|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1320 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1282 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notional loss of Foreign Exchange derivative - HELD THAT:- Question Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed [2018 (2) TMI 1806 - ITAT KOLKATA] for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
Monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court - HELD THAT:- In view of the circular No.17/2019 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated August 8, 2019 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes Judicial Section, whereby the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been increased to ₹1 crore and the tax effect in the present being less than that, he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal. Revenue is allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1281 - ITAT SURAT
Long term capital gain - FMV determination - CIT(A) adopted the Fair Market Value(FMV) of cost of acquisition as on 01.01.1981 @ Rs.14.18 sq. mtr on the basis of report of District Valuation Officer(DVO) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that in assessee’s co-owner’s case[2019 (7) TMI 1961 - ITAT SURAT] the Tribunal has directed the AO to adopt the Fair Market Value of land @100 per sq.mtr as on 01.04.1981, therefore, respectfully following the order of coordinate bench the AO is directed to follow the order of the Tribunal above accordingly, appeal of the assessee partly allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1280 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - investigation wing of the Department had held the script SRK Industries as bogus - Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares which are exempt u/s 10(38) denied by holding that the script in which the capital gain had accrued was a penny stock and bogus - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Kolkata Bench in the case of Aditya Vikram Sureka HUF [2019 (10) TMI 837 - ITAT KOLKATA] has considered gain from scrip SRK Industries Ltd. and have allowed relief to the assessee. Similarly, we find that SMC Kolkata Bench in the case of Shreyans Chopra [2018 (7) TMI 2028 - ITAT KOLKATA] has allowed relief to the assessee on the same scrip - Also in AMRITA BAID [2018 (11) TMI 1924 - ITAT KOLKATA] capital gain on the script SRK Industries was allowed exempt u/s 10(38) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of commission paid - AO disallowed amount by holding that assessee failed to furnish address of the persons and he further held that tax at source was also not deducted - HELD THAT:- Before Learned CIT(A) it was submitted that assessee was not required to deduct TDS to which he agreed but upheld the addition by holding that no evidence was produced in support of commission paid. In this respect that assessee had furnished the information relating to persons to whom commission was paid where the name of one person including his address is mentioned and in respect of second person only name of the person is mentioned. Therefore, we accept the request of Learned AR for another opportunity to file the evidence of commission before A.O. and in view of that the second grievance of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1279 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - allegation that the Reserve price of ₹ 52.83 Crores has been kept at a dismal low - valuation is challenged on the ground that valuers have proceeded on the basis of wrong assumption that the land in question is Agricultural in nature, whereas, it is an industrial land - Regulation 35(3) & (4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)’ Regulation, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The appeals are dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1278 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking continuing detention of the Appellants to serve out the remaining sentence - Minimum duration of imprisonment - imposition of punishment less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute - benefit of probation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - HELD THAT:- The facts of the present case are that the Appellants have not served out the minimum sentence of 7 years though they have served about half the sentences. They were aged under 19 & 21 years of age as on the date of offence but not on the date of sentence. The redeeming feature in their case is that the person who suffered, appears to have forgiven them, possibly with the passage of time. There is no adverse report against them about their conduct in jail otherwise the same would have been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the State. Faced with the aforesaid legal position, this is a fit case that the benefit of probation can be extended to the Appellants under the said act in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act on completion of half the sentence.
The Appellants are released on probation of good conduct Under Section 4 of the said Act on their completion of half the sentence and on their entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure that they maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of their sentence, failing which they can be called upon to serve that part of the sentence.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1277 - ITAT JAIPUR
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Deduction u/s 80-P(2)(d) - income received from investments made with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank - whether the assessee has incurred any interest expenditure in earning the interest income? - HELD THAT:- As the issue of quantum of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) i.e, whether the deduction to be allowed on gross or net interest income was under consideration by the Tribunal in each of the aforesaid three assessment years for which misc. application has been filed by the Revenue. In each of these years, the Revenue has challenged the eligibility of the assessee for claim of whole of the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) whereas the assessee in its cross appeal has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in restricting the quantum of deduction eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the issue raised in the misc. applications so filed by Revenue is clearly arising out of the grounds taken by the Revenue as well as the assessee before the Coordinate Benches and orders passed by the Coordinate Benches.
We therefore donot see any legal infirmity in terms of raising the said issue by the Revenue before us by way of present misc. applications.
For A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13, the Coordinate Bench has held that there was no necessity to examine the issue as to whether deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) shall be allowed on the gross interest income on FDRs or it should be allowed on the net interest income as conceptually the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) has to be allowed on gross and not on net interest income as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1217 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] The Coordinate Bench therefore following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court allowed the deduction on gross interest income for respective assessment years.
