|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 2137 Records
-
2018 (9) TMI 2101 - AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, JHARKHAND
Levy of GST - land premium to be payable to the RIADA - applicability of serial No. 41 of notification 12/2017 under heading 9972 of GST issued by the central government on the payment of upfront lease premium on future installments - HELD THAT:- In the present case (i) the lease is for 30 years, (ii) The lessor i.e. RIADA is a corporation established by the State Government but the premium paid for the lease in 10 equal instalment over a period of 5 years. After paying the first instalment as upfront the applicant has received the service i.e. the industrial land/shed for the period of 30 years from the date of allotment.
Since the applicant has admitted himself that the word upfront means "beforehand" or "before the actual evident is due", the so called premium paid in instalment after the allotment does not qualify the criteria of upfront amount.
The amount payable in instalment to the Ranchi Industrial Development Authority (RIADA) on lease in respect of the scheduled land/ shed for a period of 30 years from the date of allotment after getting the allotment letter does not come under the category of upfront payment. Hence, it is not exempted from the GST vide serial no 41 of notification 12/2017 under heading 9927 of GST.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2100 - SUPREME COURT
Eviction from suit premises - eviction was claimed inter alia on the ground of unauthorized user of the suit premises by the appellants (defendants) which, according to the respondent (plaintiff), amounted to the change of user under the provision of Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- It is for the reason that the Executing Court had already decided all objections raised by the defendants (appellants) on merits and had found no merit therein. The Revisionary Court was, therefore, under legal obligation to decide the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the Executing Court on its merits in its revisionary jurisdiction instead of remanding the case to the Executing Court. Indeed, we do not find any justifiable reason, which could justify remand having regard to the nature of the objections raised by the defendants (appellants) before the Executing Court. In other words, this was not the case, which needed remand to the Executing Court for its fresh decision on merits.
The remand of a case to the Subordinate Court is considered necessary when the Superior Court while exercising its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction finds that the Subordinate Court has failed to decide some material issues arising in the case or there is some procedural lacuna noticed in the trial, which has adversely affected the rights of the parties while prosecuting the suit/proceedings or when some additional evidence is considered necessary to decide the rights of the parties which was not before the Trial Court etc - Such was not the case here.
Permission to file additional documents (Ex.22) to prove their case was provided or not - HELD THAT:- The documents sought to be filed by the defendants (revision petitioners) were neither relevant and nor material for deciding the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court. The legality and correctness of the order impugned in the revision could be decided one way or the other without the aid of any additional document but on the basis of material already on record keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in several decided cases on the issue in question. Indeed, if the Executing Court could decide the issue finally at its level, the Revisionary Court too could do the same at its level.
The High Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue but having regard to the nature of objections, remedy available to the parties to have finding on the question arising in the case one way or the other from the Revisionary Court and to put the record straight, it was not called for in this case - case remanded to the Revisionary Court to decide the defendants’ (appellants’) revision afresh on merits in accordance with law - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2099 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance against claim of harbor expenditure and against C & F charges - HELD THAT:- Claim had rejected this claim noting that there was no date stamp or stamp of the Income Tax Office on the copy of the letter filed by the assessee. There is no mention about the remand report also. In the assessment order, it is mentioned by the AO that the disallowance has been made for want of evidence.
We are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by the AO. We set aside the orders of the lower authorities in so far it relates to the disallowance of harbour expense claimed by the assessee, and remit it back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh. Assessee may be given an opportunity to file evidence in support of its clam, and the AO shall proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2098 - ITAT AGRA
Initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 - Information received from the CBDT that the assessee had filed a declaration under VDIS-1997 - HELD THAT;- As the reasons recorded by the AO only speak all the information received from the CBDT regarding the alleged declaration by the assessee. The reasons were supplied to the assessee on 20.03.2006. No such alleged declaration was, however, provided to the assessee. In the first round, in his remand report (APB-36) dated 2.10.2006, the AO expressed before the CIT(A) that the VDIS-1997 disclosure was needed in original, in order to verify such disclosure. The CIT(A), however, did not take any further steps in this regard.
