The CBI on Saturday filed its first chargesheet in the 2G spectrum probe against former Telecom Minister A Raja and some of his close aides. The 80,000-page charge sheet alleges a loss of over Rs 30,000 crore rupees because of Raja’s lapses. Charges have been framed against former Telecom Secretary Siddharth Behura, Raja’s former private secretary R K Chandolia and Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Balwa. Balwa’s partner Vinod Goenka, Sanjay Chandra of Unitech and Gautam Doshi of the Anil Dhirubai Ambani group have also been named.
The post of Income ‘Tax Ombudsman is in the HAG Pay Scale of Rs. 75500-80000/-. Therefore, it is requested that names of suitable officers fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Income Tax Ombudsman Guidelines, 2010 (copy enclosed) indicating their preferred locations may be sent by 29.04.2011 to enable selection of Income ‘fax Ombudsmen. In case no preference of locations is indicated, it would be presumed that he/she is willing to be posted in any of the locations, The applications received after the clue dale will not be considered and ate liable to be rejected. The nominations should be accompanied with Cadre clearance, History of postings, Vigilance clearance and ACR dossiers.
Acting on a specific intelligence, the DRI officers of Siliguri under Kolkata Zonal Unit had effected a seizure of Red sanders wood weighing 6110 kg. valued at Rs. 61.10 lakhs from a truck bearing registration no. HR-55F-4435 on 03.04.2011 at Ghoshpukur, Dist-Darjeeling, W.B. The logs of 6110 kg of red sanders wood, recovered from the truck were kept concealed under 272 pcs. of Indian style sanitary pans & 960 pcs. of small pipes. The 6110 kg. of red sanders wood, 272 pcs. of Indian style sanitary pan, 960 pcs. of small pipes and the carrier truck were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on reasonable belief that the said goods were meant for illegal export to Nepal through unauthorised route. Total seizure value of the case is Rs. 69.94 lakh. Two drivers of the said truck involved in carrying the red sanders wood knowingly, were arrested. Further investigation is in progress.
The Government of Maharashtra has issued Notification No. VAT 1510/CR-165/Taxation-1 dated 20 December 2010 in pursuance of the powers conferred under rule 45A of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. As per the said notification, the dealers liable to file six-monthly returns under Maharashtra Value Added Tax (‘MVAT’) laws shall make payments electronically with effect from 31 March 2011 of any amount under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
If the owner of a motor vehicle has shown due diligence while appointing a driver and examined his licence, the insurance company cannot deny the insured amount on the ground that the licence was fake. The ruling of the National Consumer Commission to the contrary in the case, Mrs Rubi Dutta vs United India Insurance Co, was set aside by the Supreme Court and the company was asked to pay Rs 2.70 lakh as compensation for the damage to a bus in an accident. The insurer argued that the driver’s licence was fake. But it was a duplicate issued after following the legal procedure. The court stated that at the time of giving employment to the driver, “the owner of the bus must have examined the licence issued to him and after satisfaction thereof, he must have been given employment. Nothing more was required to have been done by the owner. After all, at the time of giving employment to a driver, owner is required to be satisfied with regard to correctness and genuineness of the licence he was holding. After taking the test, if the owner is satisfied with the driving skills of the driver then, obviously, he may be given an appointment.”
Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd, which had bid for a project for issuing identity cards for the public distribution system in Madhya Pradesh. The government rejected it offer as it did not produce the latest ‘quality certificate’ with the bid document. The firm argued that it did have the latest certificate and therefore it was eligible to be considered. It also contended that the requirement for producing the latest certificate was added later by the government in a corrigendum to the bidder check list. Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court stated that in such circumstances, the authority inviting bids has the discretionary power to accept the bid or not. The decision can be quashed only if it was proved to be arbitrary or perverse. In this case, it was neither, the court declared.
The Supreme Court last week directed Glaxo India Ltd to deposit Rs 71.21 crore in the Drug Prices Equilisation Account, asking it to comply with the demand of the government. The central government had issued drug price control orders under the Essential Commodities Act fixing the maximum selling price of bulk drugs. Those notifications were challenged by the pharma company as arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the government and stated that several drug companies were overcharging the consumers and the notifications were meant to control prices to benefit consumers.
The Supreme Court has stated that the debt recovery appellate tribunal has no power to exempt a defaulter from making a pre-deposit before entertaining his appeal under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. In this case, Narayan Chandra vs UCO Bank, the tribunal granted exemption. The Calcutta high court set aside the order. He appealed to the Supreme Court which upheld the high court ruling.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Vs. Chitrahar Traders- The buyer of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, a central government undertaking which was sold as scrap, was entitled to pay a lower sales tax, the Supreme Court ruled. It dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the ruling of the Madras high court which stated that the levy should take into account that the machinery was total scrap. Since the plant and machinery had outlived its utility, the government appointed Metal Scrap and Trading Corporation Ltd, a government enterprise, to sell them as scrap. It arranged an e-auction in which Chitrahar Traders bid the highest amount. The revenue department then demanded 12 per cent and surcharge as sales tax stating that what was sold was plant and machinery; not scrap. The buyer contended that only 4 per cent could be levied at the rate stipulated for scrap. In fact, it had to use explosives to remove machinery embedded in earth since 1961 and which became utterly useless by 2001. The high court and the Supreme Court accepted the contention of the scrap buyer.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of New India Assurance Company which had rejected the claim of a ship-breaking firm for compensation. The firm bought a Belgian vessel and was bringing it from Singapore on its ‘funeral voyage’ to Alang port in Gujarat for demolition. It wrecked on way in high seas due to bad weather. The ship was covered by marine insurance and the ship-breaker invoked the policy. The insurer rejected the claim leading to litigation in the consumer forum. The National Consumer Commission asked the insurance company to pay Rs 14 crore with 9 per cent interest to Priya Blue Industries, the scrap dealer in ships. However, the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the loss suffered due to the ship wreck was properly assessed by the surveyors and the commission order was correct.
