Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1983 1983 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 237 Records

• 1983 (8) TMI 314
  
  ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the prolonged detention of the petitioner after acquittal constitutes unlawful detention.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the illegal detention and if such compensation can be awarded under Article 32 of the Constitution.
  • Whether the State of Bihar's justification for the petitioner's continued detention, based on alleged insanity, is valid and substantiated.
  • What remedial measures can be taken to prevent similar occurrences in the future?

  ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Unlawful Detention

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined the provisions under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 32, which provides the right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the detention of the petitioner for over 14 years after his acquittal to be wholly unjustified and a gross violation of his fundamental right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 21.
  • Key evidence and findings: The affidavit filed by the Jailor failed to provide adequate justification or evidence for the continued detention. The claim of insanity was unsupported by medical records or evidence of treatment.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied Article 21 to determine that the detention was unlawful and that the petitioner's rights were violated.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The State's claim of insanity was dismissed due to lack of evidence and the timing of the release order, which suggested an afterthought.
  • Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's detention was illegal and that the State had failed to provide a valid reason for it.

  Compensation for Illegal Detention

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court discussed the scope of Article 32 in awarding compensation for violations of fundamental rights, particularly in cases of unlawful detention.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that monetary compensation could be awarded under Article 32 as a remedy for the violation of fundamental rights, particularly when the deprivation of liberty is concerned.
  • Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's prolonged detention without justification warranted compensation as a remedy for the violation of his rights.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied Article 32 to order compensation, emphasizing that the remedy should be effective and not merely theoretical.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the argument that the petitioner should be relegated to filing a civil suit for damages, noting the clear violation of rights and the need for immediate relief.
  • Conclusions: The Court ordered the State to pay Rs. 30,000 as interim compensation, acknowledging the harm done to the petitioner.

  State's Justification of Insanity

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the legal standards for determining insanity and the procedural rights of individuals deemed insane under the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the State's justification of insanity to be unsubstantiated and likely an afterthought, as no medical records or evidence of treatment were provided.
  • Key evidence and findings: The affidavit lacked evidence of insanity diagnosis or treatment, and the delay in release after the petitioner was declared normal was unjustified.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied principles of due process to determine that the State's actions were unjustified and violated the petitioner's rights.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The State's argument was dismissed due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
  • Conclusions: The Court concluded that the claim of insanity was not credible and did not justify the prolonged detention.

  Preventive Measures and Future Remedial Actions

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court emphasized the need for systemic reform in prison administration to prevent future unlawful detentions.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court called for the High Court of Patna to investigate unlawful detentions and for the State to take corrective actions.
  • Key evidence and findings: The judgment highlighted systemic issues in the prison administration of Bihar, referencing past incidents like the Bhagalpur blindings.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied principles of justice and administrative accountability to recommend systemic reforms.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The Court did not face competing arguments on this issue, as it was a recommendation for future action.
  • Conclusions: The Court urged the State and the High Court to address systemic failures and prevent future violations of rights.

  SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • The Court established that monetary compensation can be awarded under Article 32 for the violation of fundamental rights, particularly in cases of unlawful detention.
  • The Court emphasized that Article 21's guarantee of life and liberty includes the right to compensation for unlawful detention, stating: "One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation."
  • The Court ordered the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 30,000 as interim compensation to the petitioner, highlighting the need for immediate relief in cases of clear rights violations.
  • The judgment called for systemic reforms in prison administration and urged the High Court of Patna to investigate and rectify instances of unlawful detention.
  • The Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights and providing effective remedies for their violation.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 313
  
  Issues:
  1. Competence of the reference made by the Delhi Administration to the Labour Court.
  2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.
  3. Interpretation of the term "industrial dispute" in the context of the case.
  4. Application of the decision in Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat to the present case.
  5. Proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved the termination of a probationary Bus Conductor's services by the Delhi Transport Corporation, leading to a dispute referred to the Labour Court by the Delhi Administration. The Labour Court found the termination to be illegal and mala fide, ordering reinstatement with full back wages. The management challenged this award in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that no industrial dispute existed as the workman had not raised any demand. The High Court, delving into unnecessary discussions, quashed the Labour Court's award based on a technicality regarding the existence of an industrial dispute.
  
