|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2056 Records
-
2019 (7) TMI 2059
Assessment as completed without service of statutory notice issued u/s. 143(2) within the limitation period - HELD THAT:- As none of the three notice claimed to be served within the limitation were served upon the assessee and the appeal of the assessee company deserves to be succeed on this ground and accordingly, the additions in dispute are deleted. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2058
Admissibility of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, particularly the interpretation and application of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act - HELD THAT:- With the passage of time, reliance on electronic records during investigation is bound to increase. The law therefore needs to be laid down in this regard with certainty. It is considered appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench. Needless to say that there is an element of urgency in the matter.
Let the records be laid by the Registry before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2057
Reopening of assessment - addition on client code modification [CCM] - AO observed that the assessee is involved in transaction involving in CCM to absorb contrived losses from the other parties - HELD THAT:- Assessment was reopened on the basis of specific information received by the AO from the DIT(Inv.) that the broker with whom assessee was dealing has involved in CCM. It is a fact that the broker has made CCM in the case of assessee, in which, about 13 transactions were involved. It came to light only in the reopening of assessment. When a specific information is received by the AO from the authentic sources, it is natural on the part of the AO to believe that there is a reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment.
This issue was aptly addressed by the CIT(A) in the order, therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of CIT(A) that there is a reason to believe that in the case of the assessee, income has escaped assessment and reopening of the assessment is proper.
Losses through CCM - We notice that no such investigation was carried on the broker i.e. CIL Securities Ltd. AO can proceed with the addition when he has specific information that the assessee itself involved in such malpractices. In the given case, AO has not brought on record any specific instruction given by the assessee to the broker for such client code modification. It is only based on the information that there involves CCM, in which, assessee has suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 13,48,175/-. It does not mean that assessee has directly involved, may be, assessee must have benefitted out of it, but, still it is the duty of the AO to bring on record the fact that assessee has directly involved in such activities. From the record, we notice that assessee has incurred heavy losses in this year, we do not understand how shifting of profit will benefit the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, in the absence of any findings that assessee has given specific instruction to the broker to make such CCM, assessee cannot be held responsible in such modification. Therefore, it is only a presumption of the AO that assessee might have involved in such transactions. Accordingly, the loss disallowed by the AO is hereby deleted.
Enhancement of assessment - classification of business income as capital gains - Assessee itself is investment banker and makes investments in stock in order to make profit. The investment made for the business transactions, which can be classified only under business income in particular, the transactions involving stock-in-trade. Assessee cannot treat the above transaction as capital gains just because its long term as well as it has paid security transaction tax on the above investment. Assessee relied on Circular No. 6/2016, in which, the CBDT clarified that surplus generated from sale of shares/securities would be divided as capital gains or business income, where, a) assessee itself opts to trade them as stock-in-trade income arising from transfer of such sales would be treated as income from its business, b) in respect of shares/securities held for a period of more than 12 months, immediately preceding a date of its transfer, if the assessee desires to trade income arising from the transfer as capital gains, the same should not be disputed by the AO and c) in all other cases, nature of transaction was continued to be decided based on the Circular No. 4/2017.
Above Circular may not be applicable in the case of the assessee, since the assessee’s main business itself is investment banker and the transactions were specifically transacted in the normal course of business. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of ld. CIT(A) and we are not inclined to disturb the findings of CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed.
Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
-
2019 (7) TMI 2056
Dishonor of Cheque due to insufficiency of funds - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The High Court set aside the revisional court's order and allowed the trial to proceed with the second respondent included as an accused - HELD THAT:- The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2055
Doctrine of merger - Withdrawal of the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the subsequent denial of benefits to the petitioners who had acted upon the policy - breach of principle of Promissory Estoppel, Natural Justice and Legitimate Expectation - it was held by High Court that 'The petitioners are entitled for consideration of all the benefits in the form of exemptions/ remission/reimbursements as per the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy-2004 and various Notifications issued thereunder from time to time for the entire period of the validity of the Policy.'
HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
List the matters on 29th July, 2019.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2054
Abetment of suicide by the daughter of the complainant - offence punishable Under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code - benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - HELD THAT:- The daughter of the complainant was found dead on 06.05.1996 after committing suicide and the cause for her taking such extreme step is said to be the continuous humiliation and harassment by the Accused; the last such incident being of 05.05.1996. It is, therefore, evident that the Appellant No. 2 was about 16 years of age as on the date/s of incident/s. Though this fact was not placed for consideration before the Trial Court and the High Court but, in the light of the law declared by this Court in the case of RAJU VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA [2019 (2) TMI 2124 - SUPREME COURT], he is entitled to raise this plea even in this appeal. In view of Sections 2(k), 2(l), 7A read with Section 20 of the Act of 2000, the Appellant No. 2, being a juvenile who had not completed 18 years of age on the date of commission of the offence, remains entitled to the benefit of juvenility.
This Court also issued notice to the Appellants as to why they be not suitably punished under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code, even if they were not held guilty for commission of offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code with reference to the evidence on record. Apparently, this notice was issued to the Appellants with reference to the offence specified in Section 509 Indian Penal Code, being of "word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman" - Even during the course of hearing of this matter, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at sufficient length on this question, of the offence in the alternative. However, having scanned through the entire record with reference to the law applicable, we have no hesitation in concluding that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 306 Indian Penal Code and the Appellants have rightly been held guilty thereunder.
In the case of RAMESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [2001 (10) TMI 1169 - SUPREME COURT], a three-Judge bench of this Court held that the ingredients of Section 306 Indian Penal Code were not satisfactorily proved so as to implicate and punish the Accused for the same. The facts of the case leading to the aforementioned decision had been that the deceased was married to the Accused for about a year. The deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire in the kitchen. On the day of incident, the Accused had refused to take the deceased to her sister's house and in the quarrel that ensued, the Accused-husband told the deceased-wife that she was free to do whatever she wished to and to go wherever she wanted to - The Accused-Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences Under Sections 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. In further appeal, after examining the evidence led in by the parties and taking note of all the surrounding factors, this Court, while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, set aside his conviction for offence Under Section 306.
For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the Accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of Accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the Accused guilty of abetment of suicide - The question of mens rea on the part of the Accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the Accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the Accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the Accused and the deceased.
Conclusion - The conviction of the accused under Section 306 IPC upheld, except for Appellant No. 2, who was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offense. The proceedings against Appellant No. 2 were terminated, while the other appellants were required to serve the remaining part of their sentence.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2053
Classification of certain beverages manufactured by the appellants - Minute Made Nimbu Fresh - Numbooz Masala Soda - Nimbooz - classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item No.22021020 or 22029020 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - HELD THAT:- The Larger Bench decided the issue by Order dated 30 April, 2019 [2019 (10) TMI 762 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD (LB)]. It held that the beverages such as Minute Made Nimbu Fresh, 7up Nimbooz Masala Soda and 7up Nimbooz manufactured by the appellant manufacturers were classifiable under Tariff Item No.22029020 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is for category of "Fruit Pulp" or "Fruit Juice Based Drinks".
In view of the conclusions given by the Larger Bench, it has to be held that the demands raised in all the above stated appeals confirmed by Original Authority holding the said beverages to be falling under Tariff Item No.22021020 are not sustainable.
Conclusion - The beverages such as Minute Made Nimbu Fresh, 7up Nimbooz Masala Soda and 7up Nimbooz manufactured by the appellant manufacturers were classifiable under Tariff Item No.22029020 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is for category of "Fruit Pulp" or "Fruit Juice Based Drinks".