For A.Y 2014-15, the Coordinate Bench followed the aforesaid decision for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 allowed the deduction on gross interest income. In this year, we find that the ld DR brought to the notice of Coordinate Bench, the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd [1995 (1) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and the Coordinate Bench held that it has taken into consideration the decision cited by the Revenue authorities, however, given that Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case has decided the matter recently for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13, it decided to follow the earlier decision and decided the matter in favour of the assessee.
For A.Y 2016-17, the Coordinate Bench held that in the earlier decisions so rendered for A.Y 2011-12, AY 2012-13 and A.Y 2014-15, the Coordinate Benches have relied on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd vs ACIT (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd (supra), which has been brought to its notice by the ld. CIT DR, was not considered and being the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the same is binding on the Tribunal and therefore, to this extent the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench for earlier years stand distinguishable.
We agree with the contention advanced by the ld AR that the legal issue challenging the validity of order passed u/s 147 was earlier dismissed as infructious for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 as the matter was only decided on merits and the same should be also be recalled and decided afresh.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby recall the earlier orders so passed by the Coordinate Benches in [2019 (10) TMI 759 - ITAT JAIPUR] and subsequent order passed by the Tribunal in [2019 (9) TMI 1338 - ITAT JAIPUR] for A.Y 2014-15 for the limited purposes of adjudication of matter relating to quantum of deduction eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as to whether the deduction should be allowed on gross interest or net interest income afresh taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd (supra) as well as adjudication of following grounds of appeal afresh as raised by the assessee in its respective cross-appeals:
-
2021 (1) TMI 1276 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to Official Liquidator to disburse an amount of Rs.64,63,964/- to IDBI Bank under Section 529 of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Having perused the OLR and considering the fact that the amount has been worked out by the Chartered Accountants, the application is allowed in terms of prayers 15A and 15B.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1275 - ITAT KOLKATA
Assessment u/s 153A - Proof of incriminating material found during the course of search or not? - HELD THAT:- In the case of unabated assessments of an assessee, no addition is permissible in the order u/s 153A unless it is based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. See Majestic Commercial (P) Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 1077 - ITAT KOLKATA]
As the undisputed fact is that the additions are not based on any incriminating material found during search and as the assessment has not abated, we delete the additions by applying the principles laid down by Rashmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 1463 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1274 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 30th September, 2013 and application filed on 10th June, 2019 - whether application was barred by limitation or not - HELD THAT:- Issue notice upon Respondent. Notice on behalf of Respondent No.2 is waived and accepted by Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocate. No further notice need be issued to him.
Let notice be issued upon Respondent No.1. Appellant to provide mobile Nos./ e-mail address of the Respondent No.1. Notice be issued through e-mail or any other available mode. Requisites along with process fee be filed within three days.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1273 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking extension of interim bail - bail sought on medical grounds - offences under Sections 20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT:- As per status report dated 28.01.2021, necessary verification was done from the Head of the Department of Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi. Discharge summary sheet dated 25.01.2021 placed on record notes that petitioner was admitted on 13.01.2021 for anti coagulation therapy and optimization and after treatment was discharged on 25.01.2021 in stable condition. In the aforesaid discharge summary sheet, Dr. P.S.Sarang, Specialist and HOD (Surgery) has specifically stated that this treatment is also available in Tihar Jail - In view of aforesaid, the petitioner can continue his treatment within jail premises, if so required and extension of his interim bail on medical grounds is unwarranted.
What is pertinent to mention here is the conduct of petitioner. Despite being on interim bail since 12.06.2021, petitioner moved bail application [Bail. Appln. 3806/2020] before a Coordinate Bench of this Court seeking regular/ interim bail - this Court is informed that another petition of petitioner [Bail Appln.299/2021] seeking regular bail in the same FIR case, has been filed and it is also listed before this Court today.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1272 - ITAT DELHI
Ex-parte order passed by CIT-A - Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Since there was no appearance from the side of the assessee despite service of notice, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), there was no appearance from the side of the assessee for which the CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do.
As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1271 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Partial rejection of claim of applicant - seeking to follow procedures established by law and principles including principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency in the conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - seeking to restraint RP from creating any third-party interest - HELD THAT:- The RP has rightfully partially accepted the applicant’s claim after due consideration of the documents provided to the IRP/RP. It is further observed that the RP has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the applicable rules and regulations made thereunder and also followed the principles of law including the principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency.
