|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 411 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 623
Issues Involved:
1. Qualification Criteria for Bidders
2. Relaxation of Qualification Criteria
3. Judicial Review of Contract Award
4. Public Interest in Contract Award
Summary:
1. Qualification Criteria for Bidders:
The Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) floated a tender for the design, engineering, manufacture, supply, erection, and commissioning of large diameter pipes and steel tanks for Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station. The qualifying requirements included designing, fabricating, manufacturing, supplying, erecting, and successfully commissioning large diameter piping systems with M.S. pipes of not less than 2000 mm diameter and laid/buried for a minimum total length of 3 kms in a thermal power station, with successful operation for the past two years. Additionally, the bidder should have a minimum turnover of Rs. 7.5 crores per annum for the last three consecutive years.
2. Relaxation of Qualification Criteria:
Clause 1.4 of the qualifying criteria allowed the owner to assess the bidders' capability and capacity to perform, should circumstances warrant such an assessment. MSEB received tenders from eleven bidders, including M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. and M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. The Technical Director recommended M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. despite their shortfall in requisite experience by one year. However, the Board of Directors decided to accept the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. due to the price advantage and adequate experience, despite not meeting the qualifying requirement of laying pipelines for a distance of 3 kms.
3. Judicial Review of Contract Award:
M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. challenged the decision in a writ petition, leading to an interim order by the High Court staying the operation of the Letter of Intent issued to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. The Supreme Court emphasized that the award of a contract is a commercial transaction, and considerations such as price, specifications, ability to deliver, past experience, and time for delivery are paramount. The Court noted that judicial review should be limited to preventing arbitrariness, favouritism, or use of power for collateral purposes, and should not substitute its decision for that of an expert evaluation committee.
4. Public Interest in Contract Award:
The Court highlighted that public interest elements include the expenditure of public money, timely fulfillment of contracts, and quality of work. It stressed that court intervention should be based on substantial public interest or allegations of mala fides. The Court found no mala fides or collateral motives in awarding the contract to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. and noted that both bidders did not fully meet the qualifying criteria. The decision to accept the lower offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. was deemed legitimate, and the High Court's interim order was seen as erroneous, causing public detriment by delaying the power project.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's interim order, and directed M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. to pay the costs of the appeals. The Court underscored the importance of considering public interest and the consequences of judicial intervention in commercial transactions involving public contracts.
-
1998 (12) TMI 622
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of provision for accrued liability for Leave Travel Assistance.
2. Disallowance of commission payment to M/s. Rajesh Agency.
3. Allowance of investment allowance on fire hydrants and exhaust fans.
4. Allowance of investment allowance on the cost of computer installed in the factory.
5. Disallowance calculation for employee directors.
Issue 1: Disallowance of Provision for Accrued Liability for Leave Travel Assistance
The appellant, maintaining books on a mercantile basis, provided for Leave Travel Assistance (LTA) liability based on accrual. The dispute arose from the Assessing Officer's addition of the variance between actual payment and provision made. The Tribunal held that the liability to pay LTA was clear, and the provision was justified as per the contract with employees. The method of accounting was consistent and accepted, entitling the appellant to deduction based on actual accrued liability. The addition was deleted.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Commission Payment to M/s. Rajesh Agency
The appellant claimed a deduction for commission paid to M/s. Rajesh Agency, supported by evidence. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to inability to verify the agency's existence at the given address. The Tribunal found the evidence furnished by the appellant sufficient to discharge the onus, and the Assessing Officer's failure to establish the agency's non-existence at the relevant time led to the disallowance being overturned.
Issue 3: Allowance of Investment Allowance on Fire Hydrants and Exhaust Fans
The CIT(A) directed the allowance of investment allowance on fire hydrants and exhaust fans, treating them as part of the plant for manufacturing goods. The revenue contended that the machinery should be involved in production. The Tribunal, following a decision of the Karnataka High Court, dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that deduction is permissible for machinery installed in the business of manufacturing, regardless of direct involvement in the production process.
Issue 4: Allowance of Investment Allowance on Computer Installed in the Factory
The CIT(A) allowed investment allowance on the cost of a computer installed in the factory, in line with a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the computer installed for the business of manufacture qualifies for the investment allowance deduction.