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2052
Reopening of assessment - change of opinion - difference between a conclusion of the AO after scrutiny which may appear to the Revenue to be erroneous and a situation where the AO during the scrutiny assessment does not examine a particular claim of the assessee altogether - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2051
Income from sale of shares - business income or capital gain - Capital Gains - Exemption u/s. 10(38) - majority of the shares were not purchased by the settler from the market and whether the shares received by way of Employee Stock Option Plan or purchased from the market, were held by the settler for a long period of time - shares in question were not purchased by the Trust at all. They were settled by the settler of the Trust. The Settler himself had not purchased majority of these shares but had received by way of Employee Stock Option Plan - HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2048
Disallowance of URD purchases - addition on account of gross profit by applying 3% rate of URD purchases - addition by estimating the gross profit rate of URD purchases without rejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT:- As decided in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar & Co. [2016 (3) TMI 184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that where the books of accounts of the assessee had not been rejected and assessment having not been framed u/s.144 of entire addition made by AO based on estimation of income was to be deleted.
Similarly, the ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the decision of Vijay Industries [2017 (3) TMI 1958 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] wherein also it was held that addition cannot be justified without rejection of books of accounts.
Similarly, in the case of ACIT Vs. Ercon Composites [2013 (12) TMI 902 - ITAT JODHPUR] wherein it was held that without rejecting books of account addition on estimate basis was not justified.
We are of the considered opinion that the AO was not justified in making addition on account of URD purchases, hence the same is therefore directed to be deleted - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2047
TP Adjustment - AMP expenses - routine selling and distribution expresses would form part of advertising, marketing and promotion (‘AMP’) expenses for the purposes of fixing the arm’s length price of the international transactions involving the Respondent and its associated enterprises or not? - HELD THAT:- The issue urged by the Revenue stands answered against it by the decision of this Court in Sony Eriksson Mobile Communication [2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which has been noticed by the ITAT in the impugned order. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2046
Interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 granted by the court form part of the enhanced compensation is exempted u/s 10(37) - TDS on enhanced compensation - HELD THAT:- As applicant prays that he be permitted to withdraw this application to enable him to file review petition. Prayer is allowed.
Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2045
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - AO estimated the profit element from the purchases made by the assessee from various concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain at 5% of the entire purchases and the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the same to 3% - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co [2019 (2) TMI 1632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition/disallowance only to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit rate on alleged bogus purchases at the same rate of the other genuine purchases declared by the assessee after calling for the details and verification of records. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary information in this regard. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2044
CENVAT Credit - input services which were used by their job worker which is again the unit of the appellant itself - case of the department is that since the services were used by the job workers unit and not by the appellant’s unit, therefore, credit is not admissible - Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case are not much in dispute. In as much as the entire inputs are sent by appellant to their own job worker unit, it is exclusively for carrying out the job work of the appellants. The job work is conducted under Rules 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the entire activity of the job work is in respect of manufacture of goods for appellants, therefore, the services were used in or relation to the manufacture of final product of appellant. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for the Cenvat Credit.
From the provisions of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of job work goods manufactured under Notification no. 214/86-C.E., it is absolutely clear that even though the job worker is not discharging the excise duty but carrying out job work on behalf of the principle under notification 214/86-C.E. on the services and inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods, the principle is entitled for CENVAT Credit. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in availing the CENVAT Credit by the appellant on the input services used at the job work premises.
The impugned orders are set aside - All the appeals are allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2043
Classification of goods - Minute Maid Nimbu Fresh - to be classified under Chapter Heading 2202 9020 or Chapter Heading 2202 1020 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - HELD THAT:- This precise issue was referred to a Larger Bench in M/s.Brindaban Beverages Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax [2019 (10) TMI 762 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD (LB)] and the Larger Bench while answering the reference held that the product “Minute Made Nimbu Fresh” is classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 9020 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - The Commissioner(Appeals), however, classified it under Tariff Item 2202 1020 as “Lemonade”.
As the Larger Bench while answering the reference has held that this product is classifiable under Tariff Item No.2202 9020 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule under the category of “fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks”, it is not possible to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).
