These rules may be called the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2011 and they shall come into force with effect from the date 1st May 2011. These rules amends rule 53 , 54, 55A and insert rule 60A after rule 60.
Delhi High Court today (Friday – 29.4.2011) stayed the Notification levying service tax on representational services rendered by individual lawyers to business entities, till further orders and fixed the next date of hearing on 23.5.2011, with directions to UOI to file counter in a fortnight. The stay was given in response to Writ Petition filed in the Delhi High Court bearing WP No. 2792 of 2011 by Delhi Bar Association to challenge the levy of service-tax on “Legal Consultancy Services”.
A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 54 It has now been decided to allow custodian banks to issue Irrevocable Payment Commitments (IPCs) in favour of the Stock Exchanges / Clearing Corporations of the Stock Exchanges, on behalf of their FII clients for purchase of shares under the PIS. Issue of IPCs should be in accordance with the Reserve Bank regulations on banks’ exposure to the capital market issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time. Further, AD Category – I banks may also comply with the instructions issued by our Department of Banking Operations and Development (DBOD) vide circular no. DBOD Dir. BC.46/13.03.00/2010-11 dated September 30, 2010.
High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ORDINARILY RELIEF UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS NOT AVAILABLE IF AN EFFICACIOUS ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO ANY AGGRIEVED PERSON. (See: Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 524; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675; State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories & Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 252).
Wrongful withholding of company property is an offence and the wrong doer can be proceeded against under section 630 of the Companies Act. Whether this section can be pressed into service even against the legal heirs of past employee is the crucial question examined in the light of recent judicial elucidations.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. Vs. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. (AIR 1996 SC 114; Date of Judgment 24/04/1995) held that Right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence assured in Article.19 (1) (e) and right to life under Article. 21 of the Constitution.
Since long the public sector banks and financial institutions (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Bank’ or ‘the Banks’) have unilaterally and arbitrarily developed a practice to execute personal guarantee agreements with the guarantors to secure the debts of a company. This view is supported by the judgement of hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs N. Narasimahaiah & Ors. {2008 AIR 1797, 2008 (5) SCC 176, 2008 (4) JT 183; Date of Judgment: 13/03/2008}, wherein the court has observed as follows (in para 18)
The objective of creating an insurance repository is to provide policyholders a facility to keep insurance policies in electronic form and to undertake changes, modifications and revisions in the insurance policy with speed and accuracy in order to bring about efficiency, transparency and cost reduction in the issuance and maintenance of insurance policies.
Expenditure incurred by the company on account of stamp duty and registration fee for the issue of bonus shares is allowable expenditure. The Supreme Court has reiterated its view as already expressed in 1964 in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC). However, the Gujrat High Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 800 (Guj) in 1986 and in other cases up to 1994 has taken a contrary view. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 689 (AP) and (1990) 184 ITR 70 (AP) in 1988 and up to 1990 has also taken a contrary view. It is unfortunate that Hon’ble Gujrat High Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court have clearly violated the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution; the concept is discussed in detail later on hereinafter.
The yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