Issue 5: Disallowance Calculation for Employee Directors
The issue of disallowance calculation for employee directors was resolved in favor of the assessee, citing a Supreme Court decision. The disallowance was to be worked out in accordance with section 40(c) and not section 40A(5), leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal while dismissing the revenue's appeal on various grounds related to the disallowance and allowance of deductions and provisions.
-
1998 (12) TMI 621
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment orders for the years under consideration.
2. Computation of tax liability in the assessment orders.
Issue 1: Validity of assessment orders for the years under consideration
The case involved a reference regarding the validity of assessment orders for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 under the Wealth-tax Act. The key question was whether the assessment orders were passed within the period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that prior to April 1, 1975, there was no limitation for completing assessments under the Wealth-tax Act. However, with the insertion of section 17A in 1975, a period of limitation was introduced. The assessment orders for the years in question were made on March 31, 1979, and notices of demand were issued in May 1979. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal differed on whether the demand notices should also be within the period of limitation.
The Tribunal observed that the process of assessment involves three stages: computation of net wealth, computation of tax liability, and communication of the tax liability. It concluded that the communication of tax liability is not part of the assessment process. Referring to relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that assessment includes both the determination of total income/net wealth and the tax payable on it. It was established that assessment is complete only when both processes are concluded before the expiry of the limitation period.
Issue 2: Computation of tax liability in the assessment orders
The Court highlighted that the determination of tax liability is a critical part of the assessment process, which must be completed within the limitation period. It was noted that the assessment orders in question did not show the computation of tax payable on the net wealth assessed. The demand notices issued after the limitation period were considered as a subsequent act and not the computation of tax payable. The Court emphasized that both the determination of net wealth and the tax payable must occur before the limitation period expires for the assessment to be valid.
The Court pointed out that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal did not investigate whether the computation of tax payable occurred before or after March 31, 1979. Without this crucial finding, it was impossible to determine if the assessments were completed within the limitation period. The Court directed the Tribunal to reexamine this aspect and make a decision based on the clarification provided by the Court on the legal questions referred to it.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of validity of assessment orders and the computation of tax liability within the limitation period. It emphasized the importance of completing both aspects of assessment before the limitation period expires for the assessment to be considered valid. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for further examination in light of the legal principles clarified by the Court.
-
1998 (12) TMI 620
Issues:
Application for intervention and setting aside of order under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Detailed Analysis:
The application was made by a company seeking to intervene in proceedings and set aside an order dated 26th March 1998. The company contended that the order interfered with their rights without hearing them. The dispute revolved around ownership of goods in a warehouse between two groups. The original order aimed to clear the goods from the warehouse of a non-interested party. The company claimed that the goods directed to be sold belonged to them, and they were not heard before the order was passed. The company alleged lack of knowledge about the proceedings and order until later disclosed by an employee of another company. The respondents argued that the order was an implementation of an earlier order obtained by the applicant company itself. The company and another entity represented by the same individual were conducting business from the same address, raising questions about the company's credibility in seeking to set aside the order.
The company presented an ownership certificate issued after the individual's alleged retirement, indicating a transaction with another entity. The opposing group contended that the transaction was a sham, questioning the timing of goods delivery and payment terms. The application for setting aside the order was made by an individual claiming to be a director without proper documentation. The court examined whether the appropriate party was represented and if any prejudice was caused to non-appearing parties. The court noted the presence of the individual despite resigning from the company, emphasizing that the company was not unrepresented. The court disagreed with the company's argument that the representation was fake, citing the original order obtained by the company itself.
The court explained the prejudicial effects of the order on the company and the individual, highlighting the history of the order and the involvement of the parties. The court rejected the application, emphasizing that the existence of an individual and a company are distinct, and the court cannot lift the corporate veil without proper grounds. The court discussed the principles of lifting the corporate veil and its applicability in different situations. The court concluded that the application was dismissed, and any interim orders were vacated, with no costs imposed. The prayer for stay was refused, and all parties were directed to act on the signed copy of the order.
-
1998 (12) TMI 619
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned strike notice of 14th March, 1983 given by Respondent No.1 union on behalf of its members was violative of Section 24(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Act.
2. Whether the impugned strike notice is violative of provision of Section 24(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act.
3. Whether the impugned strike notice was hit by Section 24(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Act.
4. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was justified in interfering with the findings reached by the Labour Court.
