Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Joit Kumar Jain Versus State of Punjab and others

Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the appeal - proceedings under COFEPOSA - Held that: - Since the detention order stands executed as of now, there cannot therefore exist any bar in considering the merits of the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner even if some were earlier raised in unsuccessful pre detention challenge. The consideration of the grounds urged is only after execution of the detention order. Even otherwise the main ground of non-p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on challenge. The decision of Full Bench in Ram Kumar's case (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Sponsoring Authority is also not relevant in the present factual scenario. This Court cannot permit the authorities to take shelter of such technical pleas in the matter of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in a preventive detention matter. - Territorial jurisdiction - Held that: - it is seen that the petitioner has a residence in the State of Haryana. The Detaining Authority had deputed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the petitioner in taking a residential premises within the jurisdiction of this court although it has proximity to his factory at Baddi, it cannot be held that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the challenge to the detention order even after its execution in Haryana. - The Sponsoring Authority as well as the Detaining Authority had failed to take requisite care that was required to sustain the preventive detention order to curtail lib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the Settlement Authority cannot withhold vital documents from the Detaining Authority. - In the instant case, the Detaining Authority has miserably failed to advert to in the grounds of detention the factual position regarding recourse to ordinary punitive law of the land. She was not aware that the Sponsoring Authority was not even pressing for the prosecution of the petitioner despite he being a repeated offender. The Detaining Authority is also obliged to enquire about the status of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

YAPAUL Mr. Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate, Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for the respondent JUDGEMENT M.JEYAPAUL, J. 1. The petitioner Joit Kumar Jain who is a resident of Panchkula, Haryana and who was detained at Central Jail, Ambala pursuant to the impugned order of detention bearing No. PSA-1212/CR-13/SPL-3(A) dated 8.4.2013 passed against him under Section 3 (1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isfaction and consequently rendered the detention order illegal, null and void. Neither the fact of non placement has been specifically denied by the respondents, nor any records produced to show to the contrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- a) The investigation was commenced on 17.4.2012 by Director of Revenue intelligence (DRI) with seizure of huge quantity of memory card concealed in the consignments imported by the petitioner in the name of four different entities, namely, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner was thus moved by the Sponsoring Authority, DRI. The investigation culminated in issuance of a show cause notice dated 24.9.2012 proposing demand of differential duty of ₹ 1,39,66,178/- and penal action against the petitioner under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. c) The application for settlement of case alleged in the said show cause notice was filed on 27.9.2012 before the Settlement Commission. Once the said application was admitted for settlement, the petitioner filed W.P. (Cr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the limited prayer of the petitioner. e) Thereafter on 15.1.2013 the petitioner for seeking a favorable recommendation to the Detaining Authoritiy in terms of the said order dated 12.10.2012 and also for seeking immunities from fine, penalty and prosecution under the Act, tendered detailed written submissions during the course of hearing granted by Settlement Commission. Various precedents and statutory provisions were also relied upon to justify that no cause for preventive detention was mad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsideration of these written submissions. The said Record of Proceedings also shows categorical submissions of the Sponsoring Authority in para 3.2 thereof that it was not pressing for prosecution, despite the allegation that repeated offences were committed by the petitioner. g) The instant petition alleges non placement, non consideration and non advertance to these two documents namely Written Submissions and the Record of Proceedings of hearing dated 15.1.2013, although the impugned detentio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court without surrendering to the same on various grounds. The concluding paragraphs of the judgment of Bombay High Court merits reproduction:- "19. Therefore we see no merit in the challenge to the order of preventive detention at pre execution stage. 20. Accordingly we pass the following order:- i) Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. ii) However, we may observe that the findings which we have recorded in the judgment are in the context of ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