It is clear from the facts of the case that out of total settlement amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/- agreed between the parties as provided in the Consent Terms, the applicant had received substantial amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- towards principal outstanding at the time of signing the Consent Terms and Rs.1,00,00,000/- less applicable TDS towards interest and thus the balance outstanding was Rs.1,00,00,000/- only. Therefore, this application needs to be dismissed and there is no wrong committed by the RP in deciding upon the claim of the applicant.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1270 - SC ORDER
Seeking reconsideration of Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal GURURAJ S KULKAKARNI & ORS. VERSUS GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD. IN LIQUIDATION THROUGH LIQUIDATOR MR. SUMIT BINANI [2020 (11) TMI 1072 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] where it was held that no change in circumstances warranting reconsideration at the hands of the Adjudicating Authority was made out and the Adjudicating Authority was right in dismissing the application.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1269 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Appellant was not entitled to deduction u/s 35(2AB) to the extent the expenses eligible for deduction under the said provision pertained to a unit entitled for deduction under Section 10B - whether Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) would not be available to the Appellant while computing the income of the unit eligible for relief under Section 10B? - HELD THAT:- For the reasons assigned by us in [2021 (2) TMI 112 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] insofar as it pertains to the finding that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act is hereby quashed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1268 - ITAT DLEHI
Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for the assessment years under consideration and requested for withdrawal the said appeals - HELD THAT:- As the captioned appeals are consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the captioned assessment years is not ultimately resolved in terms of the Act, the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. The Revenue has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.
Both the appeals are consigned to record and, for statistical purposes, are treated as dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1267 - ITAT DELHI
Vivad Se Vishwas scheme 2020 - assessee requested for adjournment of the case on the ground that assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme 2020 and Form No. 3 is still awaited - HELD THAT:- As captioned appeal is consigned to record and treated as dismissed. However, the aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating tax arrears for the captioned assessment year is not ultimately resolved in terms of the aforesaid scheme, the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. The Revenue has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.
Appeal of the assessee is consigned to record and for statistical purposes is treated as dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1266 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - adjustment qua AMP expenses - ALP of AMP expenses - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the ALP of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We cannot ignore the submission of the DR that the matter is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court would be binding upon all the authorities. We set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the AO.
We hold that as per the facts of the case and the legal position as of now and discussed above in this order, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO in respect of AMP expenses is not sustainable. If the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court is modified or reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then the Assessing Officer would pass the order afresh considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. In those circumstances, he will also allow opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
We are of the considered view that following the law laid down in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd.[2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT] adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO on account of ALP of AMP expenses is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence deleted. So, the appeal filed by the taxpayer is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1265 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of an alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - scope of 'agricultural land' - coffee plantation is agricultural land within the meaning of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act - applicability of the act to coffee plantation.
Whether the writ petitions were rightly dismissed on the ground of maintainability in view of the availability of an alternative remedy before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act? - HELD THAT:- If the answer to the question, whether coffee plantation/estate is an agricultural land within the meaning of Section 31(c) of the SARFAESI Act, is in the affirmative, then the provisions of the Act would not apply and the action initiated by the respondent/bank would be without jurisdiction. Any action of an authority without jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and in such a case, a writ petition would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such circumstances, it would not be sound exercise of discretion to relegate the parties to the remedy by way of an appeal. This is particularly so, when a constitutional right, such as Article 300A of the Constitution is involved and the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to coffee estate in the context of whether it is an agricultural land or not would be an important question which has to be decided in the first instance before deciding on the legality of the action otherwise.
The writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the instant case were maintainable. This is particularly so, having regard to the issue raised in these writ petitions as it involves interpretation of law. It also touches upon the applicability of the SARFAESI Act and the jurisdiction on the respondent/bank to take measures under Section 13 of the said Act vis-à-vis the subject lands, which are coffee plantations. Hence, the question is answered in favour of the appellants.
Whether coffee plantation is an agricultural land under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act? - HELD THAT:- Under the Land Reforms Act the definition of 'agriculture' is an inclusive one which also includes the raising of crops, grass or garden produce. The expression "plantation crops" is defined to mean cardamom, coffee, pepper, rubber and tea, etc. This implies that all other crops are non-plantation crops. The word "land" means agricultural land, including garden land, plantation, but does not include house site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. Under Section 104 of the said Act, certain provisions of the said Act do not apply to plantations - The word 'plantation' is explained under Section 104 to mean land used by a person principally for the cultivation of plantation crops and includes any land used ancillary to the cultivation of such crop or for preparation of the same for the market and agricultural land within the area cultivated with such crop for the protection and efficient management of such cultivation.
Under Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957, 'Agricultural Income' means any revenue derived from land situated within the State and used for growing plantation crops. On an analogy, the expression plantation crops would include coffee. Under the APMC Act also, under Schedule 8, coffee is included as a plantation crop. In all the aforesaid enactments, coffee has been defined to be a plantation crop.