It is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2042
Dishonour of Cheque - challenge to judgment of conviction and sentence - failure to consider the grounds contained in the revision application - violation of principles of natural justice - whether the applicant deserves to be acquitted from charge under Section 138 of the Act or not? - HELD THAT:- There are number of lapses and infirmities in the evidence of complainant. The complainant has not been able to prove source of Rs. 10,00,000-00 for giving the same as loan to the applicant, he admits to have not executed any document pertaining to such huge loan transaction and neither has he examined any witness in support.
The Apex Court in the citation of John K. Abraham v/s Simon C. Abraham [2014 (1) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT] considered another such case in which the complainant did not remember the date of loan transaction, the complainant had similarly states the source of fund from sale of family property but no documents pertaining to such sale had been filed and there were some other lacuna as well. The Apex Court acquitted the accused observing 'It has to be stated that in order to draw the presumption under section 118 read alaong with 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that he had required funds for having advanced the money to the accused; that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the cheque in favour of the complainant.' - The facts of the case in hand are akin to that of the case of John K. Abraham.
The case in hand also suffers from the short comings which prompted the Apex Court in the case referred to above for passing orders of acquittal. The accused/applicant has stated that he had not received any notice from the complainant. The complainant in para 1 of his cross-examination admits that he has not filed the acknowledgement which containing the signatures of the applicant even though registered notice was sent to the applicant.
The Courts below have not seriously gone into the inherent weakness of the case of the complainant. The Court failed to consider that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act are not attracted in absence of prima-facie establishment of a transaction showing legal liability of the applicant - Thus, the grounds contained in the revision application are allowed. It is held that the complainant has not been able to prove that the applicant had taken legally recoverable debt from the complainant which he failed to return due to dishonour of cheque drawn by him. Consequently the applicant is acquitted for committing offence under Section 138 of the Act.
Any amount deposited by the applicant be returned to him. Applicant, if in jail, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case - The revision application stands allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2041
Dishonour of Cheque - whether an unregistered Partnership Firm can also be brought within the purview of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in such cases whether the Partnership Firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to maintain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aneeta Hada .Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited [2012 (5) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT], has now settled the law to the effect that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, cannot be maintained without issuing a statutory notice to the Company and without adding the Company as an accused, only as against the directors of the Company. The same law has been made applicable even to the partnership firm in N. Elangovan .Vs. C. Ganesan [2014 (10) TMI 1056 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
The action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is not a Suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract, and therefore, the bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act will not operate in such a case. The word "Suit" envisaged under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, cannot be stretched to criminal prosecutions. A criminal prosecution by its very nature is instituted not for recovery of money or for enforcement of any security. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a penal provision, the commission of which offence entails a conviction and sentence on the proof of guilt. Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is a code by itself which deals with penalties in case of dishonour of cheques.
Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the concept of vicarious liability, wherein for the offence committed by the Company or a partnership firm, the directors or the partners, as the case may, are deemed to be guilty of the offence when it is shown that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the business or the firm, as the case may be. While interpreting the provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the complaint cannot be maintained against the directors of the Company, without making the company as an accused person. This concept has been extended even for Partnership Firms. The registration or non-registration of the Partnership Firm will have no bearing insofar as 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned.
This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. In this case admittedly, the cheque was given in the name of the Partnership Firm and after the cheque was dishonored, no statutory notice was issued to the Partnership Firm, and the Partnership Firm was not made as an accused in the complaint. Only the partners have been shown as accused persons in this complaint. Such a complaint is unsustainable and not in accordance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2040
Difference in stock of raw material found during the search operation - CIT(A) deleting addition made by the AO on account of value of excess stock - AO rejected the explanation of assessee observing that at the time of search, stock of raw material was taken in the presence of Kumari Dulari Mandal, employee and Shri Manish Sharma, family member of the assessee and that Kumari Dulari Mandal signed the inventory in presence of two witnesses in token of her being satisfied with methodology of taking stock - HELD THAT:- Since stock records are not maintained in respect of these items, before making any addition, the AO was required to compare the value of these items with the value that could have been worked out on the basis of regular books of accounts, which exercise has not been done, even at this stage. It is true that the business of the assessee is an ongoing process and therefore it would be justified to presume that some quantity of such items would always be remaining in stock with the assessee as it would be covered by purchases recorded in regular books. Therefore, we observe that the AO made the addition arbitrarily.
