TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance, the writ petitioner alleges that the scheme of amnesty propounded under certain circulars and clarifications issued by or on behalf of the Central Board of Direct Taxes which are indicated in prayer (a) should be quashed for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 6, 6A and 6B of the writ petition. The principal submission in this behalf is that these go beyond the power of the Board conferred under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the second place, what has been impugned is the immunity or amnesty allegedly granted to respondent No. 3 under the said amnesty scheme. Finally, and that appears to be the principal trust of the writ petition, it is averred that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Sheriff of Bombay by the State of Maharashtra with effect from December 20, 1986, should be quashed by a writ of quo warranto or a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ. We shall turn to the second and the third aspects in the first instance. As far as the second aspect is concerned, there is a clear statement made on behalf of the Union of India that the proposals for settlement or grant of amnesty are still pending consideration and no final decision has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of which the writ petitioner assails the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Sheriff. Substantially similar averments, though perhaps in a somewhat truncated form, were to be found in paragraph 13 of Ramdas Nayak's writ petition earlier rejected by another single judge. It is impossible to subscribe our concurrence with the observations made by the single judge in Ramdas Nayak's case that the allegation against respondent No. 3 were without substance. As the record stood, it was and is not possible for the court to observe that they are disproved or shown to be without any basis. All that the court could opine was that the allegations were fairly serious, that at least in the present petition the language occasionally bordered on the intemperate, and that prima facie the court could not hold the allegations as proved or likely to be proved so that drastic action or relief sought for should be granted or should be considered for passing appropriate interim orders. When we make these observations, it may not be taken or implied that we are making observations to the other effect, namely, that we are satisfied with the truth of the allegations in any respect or that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deponent was merely pleading to the intemperate language and the extreme allegations made in the petition. To a certain extent, the explanation holds water, but what we expect from the Government in such matters is a full disclosure indicating the manner in which the appointments are made generally and how this appointment came to be made in particular. Affidavits made in this manner give rise to suspicion that there is something improper in the State of Maharashtra. It is the admitted position that no qualifications are laid down for the appointment to the office of the Sheriff . However, in the warrant of precedence, he has been given a fairly prominent place and again he has pre-eminent position in the social life of the city. The question raised by the petitioner, however, appears to be a matter of proprieties and breach of norms rather than a breach of law. Of course, Mr. Singhvi put it very cleverly as a case of admitted non-application of mind, and this argument was based upon the unsatisfactory affidavit of Mr. Tripathi. Broadly speaking, however, it will have to be held that this is not a case of appointment of a person who is either suffering a prosecution at pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oting and not on the footing which appealed to the single judge in Ramdas Nayak's case or the footing which appealed to the single judge in the present petition that we sustain the non-issue of the rule on this third point. That brings us to the consideration of prayer (a), namely, the challenge to the amnesty scheme as going beyond the powers of the Central Board of Direct Taxes conferred under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was pointed out by Mr. Singhvi that in the earlier scheme, such as the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme or even the Tyagi Scheme or the Special Bearer Bonds Scheme, the proposals and the provisions came into being directly under the aegis of Parliament and Parliament had either by law or under the rules full control on, and over, these schemes. He took us very briefly through the judgment given by the Supreme Court where such schemes or provisions were upheld because it was law made or controlled by Parliament and the court opined that it would not substitute its own approach of ethics to that of Parliament. On the other hand, Mr. Dhanuka was at pains to point out that the scheme was mentioned categorically and clearly in the long-term financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Here, however, the petitioner impugns the basis, both legal and ethical, of the entire scheme and submits that such a scheme can never be permitted to be effected through the circulars of the Board. In paragraph 9 of the judgment of the single judge, there is a reference to circulars having been upheld by the court in a number of judgments, but the point being considered therein was more of application than of the legality or constitutionality of the circulars. In our opinion, despite the very substantial points urged by Mr. Dhanuka regarding delay and practical considerations, the points raised or sought to be raised in prayer (a) of the writ petition does require fuller consideration and it cannot be brusquely or lightly rejected, as appears to have been done by the single judge. It may be that the court at the final hearing may refrain from interfering with the disclosures made under the present scheme and that at the same time opine that the manner was improper. This course may be followed on account of the points urged by Mr. Dhanuka or on similar or other considerations. In our, opinion, no chaos is likely to result or difficulty caused merely because a rule is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