5. What final order?
Detailed Analysis:
Point No. 1:
The primary issue was whether the strike notice dated 14th March 1983 violated Section 24(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Act. The appellant contended that the notice was not in the prescribed form as required by Rule 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Rules, 1975. The Labour Court had earlier held that the notice did not comply with the prescribed form. However, the High Court found that the notice substantially fulfilled the basic requirements of Form-I, such as the name and address of the Trade Union, the date of the notice, the addressee's details, the proposed strike date, and the reasons for the strike. The High Court concluded that the Labour Court's finding was patently erroneous and set it aside. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the impugned notice was not violative of Section 24(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Act and was a valid strike notice.
Point No. 2:
The second issue was whether the strike notice violated Section 24(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act, which pertains to the requirement of obtaining the majority vote of the union members before serving the strike notice. The appellant did not raise this issue before the Labour Court, nor was it their case that Respondent No.1 Union was a recognized union under the Act. Consequently, the Labour Court did not consider this point. The Supreme Court held that since this point was not raised before the Labour Court, it does not arise for consideration in the present proceedings and must be held as redundant.
Point No. 3:
The third issue was whether the strike notice violated Section 24(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Act, which prohibits strikes during the period of any settlement or award in operation concerning matters covered by the settlement. The appellant argued that the strike notice related to matters covered by the settlement dated 8th March 1982, specifically Demand No.14 (Privilege Leave) and Demand No.26 (Medical Check-up). The Supreme Court found that the grievance in the strike notice regarding privilege leave pertained to the computation of leave, which was not covered by the settlement. Similarly, the grievance regarding health hazards and preventive measures was not covered by the settlement on medical check-up. The Court concluded that the strike notice did not violate Section 24(1)(i) of the Act and upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's finding.
Point No. 4:
The fourth issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Labour Court's findings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellant argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the Labour Court's findings unless there was a patent error. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court's findings were patently erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the High Court was justified in setting aside these findings under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Point No. 5:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the strike notice was not illegal under Section 24(1)(a), (b), or (i) of the Maharashtra Act. The Court did not award costs to either party, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
1998 (12) TMI 618
Issues:
- Challenge against the High Court judgment setting aside lower court judgments on eviction suit for bona fide requirement.
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide need for the shop.
Analysis:
- The appeal challenged the High Court's decision that set aside lower court judgments regarding an eviction suit based on bona fide requirement. The suit involved a shop in Pune rented out for a grocery shop. The landlord's son, Madhukar, needed the shop to start a business. The trial court and the District Court decreed eviction, but the High Court reversed the decision citing lack of evidence of bona fide requirement.
- The main issue was whether the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's need for the shop. The High Court based its decision on the assumption that Madhukar could have started a business in 1976 in a shop vacated by a barber. However, evidence showed that Madhukar had not completed his education by 1976 and was not ready to start a business. The trial court and the appellate court accepted this evidence, leading to the eviction order.
- The Supreme Court found that the High Court's assumption about Madhukar's readiness to start a business in 1976 was incorrect. Madhukar had not completed his education by then, contrary to the High Court's assumption. The evidence presented by the landlord's son was crucial in establishing the bona fide need for the shop, leading to the eviction order by the lower courts. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and upheld the eviction order.
- The Supreme Court allowed time until June 30, 1999, for the respondent to vacate the premises, subject to the condition of filing an undertaking within two weeks. Failure to comply with the conditions would result in the recall of the time extension, allowing the appellant to execute the eviction decree.
-
1998 (12) TMI 617
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the termination order (whether punitive or innocuous).
2. Validity of the inquiry report by Sri Ram Pal Singh.
3. Allegations of malafides against Sri Ram Pal Singh.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Termination Order:
The appellant argued that the termination order, although appearing innocuous, was actually punitive as it was based on the inquiry report by Sri Ram Pal Singh, which found the appellant guilty of accepting a bribe. The Administrative Tribunal accepted this contention, declaring the termination order void for violating principles of natural justice. The High Court, however, held that the termination was due to unsatisfactory work and conduct, not as punishment for misconduct, and thus upheld the termination order.
2. Validity of the Inquiry Report by Sri Ram Pal Singh:
The appellant contended that the inquiry report was not a preliminary report but a final one, which concluded the appellant's guilt without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court analyzed the report and found it to be definitive, with clear findings of misconduct. The Court concluded that the report was the foundation of the termination order, not merely the motive. Therefore, the termination order was deemed punitive and invalid due to the lack of adherence to principles of natural justice.