In respect of none of the years including the year under appeal, any finding has been rendered by the AO that books of accounts were not properly maintained or that they were not complete. The assessee has maintained regular books which have been audited year after year. It is also a fact that day to day stock register has been maintained by the assessee. Without pointing out any defects in the books and stock records and without having on record any corroborative material, no addition could have been made only on the basis of inventory prepared during search, especially when such inventory was claimed by the assessee to be not reliable and such a claim of assessee has remained uncontroverted. The contents of the two affidavits have remained unrebutted and therefore, has substantial bearing on the issue in dispute. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the stock inventory prepared during search is not reliable and that no addition could have been made by the AO only on the basis of inventory and learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the same.
Unexplained cash - When the assessee was called upon to explain the cash found, it was explained that cash balance of all family members of the group and of the business concerns was jointly kept and not kept with the respective owner as different members of the family looked after business transactions of all the family businesses - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- As undisputed that during search, the cash balance was not identified with reference to particular assessee and no statement appears to have been recorded at the time of search to make enquiry in respect of the ownership of cash found during search, as we do not find, reference of any such statement either in the assessment order or in the arguments taken by either party.
An accepted practice in business that the financial matters in a particular family or group are invariably in the hands of some of the persons of that family or group only and therefore, it would be reasonable to presume that cash balance of the group would be controlled by the persons who manage the funds and therefore, the best course of action is to see whether in an overall situation, there is excess cash or not.
Thus overall cash balance only was required to be seen and since on the basis of such overall comparison, whatever was the excess cash balance has already been taxed in the hands of Shri Laxmikant Sharma, being the eldest family member, learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
Addition on account of loose papers found during search - AO observed that during search, loose papers were found from the business premises of the assessee for which no satisfactory explanation was submitted - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the arguments of both the parties, the quantum of addition and in view of the fact that AO has not described as to what are the nature of entries in the loose papers, the explanation of assessee that the amount in the loose papers is covered by the withdrawals appears to be reasonable and therefore, learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the same.
Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2039
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative efficacious remedy to file a first appeal under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - Recovery of arrears of land revenue - Interpretation of Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - HELD THAT:- The appellant-writ petitioner’s contention is that the pre-condition of the deposit of the amount, for a suit to be filed, falls foul of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India & others Etc. Etc, [2004 (4) TMI 294 - SUPREME COURT].
In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc. vs. Union of India & others Etc. Etc the constitutional validity of the SERFASI Act, 2002, more particularly the provisions contained under Sections 13,15,17 and 34 of the Act, were under challenge. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has not put forth any challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. His prayer, in the writ petition, is confined only to a challenge to the impugned notice of recovery issued by the respondents.
In examining the constitutionally of a statue, it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the need of the people, and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience, and that the laws are enacted which are considered to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted. Presumption is, therefore, in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment.
The remedy under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is not available to the petitioner to question the impugned recovery citation, he has, admittedly, the remedy under Section 287-A of the 1950 Act. The obligation cast by the said provision to pay the entire amount would not, in the absence of a challenge to its Constitutional validity, require us to discharge the appellant-writ petitioner of this obligation.
The special appeal is dismissed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 2038
Recovery notice for arrears of land revenue - HELD THAT:- This matter cannot be looked into in a writ petition as it involves appreciation of disputed questions of fact.
Moreover, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to file a first appeal under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Petition dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