The expression "plantation crops" is defined in Section 2(A)(25) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to mean cardamom, coffee, rubber, pepper and tea. Thus, in case of these plantation crops, inter alia, Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the said Act would not apply. Section 79-A states that the acquisition of land by certain persons is prohibited. Section 79-B prohibits the holding of agricultural land by certain persons. Section 80 states that transfer to non-agriculturists is barred. The said Section includes not only sale, gift, exchange, lease of any land or interest therein, but also states that mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgagee, shall not be lawful in favour of a person, who is not an agriculturist, or who is disentitled under Section 79-A or Section 79-B to acquire or hold any land, unless the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area, permits such sale, gift or exchange, etc. - Section 81 is an exception to Section 79-A, Section 79-B and Section 80. Therefore, there could be a mortgage of any land or interest therein in favour of a bank or a financial institution and also sale of any land or interest therein mortgaged to any financial institution for enforcement of the security for any loan or other facility for agricultural purposes.
The coffee, being a plantation crop within the meaning of Section 2(A)(25) of the Land Reforms Act, is exempted from the provisions of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 as per Section 104 of the said Act. Also, under Section 81 of the said Act, the bar under Section 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the said Act would not apply in the case of mortgage of any land or interest therein to any financial institution as security for any loan or other facilities given by such financial institution for agricultural purposes. Hence, any land used for raising a plantation crop, if mortgaged to a financial institution, even if for non-agricultural purposes, could also be sold for enforcement of the said security.
Having regard to Section 104 and Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act, lands on which the plantation crops are grown, being exempt from the restrictions pertaining to agricultural land mentioned in Section 79-A, 79-B and 80, in view of Section 104 and Section 81 of the said Act, would not come within the scope and ambit of the 'agricultural land' under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act - on a contextual interpretation, land on which plantation crops are grown is not agricultural land within the meaning of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.
It emerges that the land on which plantation crops are raised (coffee in the instant case), if mortgaged or given by way of a security to a financial institution to obtain a credit facility, whether for an agricultural purpose or for a non-agricultural purpose, the said security could be enforced and Section 31(i) of SARFAESI Act does not apply to such land. That means the financial institution can enforce the security created on such lands. We make it clear that this judgment concerns the interpretation of lands on which plantation crops are grown being construed as agricultural lands within Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act only as the lands in these cases concern plantation crops. We have not ventured to consider the matter in the context of non-plantation crops.
In the instant case, the securities created in the coffee plantations can be enforced for the realization of the debts as coffee plantation would not come within the scope and ambit of agricultural land under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act insofar as State of Karnataka is concerned.
Thus, it is concluded:-
(i) That in these cases, the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) That the expression 'agricultural land' in Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, does not include land on which plantation crops are grown namely, cardamom, coffee, pepper, rubber and tea as defined in Section 2(A)(25) of the Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the measures initiated by the respondent banks in relation to the coffee estates in these appeals are not hit by Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, as the said Act is applicable to land on which plantation crops are grown, including coffee plantation, in the instant cases.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1264 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Reimbursement of differential tax amount arising out of change in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) - requirement to pay tax which was not envisaged while entering into the agreement - change in the regime regarding works contract under GST - HELD THAT:- The Government has now come out with a revised guidelines in this respect in supersession of the guidelines issued vide Finance Department letter dated 7th December, 2017. He has filed Additional Counter Affidavit of Opposite Party-authority in similar cases annexing the revised guidelines relating to works contract under GST issued by the Government of Odisha, Finance Department vide Office memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F Dated 10th December, 2018.
The Petitioner shall make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks from today ventilating the grievance. If such a representation is filed, the authority will consider and dispose of the same, in the light of the aforesaid revised guidelines dated 10th December, 2018 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 19th March, 2021.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1263 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of bail application - bail assailed on the ground that the High Court failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - appeal has been filed after a delay of 405 days - HELD THAT:- We have been repeatedly deprecating the practice of authorities coming before this Court after inordinate delays assuming as if the Law of Limitation does not apply to them. Repeatedly, reliance is placed on the judgments of vintage when technology was not easily available. No reference is made to the subsequent judgment in the Office of the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] which has dealt with the issue that consideration of the ability of the Government to file appeal in time would have to be dealt with in the context of the technology now available and merely shuffling files from one table to the other would no more be a sufficient reason.
The irony is that despite our repeated orders, very little is done at least in taking action against concerned officers who sit on files and do nothing. The presumption is as if this Court will condone the delay for the asking. We refuse to follow such a course - it is considered appropriate to follow the same course of action in the present case and impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner to be recovered from the officers concerned. The cost be deposited in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks along with the certificate of recovery from the officers concerned.
The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
........
|