3. Allegations of Malafides Against Sri Ram Pal Singh:
The appellant alleged malafides on the part of Sri Ram Pal Singh, claiming that the inquiry was biased due to personal grudges. The Administrative Tribunal found the inquiry report to be malafide. However, the High Court did not address the issue of malafides in detail. The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the High Court's judgment implicitly acknowledges the significance of the appellant's allegations of malafides and the biased nature of the inquiry.
4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, especially when an inquiry report forms the basis of a termination order. The Court reiterated that when an inquiry is conducted with definitive findings of misconduct without giving the employee an opportunity to defend themselves, it violates natural justice. The Court referred to various precedents to highlight that such termination orders must be quashed if they are based on findings arrived at behind the back of the employee.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Tribunal's order, declaring the termination order void for being punitive in nature and violating principles of natural justice. The Court underscored the importance of fair procedures and the right to a hearing before any punitive action is taken against an employee.
-
1998 (12) TMI 616
Issues Involved:
1. Representation of an employee in disciplinary proceedings.
2. Applicability and modification of Model Standing Orders.
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Summary:
1. Representation of an Employee in Disciplinary Proceedings:
The core issue in this case was whether an employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, can claim to be represented by a person who, though a member of a Trade Union, is not an employee of the appellant-corporation. The Model Standing Orders u/s 14(4)(ba) allowed a workman to be represented by an office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member. However, Clause 29(4) of the Draft Standing Orders, as certified by the Appellate Authority, restricted this right to representation by a fellow workman who must be an employee of the Corporation. The Supreme Court held that the right to representation is not an absolute right and can be regulated or restricted by statute or certified Standing Orders. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the order of the Appellate Authority, which had certified the Draft Standing Orders.
2. Applicability and Modification of Model Standing Orders:
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, mandates that Model Standing Orders apply temporarily until the establishment's own Standing Orders are certified. The appellant argued that once the Standing Orders are certified, they replace the Model Standing Orders. The respondent contended that the Standing Orders must conform to the Model Standing Orders without deviation. The Supreme Court clarified that the Standing Orders need to be in consonance with the Model Standing Orders and be fair and reasonable, but they do not have to be identical. The Court found that the certified Standing Orders were reasonable and did not deviate significantly from the Model Standing Orders.
3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority:
The Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority have the jurisdiction to certify Standing Orders and ensure they are fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdiction of these authorities was expanded in 1956 to include adjudicating the fairness and reasonableness of the Standing Orders. The Court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision to certify the Draft Standing Orders, finding them to be in compliance with the Act and reasonable.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, and upheld the order of the Appellate Authority certifying the Draft Standing Orders. The Court emphasized that the right to representation in disciplinary proceedings is not absolute and can be restricted by certified Standing Orders. The certified Standing Orders were found to be reasonable and in consonance with the Model Standing Orders.
-
1998 (12) TMI 615
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is an "authority" and an instrumentality of the State and thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Whether the dismissal orders passed against the respondents were in violation of the Service Rules and principles of natural justice.
Summary:
1. Authority and Instrumentality of the State:
The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant, a cooperative society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, and constituted under the U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964, is an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the appellant is governed by both the Societies Act and the Bank Act, which include provisions for the recruitment, training, and disciplinary control of employees. The appellant is subject to the control of the State Government, which includes the appointment of its Managing Director and Chief General Manager from state officials. The Court concluded that the appellant is an instrumentality of the State due to its pervasive control by the State Government and the statutory nature of its Service Rules. Thus, the appellant is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Violation of Service Rules and Principles of Natural Justice:
The High Court had previously set aside the dismissal orders against the respondents, holding that the relevant Service Rules and principles of natural justice were not followed. The Supreme Court examined the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the respondents, which included serving charge-sheets, providing opportunities for personal hearing, and allowing inspection of documents. The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Service Rules and principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer's reports were based on evidence, and the respondents were given opportunities to defend themselves. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding that the dismissal orders were vitiated by non-compliance with the rules of natural justice and statutory rules.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant is an "authority" and an instrumentality of the State, making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court u/s Article 226. However, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents were conducted in accordance with the law, and the High Court's judgment setting aside the dismissal orders was incorrect. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, thereby dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondents.
