as the argument of jurisdiction of the case and the nature of punishment of the offence is concerned, it is transpired that the department after getting the information that the accused firm is involved in supply of goods in UP and on the basis of the notification of the department as produced before this Court also seems to have power to investigate the present case and since the offence relates to tax evasion and fall under the economic offence which does not fall in ordinary offence punishable upto 5 years imprisonment and such type of offences should not be considered liberally particularly in the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the accused and if in such type of offences accused is granted bail, there is every livelihood that the investigation of the case will be hampered and as such I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.
This is not a fit case for bail and hence the bail application is liable to be rejected - bail application dismissed.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1058
Availability of beds for COVID patients - availability of medical Oxygen in the NCT of Delhi - Efficient usage of Oxygen - testing facilities for Covid-19 through the RT-PCR test - critical medicines required for the treatment of serious Covid-19 patients falling in short supply - Wastages of vaccine.
Availability of beds for COVID patients - HELD THAT:- Ms.Roli Khare, Director, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has stated that the Central Government is endeavoring to make more beds available. She states that presently the hospitals of the Central Government are occupied by non-covid patients in need of critical care, such as patients who require dialysis, or suffering from cancer and other serious disease. Considering the fact that the number of COVID patients, who are now needing hospitals if for greater than the numbers which were turning up last year – even during the peak of the pandemic, the Central Government should urgently look to allocate more beds among their hospitals for COVID patients - Central Government directed to look into the aspect of bed allocation for COVID patients keeping in view the prevailing circumstances, and report in this regard on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.04.2021.
Availability of medical Oxygen in the NCT of Delhi - HELD THAT:- Looking to the number of COVID positive patients all over the country, and the pattern which is emerging with regard to the spread of the viral infection and the severity with which it is impacting people in different States and regions, we direct the Central Government to review the allocation of Oxygen on a dynamic basis i.e. on a day to day basis, so that its utilization is achieved in the most efficient manner.
Efficient usage of Oxygen - HELD THAT:- The need for oxygen is now. Any delay in this regard would lead to loss of precious lives. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to implement the said decision forthwith, and make available oxygen to hospitals which are running out of their supplies, lest there is grave loss of life suffered by patients being treated thereat.
Ramping up of the testing facilities for Covid-19 through the RT-PCR test - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of setting up of Covid testing facilities, the entrepreneurs/ doctors have to obtain clearance from the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR). It has been brought to our notice that the procedure for such clearances is also highly time consuming. We do not wish to, in any way, impinge on the authority of ICMR, and we do not expect the ICMR to relax its standards in the matter of granting its permissions and clearances. However, looking to the present day situation, we direct the ICMR to give top priority for such clearances so that the RTPCR Labs could be set up or expanded without any delay.
Delay in preparation of RT-PCR Test Reports - HELD THAT:- The patients who undergo the RT-PCR test,s are required to provide their Aadhar Cards. Despite that being the position, the testing agencies are required to fill up detailed forms online, which take up to 15 minutes per form. We, therefore, direct the Central Government, and the ICMR, to review the form in which the information is required to be uploaded by the testing agencies, so as to reduce their burden and wastage of time, as this appears to be acting as a bottleneck in the matter of preparation of reports.
Critical medicines required for the treatment of serious Covid-19 patients falling in short supply, and also being sold at a premium in the black market - HELD THAT:- The Central Government should dynamically review the distribution of Remedesivir in the States and Union Territories on a daily basis, on the basis of the need, assessed on the basis of the serious active Covid patients, who need to be administered the said Drug. This is essential to maximise the efficient use of the said Drug - Looking to the present day situation, there can be no doubt that a case is made out for exercise of its power by the Central Government/ Controller under the aforesaid provisions of law. At the same time, the interests of the Patent holders/ licensees should be kept in mind, since it on account of their investments, inventions and hard work that such like medicines are made available to the public at large. The best course would be encourage the existing manufacturers to ramp up their production on a war footing. They should also be encouraged to grant voluntary licenses to other entities to manufacture the requisite drugs.
Wastage of vaccines - as many as about 44 lakhs vaccines have been wasted out of the 10 crores vaccines allocated to different States - HELD THAT:- This is because of the restriction with regard to the age, or category of people who are entitled to take the vaccine. According to the present dispensation, people who are above 45 years of age are entitled to take the vaccine. The Government has recently announced that from 01.05.2021, all above the age of 18 years would be entitled to take the vaccine. In our view, wastage of even a single dose of vaccine, when the same is proving to be life–saving, would be a criminal waste. We are informed that each vial of the vaccine has 10 doses. Once the vial is opened, it has to be either fully consumed, or the remainder goes waste. It should be possible for the Government(s) to devise ways and means so as to register volunteers who may be below the age group of 45 years, and above the age of 18 years – who could be called upon to take the residual doses of vaccine, in case, there are doses left unutilised after, say, 05.00 P.M on each day. That would ensure that all the doses are fully utilised, and not wasted - We direct the Government to look into this aspect forthwith and report status on the next date.
List on 22.04.2021.
-
2021 (4) TMI 1057
Validity of assessment order - Transfer of title of goods - seeking direction to First Appellate Authority to hear appeal without insisting for pre-deposit as required under Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on record, in our view, the ends of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to deposit a further sum of ₹ 5 crores within four weeks from today.
SLP disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
