Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries case (supra) held that leave encashment is neither a statutory liability nor a contingent liability and it is a provision to be made for the entitlement of an employee achieved in a particular financial year. Testing clause (f) with the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction of Section 43 B, it was held that the same could not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the original enactment.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. UOI There is no provision like section 4(7) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act in Delhi VAT Act. The entire case of the petitioner was that there should have been a provision like this in Delhi VAT Act as well, otherwise it is leading to various difficulties. Even if one presume that the provision like section 4(7) in Andhra Pradesh VAT Act makes it a better legislation in comparison with Delhi VAT Act but absence of such a provision, cannot be a ground for declaring statute as arbitrary or ultra vires. Bad legislative drafting, if at all, cannot furnish a ground for judicial review of the legislative action. It has to be shown that a particular provision is either beyond the legislative competence and is thus ultra vires or is unconstitutional viz. namely it offends some constitutional provision.
Section 158BD is only an enabling provision to assess any other assessee other than the searched assessee if in the course of search of another assessee evidence of undisclosed income is received in respect of the assessee who is not searched. However, the assessment pursuant to the enabling provision i.e. under section 158BD also is an assessment under section 158BC and the procedure contemplated is also one and the same. In fact, what section 158BD says is that when the evidence collected in search of an assessee revealed undisclosed income of another assessee, who is not searched, the material or evidence so received can be the basis for making assessment under section 158BC of the assessee who is not searched.
CIT v. Khyber Foods The only question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were invalid for the reason that search warrant issued in Form 45 was invalid. The contention of Senior counsel for the Revenue is that assessee never had a case on the validity of assessments except at the Tribunal stage when the assessee raised additional grounds in second appeals contending that warrants issued in the name of group concerns is invalid.
In a given case if such immunity is not granted the Department would proceed to prosecute the assessee in a jurisdictional court. Once prosecution is lodged the presumption is that there was mens rea on the part of the assessee to conceal the income by a smoke screen or evade tax. Thus the Settlement Commission will have to examine the application by lifting the corporate veil to see as to whether there has been an intention to evade tax and then arrive at a conclusion. In the absence of such exercise being undertaken by the Settlement Commission the intention underlined behind section 245H(1) would become otiose or redundant.
The Tribunal is not authorized to extend stay of demand beyond maximum period of 365 days. The decision of Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days amounted to contravention of provisions of the law.( Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited and B. Fouress Private Limited v. CIT (ITA. No. 160&161/2012)]
It appears that the entire statements and averments constitute culpable laches and negligence on the part of the departmental official. There is no whisper as to what steps have been taken against the negligent officials. The Supreme Court has cautioned not to give any undue and unlimited concession to the appellant, who happens to be a Government department. In a recent pronouncement the Supreme Court has stated that time has come to reexamine the aspect of extending latitude to the Government department. The Supreme Court has observed that in the era of modern technology there is no difficulty on the part of the department to take reasonably prompt action.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-management had also argued that right to transfer an employee is implicit in every contract of service and therefore, the respondent-workman could still be transferred from one office of the petitioner-management to another.
In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that according to the existing law, if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. As pointed by the Apex Court in the case of Pritvi Cotton Mills Ltd (supra), the legislature does not possess or exercise power to reverse the decision in exercise of judicial power.
Talluri Srinivas v. ICAI (Delhi HC)- Section 21B(3), read with rule 18 of the Rules makes it clear that the Disciplinary Committee is obliged to offer the member, whose conduct is under examination, an opportunity of being heard and to comply with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the period during which the interim stay of the disciplinary proceedings remained in force, the petitioner cannot be faulted for delaying the proceedings. The petitioner was entitled to agitate his legal rights, and merely because that led to deferment of the disciplinary proceedings, the said fact cannot be held against the petitioner.