open for consideration after the execution of the order. j) The petitioner had thereafter taken a rental residential premises in Panchkula, Haryana which according to him has proximity with his factory at Baddi in Himachal Pardesh (para 5 of the Grounds of Detention specifically refers to this factory situated at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh). k) With an apprehension that the impugned detention order would be served upon him at this residential premises in Panchkula, falling within the territorial ju .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Union of India and another (1982)1 SCC 271, it was found that there was no impediment in directing detention of the petitioner near a place where he claimed to be residing. In A.K. Roy, the Constitution Bench held as follows:- "74. ... ... Laws of preventive detention cannot, by the backdoor, introduce procedural measures of a punitive kind. Detention without trial is an evil to be suffered, but to no greater extent and in no greater measure that is minimally necessary in the interest of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on." 5. In view of the above dictum of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench read with Section 4 of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 which provides that the detention order can be executed anywhere in India, coupled with the fact that no prejudice was being caused to the preventive purpose of detention order, vide the said order dated 17.2.2014 I also directed the petitioner to first surrender on 3.3.2014 before the police authorities in Panchkula, where he himself claimed to be residing. In the interes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

na. The petitioner was thus larged at Central Jail, Ambala within the jurisdiction of this court. The discretion exercised by this court vide order dated 17.2.2014 for compelling the petitioner to surrender to the detention order in the State of Haryana by rejecting his prayer for consideration of the petition without surrendering to the detention order was not assailed even by the respondents. 7. On 5.3.2014 the petitioner vide CRM-W-69 of 2014 inter-alia placed on record the detention order, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ced on record to show that communication of rejection of his pre detention representation was received by post at the petitioner's residence in Panchkula. 8. Since the petitioner had shown bona-fides by surrendering to custody as directed, his petition was taken up for consideration as a post execution petition as already indicated vide order dated 17.2.2014. The petitioner could have chosen to file a fresh petition from Central Jail, Ambala in this court after service of the detention order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

esentation of the complaint in the court cannot be held to mean that its congnizance had been taken by the Magistrate. If the complaint is found to be pre-mature, it can await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later and its mere presentation at an earlier date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed." Applying the same principle, even if .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

placement, non consideration and non advertance to the two vital documents namely detailed written submissions dated 15.1.2013 filed by the petitioner during the course of personal hearing before the Settlement Commission and the record of personal hearing held on 15.1.2013 reflecting the contentions of both sides that although there were allegations of the petitioner being a repeated offender, the Sponsoring Authority was not pressing for the prosecution of the petitioner. He also pointed out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