It was only when the Tribunal, vide order remanded the matter to the AO, directing him to supply the alleged VDIS declaration to the assessee, that the alleged documents, i.e., VDIS form, assessee’s affidavit, report of valuation of jewellery in the assessee’s name and copy of account for the disclosure made under VDIS 1997, saw, much belatedly, the light of day and were supplied to the assessee only on 18.02.2014, in stark contravention of the Tribunal’s direction that if within three months of receipt of the Tribunal order dated 11.04.2012, the AO was not able to supply to the assessee, the VDIS declaration, he would drop the reassessment proceedings.
All this material, as such, has not been shown to have been in the possession of the AO at the time of recording of the reasons to believe escapement of income. In para 4 of the original assessment order dated 30.03.2006, the AO stated that the reasons were recorded on the basis of the information, as above, received from the CBDT, that the assessee’s contention that she had not declared any income in VDIS 1997, did not appear to be correct and that the total income was being assessed, believing the information sent by the CBDT.
Hence, even as per the AO himself, none of the documents referred to by the CIT(A), i.e., the VDIS form, the assessee’s affidavit, the report of the valuation of the jewellery in the assessee’s name and the copy of account for the disallowance made under VDIS 1997, was in the possession of the AO at the time of the recording of the reasons.
AO based the reopening merely on the bare information received by him from the CBDT that the assessee had filed a declaration under the VDIS 1997, in which, he (sic-she) had declared an amount of Rs.10,02,948/- on 31.12.1997, but had not paid the tax thereon and the Certificate was not issued to him (sic-her). It was this bald so called information, which was reproduced by the AO in the reasons recorded and he, without any further inquiry thereon, i.e., without any independent application of his own mind to it, formed his alleged reason to believe escapement of income. The reopening is, thus liable to be set aside and reversed on this score alone. We hold so. The reopening of the assessee’s completed assessment is cancelled on this count itself.
As for the alleged VDIS declaration attributed to the assessee, the mere information, which was the only material available with the AO at the relevant time, such declaration has been held to be that of the assessee. The basis for the CIT(A) to hold so is that the assessee’s signature thereon is exactly the same as that on the assessee’s statement given before the ITO in 2006.
Thus as cancelled the reopening of the assessment on the ground of it having been initiated merely on the bare information received from the CBDT, without any application of mind by the AO, any decision on this issue becomes otiose, as it, or anything else, no-longer survives. Assessee appeal is allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2097 - ITAT COCHIN
Disallowing the cost of planting and maintenance of immature rubber plants - HELD THAT:- Admittedly in this case the expenditure incurred is not for infilling in yielding area. The expenditure has been incurred for maintenance of immature rubber plants in replanted areas and such expenditure could not be allowed as deduction going by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd. [2012 (6) TMI 570 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court (supra), we hold that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2096 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Denial of deduction u/s 54B - investment made in the purchase of the agricultural land in the name of his sons - HELD THAT:- Assessee being an old aged person and was not keeping well thought it prudent to buy the agricultural land in the name of his sons to avoid future family disputes relating to the inheritance of the property of the assessee after his death. The sale proceeds from the sale of agricultural land were duly invested in the purchase of agricultural land itself. We, therefore, do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities in denying the claim of deduction the assessee u/s 54B of the Act.
In view of this, order of the lower authorities is hereby set aside and the AO is directed to allow deduction to the assessee u/s 54B of the Act in respect of the investment made in the purchase of the agricultural land in the name of his sons. Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2095 - ITAT DELHI
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - whether the income earned from technical handling is duly covered by Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherland and as such income accruing to assessee during the year under consideration is fully exempt from taxation in India and could not have been brought to tax in India? - HELD THAT:- After hearing both the sides we find that Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06, passed has dealt and decided the identical issue relating handling services and technical handling services rendered by the assessee to other airlines in India in assessee’s own case while explaining the meaning of profit from the operation of ships and aircrafts in international traffic has took into consideration, the bye laws of international airlines technical pool (IATP) because this organization authorized its members to share air-crafts pooling, ground handling equipment and manpower all over the world.