  The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the Labour Court on jurisdictional facts. The Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised cautiously and not as an appellate authority over specialized Tribunals. The presence of a conciliation proceeding and a report to the Government justified the existence of an industrial dispute, warranting the Labour Court's jurisdiction in the matter.
  
  Regarding the application of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. The Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat, the Supreme Court clarified that the decision in that case was specific to the subject matter of dispute and did not support the respondents' argument in the present case. The Court further criticized the High Court for interfering with the Labour Court's award on a technicality, emphasizing that Article 226 should serve the interests of justice.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The judgment underscored the importance of respecting the jurisdiction of specialized Tribunals and exercising judicial review under Article 226 judiciously to uphold justice.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 312
  
  Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to grant anticipatory bail in a case registered outside its jurisdiction
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code due to a criminal case registered in Central Crime Branch, Madras, against them and others. The petitioners had obtained bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, with a condition to confirm bail within a month. The question arose whether the High Court could grant anticipatory bail in a case registered in Madras.
  
  2. The case involved allegations related to the transportation and delivery of tractors to a dealer without proper documentation. The petitioners argued for anticipatory bail citing precedents like Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and B. R. Sinha v. The State. However, a detailed examination of the legal provisions under Sections 78, 80, and 81 of the Code was conducted to determine the jurisdiction of the Court to grant anticipatory bail in cases registered outside its territorial limits.
  
  3. The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 438(1) of the Code, emphasizing that the term "High Court" refers to the High Court of the State where the offence is committed. The jurisdiction of a Court is tied to the offence, not the offender's residence. The Court clarified that the critical factor is whether the offence falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session where the bail application is made.
  
  4. Precedents like Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab were examined to understand the circumstances under which anticipatory bail can be granted. The Court highlighted that the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to grant bail in cases registered in other States was not explicitly addressed in previous judgments. The practical difficulties arising from entertaining such applications without sufficient material were also noted.
  
  5. Referring to a previous case dismissed by the Court due to lack of jurisdiction when the offence was registered in another State, the judgment concluded that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case registered in Madras. Therefore, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed based on the lack of jurisdiction.
  
  This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's interpretation of legal provisions, precedents, and the jurisdictional limitations concerning the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 311
  
  Issues:
  Claim for depreciation under section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assets of Crown Flour Mills.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved the question of whether an assessee-company is entitled to claim depreciation under section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the building, machinery, and plant of Crown Flour Mills, Delhi. The assessee, a private limited company, was running a cold storage and flour mill. The relevant assessment year was 1962-63, with the accounting year being 1961. The company was a subsidiary of another private limited company, which decided to transfer Crown Flour Mills to the assessee. However, no sale deed was executed until the end of the relevant accounting year. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the claim for depreciation, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) allowed it on appeal. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, leading the Commissioner to seek a reference on the issue. The Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court for its opinion.
  
  The High Court, in its judgment, referred to a previous decision regarding a similar claim by the same party for the assessment year 1958-59. It was held that ownership, as required by the Income-tax Act, did not pass to the assessee without a registered sale deed. The interest under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act did not constitute ownership. Since no sale deed was executed during the relevant accounting year, the title to Crown Flour Mills did not pass to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for claiming depreciation under the law. The Court relied on the previous decision and answered the question in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation for the assets of Crown Flour Mills as ownership did not pass to the assessee without a registered sale deed. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of ownership under the Income-tax Act and the absence of a sale deed during the relevant accounting year.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 310
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Constitutional validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.
  2. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.
  3. Scope and application of Article 31A.
  4. Provisions of the Act unrelated to agrarian reform.
  5. Payment of compensation and its implications.
  6. Applicability of the Act to urban areas.
  7. Anomalies in Section 7(2)(b) of the Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Constitutional Validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976:
  The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 31. The State of Jammu & Kashmir countered this by asserting that the Act is a measure of agrarian reform and is protected by Article 31A, which precludes challenges based on Articles 14, 19, and 31.
  