settlement lest the immunities granted would be liable to be withdrawn. He thus pleaded that effective preventive measures were taken in final settlement of the case. 10. Although notice was served upon the Detaining Authority and it had deputed its representative for the purpose of service of detention order and grounds upon the petitioner in State of Haryana, however, it did not initially show any interest to even enter appearance and file counter affidavit to oppose the consideration of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion as well as written reply to the petition. 11. After carefully perusing the grounds of detention and the list of documents and after hearing the arguments it was seen that (i) there was no reference in the grounds and in the said list to the two vital documents which were claimed by the petitioner as not placed before the Detaining Authority and consequently not considered by the Detaining Authority (ii) there was no averment in the grounds regarding the vital aspect of possibility of prosecu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c) Bharti Arora (order dated 29.8.2013 in WP (Crl.) 1221 of 2013 by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court. And the matter was posted for final disposal on 12.3.2014 with a direction to the petitioner to remain present without fail in Court on the said day at 10.00 A.M. 12. On 12.3.2014 the petitioner personally appeared as directed by this Court. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly agreed to implead the DRI as respondent no. 4 and the application for impleadment was a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed counsel appearing for the Sponsoring Authority on being specifically asked could make a positive statement that the two vital documents referred to above were actually placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority and consequently considered by her before issuance of the detention order. 14. On behalf of the respondents it was argued that (i) merits of the detention order were earlier considered by the Bombay High Court and the petition was dismissed. Even SLP thereagainst .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the earlier proceedings; (ii) this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the prayer for quashing the order of detention issued in State of Maharashtra under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India, as no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court; (iii) These two documents namely written submissions dated 15.1.2013 and the record of personal hearing made on 15.1.2013 before Settlement Commission were not relevant because comments of Settlement Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rmation of opinion and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would not get vitiated. (iv) The petitioner was earlier arrested on 19.3.2013 for his involvement in seizure of mobile phones. The petitioner was also involved in two other cases booked against M/s Dharamendra Enterprises and M/s Amry Trading Company. He was thus a habitual offender. Each of these cases can be considered as separate ground for issuance of detention order and thus neither the fact of not pressing for pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itioner after execution of the detention order, in the light of dismissal of his earlier petition by Bombay High Court at pre detention stage. (ii) Whether no part of cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this court to consider the challenge to the impugned detention order. (iii) Whether the respondents are right in claiming that the two documents namely written submissions dated 15.1.2013 and the record of personal hearing made on 15.1.2013 before Settlement Commission were such irr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d preventive detention order to curtail the liberty of the petitioner without trial. (vi) Whether the allegation of being repeated offender disentitles the petitioner to raise the contentions of non placement of vital documents or of non consideration of the aspect of prosecution in the matter. 16. I do not find merit in the stand taken by the respondentson any of the above issues. The Bombay High Court had not only expressly kept open all the issues to be raised and decided on merits after exec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ged is only after execution of the detention order. Even otherwise the main ground of non-placement and non-consideration of the said two documents was not raised by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court and thus, there was no reference to these two documents in the entire judgment. The respondents fail to support their contention with any binding precedent where the Courts have refused to consider the challenge of a detenu in a Habeas Corpus Petition after execution of the detention order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1)10 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in dealing with Writs of Habeas Corpus, mere technical objections raised by the Detaining Authority concerning pleadings of the detenu cannot be entertained. It observed thus:- "13. ... ... But, insofar as the question of technical plea which has been raised by the learned counsel on the question of prayer in the Habeas Corpus petition is concerned, we are constrained to observe that in dealing with writs of Habeas Corpus, such technical .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in preventive detention custody at Central Jail, Ambala in Haryana. He has also received the rejection of his pre detention representation in Haryana. Therefore, merely because the respondents have doubts on the bona-fides of the petitioner in taking a residential premises within the jurisdiction of this court although it has proximity to his factory at Baddi, it cannot be held that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the challenge to the dete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Rajasthan High Court held as follows:- "Applying the above tests, we cannot escape the conclusion that factual detention of a person at a particular place would supply cause of action for challenging the detention. ......If detention has to retain its preventive character and is not to be allowed to become punitive in practice, if not in law, we have to reject the narrow construction put on the concept of partial cause of action by the Division Bench in Sewa Ram's case (supra) and acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Nazima Begum versus Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi and another 1993 CRI LJ, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held as follows:- "...In the instant case, the effect of the order, namely, the detention order which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was served on the detenu only at Calcutta where he was detained and as such the Calcutta High Court alone has got jurisdiction. Even the order of rejection was served on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

us, these are essential facts which form part of the cause of action. Hence, we hold that this court has got jurisdiction and hence, the Original Petition is maintainable in this court". In Kamala Sarkar versus State of Bihar and others 2002 CriLJ 1414, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed as follows:- "In P. Subramani v. State of Karnataka reported in 1990 CriLJ 1106 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court distinguished the Swaika Properties case (supra) in a case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