ITAT has considered the relevant clauses of IATP manual and thereafter concluded that any receipt received by the assessee due to participation in the pool as provided in IATP manual and also explained in sub article 4 of Indo German DTAA will not be taxable in India under sub-Article 1 of Article 8. In the present appeals, there is no disparity on facts. Ld. DR except raising an argument that ground handling and technical handling services are different activities then operation of any air-craft in international traffic failed to bring any rules, regulations, byelaws for substantiating his contentions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2094 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to travel abroad to Philippines for a period of 10 days - revisionist was the Director of M/s Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. and that his company has misappropriated more than Rs.100 crores which was meant to be distributed as credit to the farmers - HELD THAT:- The revisionist is an accused in the present case and is stated to be involved in huge financial scam of an amount of Rs. 100 crores approximately which according to the O.P. No.3-Bank has been embezzled by the said company. The investigation is still going on and the learned Special Judge (Anti-corruption) has expressed apprehension that there could be possibility of the accused-revisionist fleeing from the country so as to avoid his arrest (if required) during investigation or trial, in our view as well such a possibility may not be ruled, hence, there are no infirmity in the impugned order and are not inclined to give any relief to the revisionist.
The present revision is, hereby, dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2093 - ITAT SURAT
Unaccounted income - AIR information revealed that the assessee has had bank account with Yes bank Ltd. in which total deposits were seen including cash deposits - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is a salaried person and deriving salary from Kalyani Multilink Pvt. Ltd. The deposits appearing in the bank account under consideration has not been disclosed - pattern of deposits in bank account would show that these are there are some transaction in which cheque has been issued. There are debit entries in this bank account. The assessee has claimed that this bank account pertained to her business in trading. Ongoing through bank statement and facts of the case we observe that there are frequent transaction of cash as well as cheques.
On careful consideration of facts, we are of the view that entire deposits in bank account cannot be considered for addition. Since the bank account is reflecting deposits as well as withdrawals, hence, there is every likely that bank account has been used for unrecorded business transactions as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that only profit eliminate @ 5% is considered for tax of total deposits - Therefore, the AO is directed to consider net profit @ 5% of total deposits which worked out to Rs. 91,600. Accordingly this addition of Rs. 14,76,614 is restricted to Rs. 91,600. This ground is therefore, partly allowed.
Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has filed confirmation bank statement and copy of return of income of her husband but the bank statement of her husband shows that there is cash deposits of Rs. 2 Lakh before issue of cheques to the assessee. Further the total income shown by her husband is only Rs. 98,000. Hence, the depositor has no capacity to advance such amount of loan. Therefore, the addition so made needs to be confirmed in the case of Umesh Krishnani [2013 (8) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Hence, we do not have any reason to differ with decision of Ld. CIT (A), therefore, same upheld. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal is therefore, dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2092 - ITAT SURAT
Estimating the income from undisclosed turnover - Undisclosed deposit to the bank account - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the provision of s. 44AD of the Act and amount of turnover undertaken by the assessee during the relevant period, we are of the considered opinion that the entire amount deposited to the bank account of the assessee by the respective purchasers cannot be treated as income of the assessee only profit element therein can be treated as income of the assessee from Jari business. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the all possible leakage of revenue would be covered if, the profit/income earned from the Jari business is estimated @ 10% of total turnover of the assessee and we direct the AO to calculate the income of the assessee accordingly on the turnover of Rs. 11,84,036/-. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the assessee is dismissed and ground No.2 of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2091 - ITAT SURAT
Unexplained cash deposited in savings bank account - estimation of profit/income earned from the Jari business - HELD THAT:- As per provision of s. 44AD of the Act, 8% of turnover or gross receipts of the assessee in the previous years on account of such business shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head “profit and gains of business or profession”. From the copy of bank account, it is discernable that the assessee has withdrew and deposited very small amounts and the peak was Rs. 34,623/- as on 18.03.2008, but the same cannot be treated as the only income earned from the Jari business of the assessee.
Keeping in view the provision of s. 44AD of the Act and amount of turnover undertaken by the assessee during the relevant period, we are of the considered opinion that the entire amount deposited to the bank account of the assessee by the respective purchasers cannot be treated as income of the assessee only profit element therein can be treated as income of the assessee from Jari business. Therefore, all possible leakage of revenue would be covered if, the profit/income earned from the Jari business is estimated @ 10% of total turnover of the assessee and we direct the AO to calculate the income of the assessee accordingly.
