While the seized betel nuts are not required for the purpose of investigation, as is apparent from the report of the I.O., the grounds, so assigned for rejection of zimma petition, filed by the petitioner, by the learned court below, seems to be not in conformity with the law, so laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2002.
Sunita Agarwal Vs Securities And Exchange Board of India (Gauhati High Court) Rule 4(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for holding enquiry and imposing penalties) Rules, 1995 i.e. PR-1995 inter-alia provides that if after considering the cause shown pursuant to the notice under Sub-Rule 1, the adjudicating officer is of the opinion […]
Petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy of filing appeal under SARFAESI Act before DRT and therefore writ petition is dismissed
Drillmec S.P. A Vs Oil India Ltd. (Guwahati High Court) HC observed that provisions contained in Article 20 of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be readily read into and applied to as the terms and conditions of a non-statutory contract. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF […]
Summoning of the MD should be undertaken only as a last resort in cases where assesses are not cooperating or the investigations are to be completed expeditiously. The same is not justified in the present case.
ITAT held that A transaction of purchase and a transaction of sale are two different transactions in two opposite directions. If the allegation is that bogus purchases were made and the reply given thereof is that no such purchases were made, but in fact it was a sale by the assessee, it was for the Income Tax officials to apply their own mind on the reply given by the petitioner.
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Gauhati High Court) The provision of Section 41 and 42 of the FSS Act, make special provision as regard how investigation needs to be carried out whenever there is a reasonable doubt about commission of the offence relating to food item by the authority. Section 41 prescribes that […]
Sanjib Das Vs The Union of India (Gauhati High Court) First this Court would like to deal with the question as to whether the Circular dated 11.11.2021 is clarificatory in nature thereby clarifying the Master Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017. A Perusal of the said Circular dated 11.11.2021 stipulates that the concept of pre-show cause notice […]
HC held that the Managing Director of a company should not be directly summoned by authorities under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Further held that, authorized representatives of a company are to be summoned and MD can only be summoned, if the former is not cooperating or if investigation is to be completed expeditiously.
Jibon Kalita Vs State of Assam (Guwahati High Court) The petitioners were selected as Gaonburahs and police verification had also been completed on 25.11.2016. Title Suit No.7/2016 and Title Suit No.8/2016 were disposed of on 14.08.2017 and as such there was no bar on the part of the State respondents in issuing appointment orders to […]