-
1998 (12) TMI 614
Issues involved: Interpretation of time limitation for penalty proceedings u/s 275(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
The appellant firm, engaged in building construction, declared income on estimate basis as it did not maintain account books. The respondent ITO assessed the firm and initiated penalty proceedings, eventually imposing a penalty for not maintaining account books. Subsequently, a second notice was issued for failure to audit accounts u/s 271B of the Act.
The appellant challenged the second notice, arguing it was time-barred u/s 275(b) of the IT Act, which states penalty proceedings must be concluded within two years from the end of the financial year in which the relevant proceedings were completed.
The respondent contended that s. 275(b) does not prescribe a limitation for commencing penalty proceedings, only for concluding them. The AO initiated penalty proceedings in the assessment order for non-maintenance of account books, not for failure to audit accounts u/s 44AB. The second notice for audit failure was not time-barred as it was distinct from the initial penalty proceedings.
The court held that the second notice was not covered by the initial penalty proceedings and was not time-barred u/s 275(b). The default under s. 271A and s. 271B are separate, and the second notice was validly issued for failure to audit accounts, not covered by the initial penalty order.
In conclusion, the petition was dismissed as the second notice for failure to audit accounts was not time-barred under s. 275(b) and was a separate proceeding from the initial penalty order.
-
1998 (12) TMI 613
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected the Revenue's application to refer questions regarding penalty deletion under IT Act. The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for delay in obtaining audit report, leading to penalty cancellation. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual inquiries and did not warrant a reference to the High Court. The Revenue's argument against additional evidence was dismissed as the matter was considered with both parties present. The application was ultimately dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 612
Whether in the light of article 26 of the agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital entered into by the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the French Republic, the applicant is chargeable to tax in respect of income earned from business, as computed under article 7 of the treaty from the assessment year 1996-97, at the rate applicable to a domestic company, in so far as is beneficial to the applicant?
Whether the rate of tax payable by a non-domestic company cannot be reduced by relying upon article 26 of the DTAA between India and France?
-
1998 (12) TMI 611
Issues:
1. Interpretation of tax law regarding deduction of premium payable on redemption of debentures.
2. Treatment of certain employee benefits for disallowance under Sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of tax law regarding deduction of premium payable on redemption of debentures:
The case involved a dispute over the deduction of a premium payable on the redemption of debentures by a company. The Revenue filed an application under Section 256(2) after being unsuccessful in their attempt to refer two questions of law to the High Court. The primary question was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in confirming the deletion of the addition of a specific amount made on account of the premium payable on redemption of debentures. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction, stating that the liability to pay the entire premium would accrue only at the time of redemption, and no deduction could be allowed in the current year. However, the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the deduction, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court precedent in a similar case established that the liability to pay the excess amount for borrowed money is an allowable expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that the liability to pay the premium on redemption of debentures can be spread over the period of the debentures, allowing for a deduction over the relevant accounting period.
Issue 2: Treatment of certain employee benefits for disallowance under Sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act:
The second question raised was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer not to include certain employee benefits, such as HRA, reimbursement of medical expenses, and premium paid on personal accident, for the purpose of disallowance under Sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in a previous case, emphasizing that liabilities incurred for the purpose of business to generate funds are considered revenue expenditure. The Court reiterated that where a company undertakes to pay more than borrowed, the excess amount is an allowable expenditure. The principle of spreading over the expenditure incurred for borrowing through debentures over the life of the debentures was accepted by the apex court, allowing for deductions over the relevant accounting periods.
In conclusion, the High Court rejected the application under Section 256(2) based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court and the alignment of the Tribunal's decision with the established legal principles regarding the deduction of liabilities related to debentures and employee benefits under the Income Tax Act.
-
1998 (12) TMI 610
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of any provisions of the Act No. 3 of 1947.
2. Whether the suit after the fixation of rent by the House Allotment Officer is maintainable.
3. What should be the reasonable and proper rent of the accommodation in suit.
Summary:
Issue 1: Maintainability of the Suit under Act No. 3 of 1947
The learned Additional Civil Judge found that the suit was not barred because of the Act. The High Court agreed that the suit was maintainable if the accommodation was a new construction erected after June 30, 1946. The Supreme Court affirmed that the determination of the date of construction was a jurisdictional fact essential for the suit's maintainability.