considerable part of the cause of action took place in the State of Tamil Nadu, conferring jurisdiction upon this court. Yet again in Smt. Manjulaben v. C.T.A. Pillay reported in 1976 CriLJ 889, Desai, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that 'as initial detention of detenu which was at Baroda is continued, the same furnishes a part of cause of action to the detenus which arises within the jurisdiction of this court." So taking into .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court and in the event the said detention is held to be illegal, a writ of habeas corpus may have to be issued; pursuant whereto, the detenue may be released, we are of the opinion, that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court and as such the writ application is maintainable." The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt. Reena Ranka versus Union of India 1991 CRI LJ 3195 has held as follows:- "....and that the unjust rejection of the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd held that it was maintainable as one of the residential addressees of the detenu, although disputed by the Detaining Authority, was within the jurisdiction of this court. It has observed as follows:- "....The authorities had thus, gone after the petitioner both at his Delhi address as well as at his Ambala address. It cannot, thus, be gainfully said that no cause of action arose to the petitioner within the jurisdiction of this court...." This Court in S.P. Goyal versus Union of Ind .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ain and decide the present writ petition." In view of the above consistent views taken by various High Courts including this Court, I find no merit in the objection of the respondents. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the Detaining Authority relied upon an unreported decision dated 11.10.2012 of the Allahabad High Court in CRM-WP-No. 14978 of 2012 dated 11.10.2012 wherein the said High Court refused to entertain a petition despite there being residence of the petitioner in its juris .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cted the prayer to set aside the detention order at pre execution stage and directed the petitioner to surrender, the petitioner could have preferred a fresh petition or could have sought consideration of the same petition but after his surrender. Since the petitioner had chosen the later option, this Court was obliged to consider the merits of the petition as a post detention petition but only after surrender of the petitioner. If the petition had not matured initially, this court can await its .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 15.1.2013 before the Settlement Commission were irrelevant documents having no bearing on the issue of preventive detention. 21. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has interalia placed specific reliance for the purpose of showing relevance on the following vital averments made in the written submissions dated 15.1.2013:- "8. ... ... In the present case, a clear case for recommending non issuance of the order of preventive detention of the applicant is made out for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epeated offender. In Rekha, (2011) 5 SCC 244 and Munagala Yadamma, (2012) 2 SCC 386, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that preventive detention is not a substitute for prosecution, and further observed to the effect that where prosecution is possible, there is no justification to resort to preventive detention. In the present case, the fact that the Revenue did not oppose the applicant's prayer for immunity from prosecution, goes to indicate that the Revenue has no intention to seek cr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may please settle the entire case and may please grant immunities from fine and penalty and conditional immunities from prosecution under the Act. Further, it may recommend to the detaining authority that now there isn't any necessity for slapping an order of preventive detention on the applicant in the present facts and circumstances in the instant case." The said document inter-alia shows that despite allegations of being .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sponsoring Authority candidly informed the Settlement Commission that the department was not pressing for prosecution, which fact is recorded in the record of personal hearing dated 15.1.2013. It was recorded by the Settlement Commission on 15.1.2013 as follows:- "The learned Advocate further stated that the applicant has made full and true disclosure of his additional duty liability, therefore a lenient view may be taken while imposing the fine and penalty on the applicant as well as on t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Crores made by the applicant. 3.2 The ld. Representative of the Respondent Commissioner reiterated the submissions contained in the report of the ADG, DRI and submitted that looking to the repeated offences committed by the applicant, the stringent redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty may be imposed on the applicant as well as the co-applicants. However, the ld. Representative submitted that he is not pressing for prosecution. 4. A copy of these proceedings may be provided to both .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

