There is no ambiguity, whatsoever, in the Notification issued by the Central Government. The Notification speaks of finished goods produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU and if it is sold in a DTA, the said EOU can take the benefit of the Notification No.8/97-CE. An exemption notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis:
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the Arbitrator has not exercised any discretion in the matter pertaining to the interest for the post-award period. Obviously, in absence thereof, by virtue of Section 31(7)(b) of the Act, the award would carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till 5the date of payment. Whether May 24, 2001 when the entire award amount was deposited by the appellants into the High Court is the date of payment ?
The issue which has been raised in this writ petition is whether an offence which is not compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C., can be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
SC held that No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. it further held that Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give (up) possession (of the property) forthwith on demand. Apex Court also laid fresh guidelines that caretakers, watchman or servants do not acquire any title to a property merely because of its possession by them for several years.
It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted.
The impugned order also notes that in view of the arbitration agreement between the agent and the Government, all the alleged violations fell within the purview of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, the respondent could not be held liable for any criminal offence. This observation is against the well settled principle of law that the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot take the criminal acts out of the jurisdiction of the courts of law.
UOI vs. Vodafone International Holding (Supreme Court) (Review Petition) -Union of India filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of its judgement in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI in which it held that Vodafone was not liable to pay capital gains on the transfer of shares. HELD by the Supreme Court dismissing the review petition: We have carefully gone through the review petition filed by the Union of India on 17th February, 2012. We find no merit in the review petition. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Section 146(2)(c) of the Customs Act refers to the appearance by a legal practitioner who is entitled to practice as such in accordance with law. Section 129(6) places a restriction, which is reasonable and valid restriction, as held by us above. Thus, the provisions of Section 146A of the Act would have to be read in conjunction with and harmoniously to Section 129(6) of the Customs Act and the person who earns a disqualification under this provision cannot derive any extra benefit -contrary to Section 129(6) of the Customs Act from the reading of Section 146A of the Customs Act.
SC held that was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Shri Harishankar (father) to give his share in the joint family property to the appellant (Son who taken care of him). Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children from his/her share in the property. The bench said that in the present case the evidence clearly proved that Harishankar had willed the property to Mahesh Kumar instead of the other two sons as the former along with his wife and kids had taken care of the aged parents till their death.
High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. We say so for the reason, that, whether a sale originating in a State is an inter-state sale or not is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the authorities under the Act, since it involves the application of the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 6 and 9(i) of the Act to the facts established and hence, it will be a mixed question of law and fact. The facts requires to be brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority by the appellants and it is for the assessing authority to come to a conclusion, based on those facts whether a particular transaction is intra-state sales which is exigible to the taxes under the VAT Act or inter-state sales, as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act read with Section 6 of the charging provisions therein. It is after such adjudication, the matter can travel from one stage to the other as provided under the Act.