Issue 2: Maintainability of the Suit after Fixation of Rent by the House Allotment Officer
The House Allotment Officer initially fixed the rent at Rs. 35 per mensem, later raised to Rs. 40 per mensem. The appellant then instituted a suit under s. 5(4) of the Act for enhancement of "reasonable annual rent." The High Court held that if the construction was an old one, the suit did not lie, and the agreed rent would continue to be payable. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the civil court depended on the existence of a reasonable annual rent as defined under s. 2(f) and determined under s. 3-A.
Issue 3: Determination of Reasonable and Proper Rent
The Additional Civil Judge increased the "reasonable adequate rent" to Rs. 55-8-0 after considering the amount spent on the new construction. However, the High Court found that the construction in the respondent's occupation could not be called new construction, thus s. 3-A was not applicable, and the tenant was only liable to pay the agreed rent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the trial court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction by deciding the date of construction erroneously.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the High Court correctly interfered under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the trial court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.
-
1998 (12) TMI 609
Whether the rationale behind the provisions of section 44BBB would be applicable in the case of the appellant and a sum equal to ten per cent. of the contract amount as and when paid shall be deemed to be the profits and gains chargeable under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’?
-
1998 (12) TMI 608
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the compulsory retirement order dated 21.7.1986.
2. Examination of the Review Committee's findings and recommendations.
3. Application of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959.
4. Judicial principles on compulsory retirement in public interest.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Compulsory Retirement Order:
The State of Gujarat appealed against the Gujarat High Court's judgment which set aside the order dated 21.7.1986, compulsorily retiring the respondent from service. The High Court's Division Bench allowed the respondent's Writ Petition challenging the validity of this order.
2. Examination of the Review Committee's Findings:
The Review Committee doubted the respondent's integrity, noting serious charges against him, including issuing bogus cement permits and fabricating government stamps. Despite no adverse entries in the respondent's character roll regarding his integrity and his promotion in 1981, the Committee opined that he should be continued in service under suspension for severe departmental punishment. The Secretary and Chief Secretary decided on premature retirement with a condition to withdraw criminal cases if the respondent did not challenge the retirement order in court.
3. Application of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959:
Rule 161(1)(aa) empowers the Appointing Authority to retire a government servant in public interest after attaining the age of 50 years with three months' notice or pay in lieu. The Supreme Court cited various precedents explaining "public interest" as weeding out inefficient, corrupt, or dishonest employees to maintain efficiency and integrity in public service.
4. Judicial Principles on Compulsory Retirement:
The Court reiterated principles from past judgments, emphasizing that compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not imply stigma. It should be based on the government's subjective satisfaction and entire service record, focusing on recent performance. Judicial scrutiny is permissible if the order is arbitrary, mala fide, or based on no evidence. In this case, the Review Committee's recommendation was inconsistent and not based on substantial material. The respondent's involvement in criminal cases alone did not justify compulsory retirement without adverse character roll entries.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Division Bench's judgment to reinstate the respondent, as the compulsory retirement order was deemed punitive and not in public interest. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 607
Issues involved:
Detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982; Delay in considering representation; Failure to inform family members about detention; Non-submission of Advisory Board report within statutory period.
Delay in considering representation:
The case involved a detenu challenging her detention order primarily due to delay in considering her representation. The representation, submitted on 13.1.1998, reached the concerned authorities on 5.2.1998 and was rejected on 14.2.1998. The appellant argued that the delay between these dates was unjustified, citing previous legal precedents. The Government's explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient, especially regarding the Minister's absence. Legal principles emphasized the need for prompt consideration of representations to avoid impermissible detention.
Legal precedents and explanations:
Counsel referenced past cases like Mohinuddin vs. District Magistrate, Beed, Raghavendra Singh vs. Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur, and Rumana Begum vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, where unexplained delays in considering representations led to detention being deemed illegal. The court highlighted the constitutional obligation for timely consideration of detenu representations, emphasizing that any delay must be justified by valid reasons. The judgment stressed that even short delays must be adequately explained to uphold the detenu's rights.