either the record of proceedings nor the written submissions were placed before the Detaining Authority. There is merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since these vital documents do not find any reference in the entire grounds of detention or in the list of documents, it is apparent that the Detaining Authority was not alive to the contents of these documents containing relevant facts and submissions for the purpose of arriving at subjective satisfaction .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity one way or the other. Similarly in the instant case the respondents could not show from the grounds of detention any reference to any of these two vital documents. 24. Although the grounds of detention show that the petitioner was a repeated offender, I find that the prosecution of the petitioner was not pressed before settlement commission and the Detaining Authority was not alive of this vital fact having a bearing on requisite subjective satisfaction. Apart from the above, in support of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llows:- "We would like to record, however, another more important feature at this juncture :On an applicant before the Settlement Commission under Section 127-B of the Customs Act filed by the detenu on 8.2.2001 the Settlement Commission on 15.2.2001 after hearing the applicants and the Department, was pleased to admit the applications of the detenu and passed an order directing the detenu to make payment of additional duty of ₹ 11,65,803/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2.2001 ought to have been placed before the Detaining Authority-The records however depict otherwise: Neither the applicant nor the order passed thereon did see the light of the day before the Detaining Authority. There is no manner of doubt that the documents mentioned above are not only important but of definite impact in the matter of detention and having a bearing on to the issue. Under the circumstances, there thus stands a bounden obligation to place the same before the Detaining Authorit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ure? The learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents however hadn't had any answer to the same. The factum of non-placement of relevant documents, in our view, has had a serious effect and definite inroad to petitioner's liberty without application of mind. Non- placement of the order of payment of additional duty of ₹ 11,56,803/- within 30 days from the receipt of the order of the Commission has not only transgressed the right of the petitioner but in our view speaks a v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0 midnight as claimed by the petitioner, only at 12.30 after noon on February 19, 1988 as suggested by Shri Yogeshwa Prasad. But it cannot be disputed that such a telegram was sent. This telegram asserts, for whatever it was worth, that petitioner was taken into custody at 8.00 P.M. On February 18, 1988. The contention of Shri Garg is that the non-consideration of this telegram, which had a bearing on the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner in the alleged offence vitiates the detention of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evidence, which was relevant though non binding had not been considered whether or not to pass an order of detention is excluded from consideration, there would be a failure of application of mind which, in turn, vitiates the detention. The Detaining Authority might very well have come to the same conclusion after considering this material; but in the facts of the case the omission to consider the material assumes materiality. (iii) In Union of India Vs. Ranu Bhandari (2008) 17 SCC 348 it has b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orders passed by the Settlement Commission appointed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, which absolved the detenu from all criminal prosecution. 33. In the instant case, as some of the vital documents which have a direct bearing on the detention order, had not been placed before the detaining authority, there was sufficient ground for the detenu to question such omission. We are also of the view that on account of the non-supply of the documents mentioned hereinbefore, the detenu was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce should have been reflected from the grounds of detention. On a perusal of the grounds of detention, I noticed that it is possible to presume that each of these two documents would have contributed to the final subjective satisfaction one way or the other. What would have been the position, if the Detaining Authority was apprised of each of these two documents is not for me to make retrospective judgment at this distance of time. The above vital documents which have a direct bearing on the sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is misplaced, as in that case the document concerned was held to have no bearing on the formation of subjective satisfaction. Since material and vital documents which could influence the mind of the Detaining Authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to issue the detention order were not placed before the Detaining Authority and were not considered by it, the subjective satisfaction was vitiated rendering the detention order illegal.. 26. In the instant case, the Detaining Au .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ution. Heavy reliance was placed by the respondents on para 54 of the grounds of detention which reads as under:- "I have also considered the comments of Settlement Commission as per the direction given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Writ Petition NO. 146/2012. The Settlement Commission deals with the settlement of cases relating to levy, assessment and collection of customs/central excise duty and service tax. The COFEPOSA Act, 1974 deals with the law relating to prevent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, has been initiated. In the instant case various offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are referred, however, the requisite satisfaction on this vital aspect concerning his prosecution in each of these cases is not reflected from the grounds of detention. The Detaining Authority was thus not alive to the actual fact as to whether prosecution proceedings were initiated or were likely to be initiated against the petitioner in each offence alleged against him. Reliance placed by the peti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se of extraordinary provisions contained in the Act for purposes for which ordinary law is quite sufficient....." Therefore, it was necessary for the Detaining Authority to record its satisfaction regarding the actual status of proceedings if any under ordinary criminal law and then to arrive at a satisfaction as to why the same was not sufficient before resorting to preventive detention. 27. The Sponsoring Authority as well as the Detaining Authority had failed to take requisite care that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sualness and vitiate the impugned detention order. It is settled law that the Settlement Authority cannot withhold vital documents from the Detaining Authority. 28. Moreover, the indemnity bond was also submitted by the petitioner before settlement commission whereby he undertook not to indulge in prejudicial smuggling activities but to maintain good behaviour and abide by the Customs Act, 1962 and allied acts, otherwise the final settlement would be void and the immunity granted therein, would .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decision to revoke the detention order against others in that case considering the factum of payment of entire dues as sufficient deterrent and preventive measures. 29. It was also urged on behalf of the Detaining Authority by relying upon Sunil Fulchand Shah versus Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 409 and State of Bihar versus Rambalak Singh, AIR (1966) S.C. 1441 that High Court cannot grant bail in the matter of preventive detention. However, a perusal of both the judgments shows a consistent view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

citor General that some of the detenus have been indulging in illicit smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances on a large scale and are involved in other anti- national activities which are very harmful to the national economy. He has urged that having regard to the nature of the activities of the detenus the cases do not justify interferences with the orders of detention made against them. We are not unmindful of the harmful consequencies of the activities in which the detenus ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Forum: GST Invoice

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Forum: Rent a cab operator

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Forum: GSTR 3B Rectification

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version