From the copy of bank statement, we observe that on 31.03.2007 there was balance of Rs. 401/- only which was brought forward to the present financial year and thereafter, on 05.04.2007, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited and thereafter, balance reached to Rs. 20,401/-. Hence, we observe that there was a very meager amount of Rs. 401/- in the beginning of financial year and hence, the peak of Rs. 34,623/- as on 18.03.2008 is also be treated as an amount of undisclosed investment of the assessee for conducting Jari business as no business can be done without any capital. Therefore, AO is also directed to make addition of peak amount to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, remaining sole ground of the assessee is partly allowed and AO is directed to re-compute the taxable income of the assessee as directed above.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2090 - SC ORDER
G.P. addition - admitted facts in the statement of Director u/s 132(4) - average GP rate which will be applied in the present case will be 12 per cent - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
List along with SLP [2018 (8) TMI 2092 - SC ORDER]
-
2018 (9) TMI 2089 - SC ORDER
TDS u/s 194A - Motor Accidents Claims - Liability of Insurance Company to deduct income tax at source (TDS) on the interest paid on the compensation paid under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - as per HC Interest paid along with the compensation as a result of the order of the Tribunal or of the superior Court is not liable for TDS - HELD THAT:- Permission to file SLPs is granted. Delay condoned.
We do not find any merit in these petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. The question of law is, however, left open.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2088 - ITAT KOLKATA
TDS u/s 194J - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Non deduction of TDS on payment of subscription & technology fee - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (7) TMI 2052 - ITAT KOLKATA] the said amount was towards the reimbursement of the expenses, which was in fact incurred on behalf of the assessee and there was no profit element. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) deleting the aforesaid addition.
TDS u/s 194I - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS on payment of rent for computer - a similar deduction on account of rent eimbursed to DTTIPL was claimed and allowed by the AO in scrutiny assessment for the A.Y.2008-09 - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (7) TMI 2052 - ITAT KOLKATA] assessee had reimbursed its share of the rent for the laptops to DTTIPL and no tax is deductible at source on such payments. As it is a well settled legal position, as discussed by ld CIT(A) also that factual matters which permeate through more than one assessment year, if the Revenue has accepted a particular view or proposition in the past, it is not open for the Revenue to take a entirely contrary or different stand in a later year on the same issue, involving identical facts unless and until a cogent case is made out by the Assessing Officer on the basis of change in facts
Payment of indemnity insurance expense - Proof of allowable business expenditure - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (7) TMI 2052 - ITAT KOLKATA] the expenditure on professional indemnity insurance has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and is an admissible deduction. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) deleting the aforesaid addition.
Revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2087 - SUPREME COURT
Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment - Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts - HELD THAT:- It is easy to see the pattern of Article 46 being followed in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A). Whereas “backward classes” in Article 16(4) is equivalent to the “weaker sections of the people” in Article 46, and is the overall genus, the species of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is separately mentioned in the latter part of Article 46 and Article 16(4-A). This is for the reason, as has been pointed out by us earlier, that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are the most backward or the weakest of the weaker sections of society, and are, therefore, presumed to be backward.
It can be seen that when seats are to be reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the test of proportionality to the population is mandated by the Constitution. The difference in language between this provision and Article 16(4-A) is important, and we decline the invitation of the learned Attorney General to say any more in this behalf.
The conclusion in M. NAGARAJ & ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2006 (10) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT] that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in INDRA SAWHNEY ETC. ETC VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, ETC. [1992 (11) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT] is held to be invalid to this extent.
Application disposed off.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2086 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Classification of services - project/ work executed for hydro-electric project alongwith material - classifiable under ‘Works Contract Service’ or under CICS - whether the said work falls under the exclusion clause under the definition of works contract service? - construction made by the respondent-assessee for educational institution (not for commercial purpose).
Works contract service or not? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order in original and other documents shows that contracts in dispute are composite contracts in which both goods are supplied and services are provided. Further on the composite nature of contracts, involving supply of goods and services, there is no dispute raised by the Revenue. The issue that composite contracts involving supply of goods and services, are ‘works contract’ has been settled by the Apex court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only contracts of service simpliciter without involving goods, will be covered in the sub clauses of 65(105) - thus, the service in dispute which are composite in nature, are correctly classified under ‘works contract service’.
Commissioner has correctly dropped the demand for the period prior to 01.06.2007 as the works contract were not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. For the period post 01.06.2007 also demand cannot be confirmed under ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction service’ under which demand was proposed in the show cause notice, as such lead will cover only service contract simpliciter, not the composite contract. Thus, the demand is not maintainable under ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction service’ for the entire period in dispute.