Unexplained delay and legal implications:
In this case, the delay from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.1998 remained unexplained, leading to the vitiation of the detenu's further detention. A comparison was made with a previous case where prompt handling of a representation was deemed acceptable. The court concluded that the unexplained delay in this instance rendered the detention impermissible, necessitating the detenu's immediate release. The judgment set aside the previous decision and ordered the detenu to be released promptly, highlighting the importance of timely and justified actions in detaining individuals under legal provisions.
-
1998 (12) TMI 606
Issues:
1. Implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995
2. Constitution of Central and State Co-ordination Committees
3. Concession for disabled persons by Indian Airlines
4. Discriminatory treatment towards disabled persons
5. Granting concessions for air travel to disabled persons
Analysis:
1. Implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking direction for the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, alleging that despite the Act being operational, no effective steps were being taken for its implementation. The Act aimed to provide opportunities for full participation of people with disabilities and prevent discrimination. The petitioner, being orthopedically impaired, highlighted the shortcomings in implementing the Act by various organizations. The Supreme Court noted the importance of the Act's objectives, emphasizing the responsibilities of the State towards disability prevention, rights protection, medical care, education, and integration of disabled individuals into society. The Court urged the Committees established by the Central and State Governments to earnestly work towards achieving the Act's objectives.
2. Constitution of Central and State Co-ordination Committees:
The Court issued notices to State Governments and Union Territories regarding the constitution of Central and State Co-ordination Committees under the Act. The Union of India and different States filed affidavits indicating the formation of these Committees. The Court acknowledged the constitution of most Committees and expressed trust in their ability to fulfill their obligations under the Act. The Court emphasized the need for these Committees to work diligently to ensure the comprehensive development and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities.
3. Concession for disabled persons by Indian Airlines:
The petitioner raised concerns about Indian Airlines not providing concessions to disabled persons for air travel, except for visually impaired individuals. Indian Airlines argued that their economic constraints limited their ability to grant further concessions. However, the Court recognized the Act's spirit and objectives, emphasizing the need to create a barrier-free environment and integrate disabled persons into society. Considering the difficulties faced by orthopedically impaired individuals in train travel, the Court directed Indian Airlines to grant concessions to those with locomotor disabilities of 80% and above, similar to concessions provided to blind persons, upon submission of a medical certificate.
4. Discriminatory treatment towards disabled persons:
The Court deliberated on the discriminatory treatment towards disabled persons, particularly those with locomotor disabilities, in terms of concessions for air travel. While acknowledging economic considerations, the Court balanced the need for concessions with the Act's objectives of equal opportunities and social integration for disabled individuals. The Court's decision aimed to address the challenges faced by persons with locomotor disabilities in accessing air travel facilities.
5. Granting concessions for air travel to disabled persons:
The Court's directive mandated Indian Airlines to provide concessions to individuals with locomotor disabilities of 80% and above, similar to concessions granted to visually impaired persons. The decision required disabled individuals to obtain a medical certificate confirming their disability percentage to avail of the concession. The Court's decision aligned with the Act's principles of equal opportunities and social inclusion for persons with disabilities, ensuring fair treatment and accessibility in air travel.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the implementation of the Persons with Disabilities Act, emphasized the formation of Co-ordination Committees, and directed Indian Airlines to provide concessions to disabled individuals with locomotor disabilities, reflecting a commitment to inclusivity and equal rights for persons with disabilities.
-
1998 (12) TMI 605
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the supply by the maintenance trustees.
2. Consideration received by the maintenance trustees.
3. Impact of holding maintenance contributions on trust.
4. Application of Article 11A(3)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive.
5. Exemption under Group 1, item 1 of Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of the Supply by the Maintenance Trustees:
The primary issue was whether the maintenance trustees merely arranged for staff to provide services or if they themselves supplied the services. The tribunal found that the maintenance trustees supplied the services of the staff, enhancing the enjoyment and amenity of the flats. This was upheld by Popplewell J., who emphasized the commercial reality of the agreement. The Court of Appeal, however, concluded that the trustees merely arranged for the provision of services. The House of Lords agreed with the tribunal, noting that the trustees employed the staff directly and were responsible for their employment contracts, thus supplying the services themselves.
2. Consideration Received by the Maintenance Trustees:
The second issue was whether the consideration for the services was the entire maintenance contribution attributable to staff salaries and wages, only the trustees' remuneration, or another amount. The tribunal and Popplewell J. concluded that the maintenance contributions constituted consideration for the services provided by the trustees. The House of Lords agreed, stating that the trustees received the maintenance contributions beneficially in consideration of the services provided.
3. Impact of Holding Maintenance Contributions on Trust:
The third issue was whether holding the maintenance contributions on trust affected the liability for VAT. The respondents argued that as trustees, they could not be said to receive consideration beneficially. The House of Lords disagreed, stating that when the trustees applied the maintenance fund to pay staff wages, they received the money beneficially in consideration of the services provided.
4. Application of Article 11A(3)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive:
The respondents contended that under Article 11A(3)(c), amounts received as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the purchaser should be excluded from the taxable amount. The House of Lords rejected this argument, agreeing with Sir Christopher Slade that the trustees employed the staff and paid them from their funds, thus the payments were not repayments for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the purchasers.
5. Exemption under Group 1, item 1 of Schedule 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983:
The respondents argued that the maintenance services were exempt from VAT as part of the grant of an interest in land. The House of Lords disagreed, noting that the supply of services was separate from the grant of the lease and was provided by a different taxpayer. The court also rejected the argument that Schedule 6A, paragraph 7 of the Act applied, as it was directed to situations where the legal title was in one person and the beneficial interest in another, which was not the case here.
Conclusion:
The House of Lords allowed the appeal, agreeing with the tribunal's findings and rejecting the respondents' arguments on all issues. The maintenance trustees were found to supply the services directly, the maintenance contributions constituted consideration for these services, and the holding of funds on trust did not affect the VAT liability. The exemptions and provisions cited by the respondents were found not to apply.
-
1998 (12) TMI 604
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Validity of section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Constitutionality of the phrase "in the same form" in section 3-B(2)(b).
4. Alleged contravention of article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India.
5. Arbitrariness of the percentage fixed towards labour charges under rule 6-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of section 3-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The petitioners challenged the validity of section 3-B, particularly focusing on section 3-B(2)(b). The Tribunal noted that this issue had been previously addressed in O.P. No. 1964 of 1998, where the validity of section 3-B was upheld. The Tribunal reiterated that the section was in line with the constitutional provisions, particularly the 46th amendment to article 366 of the Constitution, which introduced clause (29A). The Tribunal emphasized that the section was valid and consistent with the legal framework established by the Constitution and the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Validity of section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The petitioners argued that section 3-B(2)(b) was contrary to article 366(29A) of the Constitution. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Tamil Nadu Mosaic Manufacturers Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [1995] 97 STC 503, which upheld the validity of section 3-B(2)(b). The Tribunal highlighted that the provision allowed deductions for goods used in the execution of works contracts if they were in the same form as purchased. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this requirement, stating that it was consistent with the legal principles governing the taxation of works contracts.
3. Constitutionality of the phrase "in the same form" in section 3-B(2)(b):
The petitioners contended that the phrase "in the same form" was discriminatory and placed an undue restriction on claiming deductions. The Tribunal, citing the Madras High Court's decision, explained that the requirement ensured that goods used in works contracts were not taxed multiple times. If goods were converted into a different commercial commodity, they became taxable as a new commodity. This approach was found to be logical and consistent with the scheme of the Act.
4. Alleged contravention of article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners argued that section 2(n)(ii) of the Act, defining "sale," was not in line with article 366(29A) of the Constitution. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370, which upheld the constitutional validity of clause (29A). The Tribunal concluded that the definition of "sale" in section 2(n)(ii) was a repetition of the constitutional provision and was therefore valid. The deemed sale in works contracts was upheld by the Supreme Court, and its adoption in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was found to be constitutionally sound.
5. Arbitrariness of the percentage fixed towards labour charges under rule 6-B of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959:
The petitioners challenged the 30 percent fixed for labour charges as arbitrary. The Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court's decision, which held that contractors could claim deductions for actual labour charges. In cases where proper accounts were not maintained, the State was entitled to fix a percentage for labour charges. The Tribunal found that the provision was consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley's case and Builders' Association case. The fixed percentage was deemed necessary to ensure fair taxation in the absence of proper accounts.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the validity of section 3-B and section 3-B(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It found that the provisions were consistent with the constitutional framework and the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions, affirming the decisions of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court on related matters. The Tribunal also modified the appellate authority's order, extending the deadlines for the petitioner to pay the disputed taxes and file a personal bond.
........
|
9911796707