Whether the construction of Hydro Electric project is not in respect of tunnels or dams, and thus not excluded from entry of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’ or ‘works contract service’? - HELD THAT:- In the present case in the order in original, the Commissioner has discussed in detail that services in question are in respect of dams and tunnels. Since the services provided in dispute are in respect of dam and tunnel, the same is excluded from the definition of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’, and not taxable. Thus, the order passed by the Commissioner is correct and maintained, on this issue.
Demand of service tax on construction of educational institute - HELD THAT:- Revenue has not appreciated the definition of Commercial or Industrial Construction service. A perusal of definition shows that to decide the taxability under said service, user of the building, so constructed, is relevant. Clarification has been issued by CBEC Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST, dated 17.09.2004, wherein it is clarified that leviability of service tax would depend upon whether the building or civil structure is used or to be used for commerce or industry - Revenue in the appeal has not produced any evidence to show that building constructed by the Respondent are not used for educational purpose and same are used for commercial purpose. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of the Commissioner is correct and maintained. Moreover, the ground on which appeal is filed is not sustainable in terms of the definition itself.
The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross-objection filed by the respondent is disposed of.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2085 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to withdraw the petition - Refund of amounts deposited with the Revenue under Central Sales Tax Act, 1960 read with Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 - refund sought on the ground that this deposit done during the course of a search was not justified, as it was contrary to the provisions of the Acts - HELD THAT:- The petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to urge the contentions raised herein before the Authorities, who are in the process of assessing the revised returns / regular returns for the Financial Years 2011-12 to 2016-17.
The petition is disposed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2084 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Jurisdiction - appropriate forum - Disaffiliation of the petitioner's Association by the respondent No. 2 - affiliation granted to respondent No. 3 - HELD THAT:- The reading of the Clause 21 of the Constitution and Bye-Laws discloses that the Suits/Legal actions against the respondent No. 2 i.e. Federation shall be instituted only in the courts at Chennai where the Registered Office of the respondent No. 2 is situated. Hence a body which is affiliated to the respondent No. 2 subscribes to the said Clause 21 and thereby admits to the ouster of jurisdiction of all courts except the courts at Chennai - thus, there are substance in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 as regards territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above writ petition.
In the facts of the present case when there is existence of Clause 21 which have been adverted to herein, the jurisdiction of the other courts except the courts at Chennai in respect of any suits/Legal action which are brought against the respondent No. 2 are ousted. Though the reliefs have also been sought against the respondent No. 2 the same would also not confer jurisdiction as the reliefs against the respondent No. 3 can be said to be incidental reliefs to the reliefs which are stated in the earlier part of this order.
Hence the writ petition are not entertained on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, the petitioner are permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts at Chennai for the reliefs sought.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2083 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Confiscation - imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty - goods are re-exported - mis-declaration to the extent that the description stated in the Bill of Entry was parts of mobile phones whereas the import was found to be of complete mobile phones - enhancement of assessable value - HELD THAT:- The order by the original authority that goods should be redeemed and be re-exported is contradictory because if the goods are re-exported then the appellant will not have ownership of the goods and for such goods on which he does not have ownership he is made to pay redemption fine and if he does not pay redemption fine, the goods are Government's property in terms of Section 126 of Customs Act, 1962. In that situation, the order to re-export cannot be enforced by the appellant.
The original authority had option of either ordering re-export of the goods without confiscation of the same or he had option of confiscating the goods and giving an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. Since the goods are re-exported the confiscation of the goods is set aside and therefore automatically the imposition of redemption fine does not become sustainable. The imposition of redemption fine is also set aside. Further the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 is reduced to Rs. 50,000/-.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2082 - SUPREME COURT
Places of religious worship can be acquired under the State's sovereign power of acquisition or not - violation of Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution or not - whether right to practice, profess and propagate religion guaranteed Under Article 25 does not extend to the right of worship at any and every place of worship? - protection Under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is to religious practice which forms an essential or integral part of the religion or not - whether a practice may be a religious practice but not an essential and integral part of practice of that religion? - reference to the Larger Bench.
HELD THAT:- Considering the Constitutional importance and significance of the issues involved, the following need to be referred to a larger Bench:
(a) Whether in the light of Shirur Mutt and other aforementioned cases, an essential practice can be decided without a detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith in question?
(b) Whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality?
(c) Does Article 25, only protect belief and practices of particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential?
(d) Do Articles 15, 25 and 26 (read with Article 14) allow the comparative significance of faiths to be undertaken?
The Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
........
|