  2. Alleged Violation of Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution:
  The petitioners, mainly small land-holders, contended that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental rights, thereby violating Articles 14 and 19. Article 31, which has been repealed by the 44th Amendment, was also cited. However, the Court held that the Act is a measure of agrarian reform and thus protected by Article 31A, which overrides challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
  
  3. Scope and Application of Article 31A:
  Article 31A was discussed in depth, with the Court emphasizing that a large and liberal meaning must be given to expressions like "estate," "rights in an estate," and "extinguishment and modification" of such rights. The dominant purpose of the Act was deemed to be agrarian reform, aimed at equitable redistribution of lands and making tillers the owners of the lands they cultivate.
  
  4. Provisions of the Act Unrelated to Agrarian Reform:
  The petitioners argued that certain provisions, such as Section 7, were not related to agrarian reform. Section 7(2) imposed conditions on the resumption of lands for personal cultivation, including residence requirements. The Court found that these provisions did not detract from the Act's primary objective of agrarian reform.
  
  5. Payment of Compensation and Its Implications:
  The petitioners expressed concerns that the Act would require the State Government to pay considerable amounts to land-holders, potentially more than under other laws like the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Court held that the extent and mode of compensation are legislative matters and do not affect the Act's character as a measure of agrarian reform.
  
  6. Applicability of the Act to Urban Areas:
  The petitioners argued that applying the Act to agricultural lands within urban areas did not serve agrarian reform. The Court dismissed this, stating that the legislature could include such lands in agrarian reform schemes if they were predominantly used for agriculture. Sections 13, 14, and 17 of the Act were cited as effective deterrents against the misuse of such lands.
  
  7. Anomalies in Section 7(2)(b) of the Act:
  The Court noted an anomaly in Section 7(2)(b), which required land-holders to reside in the village where the land is situated or in an adjoining village. This requirement seemed irrational, especially for minors, widows, and physically incapacitated persons. The Court suggested that the Jammu & Kashmir Government reconsider this provision to make it more reasonable.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, dismissing the petitions. The Court emphasized that the Act's dominant purpose was agrarian reform, protected by Article 31A, and that any marginal inequalities created by the Act should be addressed by the legislature. The Court also highlighted the need for the Jammu & Kashmir Government to reconsider certain provisions to ensure they accord with reason and common sense.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 309
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether publication in the official gazette is the sine qua non of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  2. Whether the public notice of the substance of the notification can precede its publication in the official gazette.
  3. The interpretation of the word "notification" in Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether publication in the official gazette is the sine qua non of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  
  The core question addressed by the Full Bench was whether publication in the official gazette is essential for a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The judgment emphasizes that the term "notification" implies a formal declaration, proclamation, or publication of an order in the manner prescribed. The ordinary dictionary meaning of "notify" and "notification" includes making known, declaring, or publishing. The judgment highlights that a notification inherently involves formal declaration and publication, contrasting it with a mere decision or order, which remains cloistered until publicized. The judgment cites the Indian Evidence Act and the Punjab General Clauses Act to support this interpretation, concluding that publication in the official gazette is necessary for a notification to be legally effective.
  
  2. Whether the public notice of the substance of the notification can precede its publication in the official gazette:
  
  The judgment holds that the publication of the notification in the official gazette must necessarily precede the public notice of the substance thereof at convenient places in the locality. The word "such" in Section 4(1) of the Act is interpreted to relate to the publication in the official gazette. The judgment reasons that the public notice must be of the substance of what has been published in the gazette, ensuring consistency and compliance with the statutory mandate. The judgment affirms the precedent set in Battan Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that public notice given before the publication in the gazette is invalid. It overrules the contrary decision in Dhani Ram Dhiman v. Land Acquisition Collector, emphasizing that the sequence of publication in the gazette followed by public notice is mandatory and not subject to considerations of prejudice to the affected parties.
  
  3. The interpretation of the word "notification" in Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
  
  The judgment thoroughly analyzes the term "notification" as used in Section 4(1) of the Act. It concludes that a notification must be a formal declaration published in the official gazette, not merely an order or decision of the government. The judgment references the Supreme Court's decision in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that a government order not published in the gazette could not be equated with a notification. The judgment also discusses the implications of the word "such" in the context of Section 4(1), affirming that it refers to the notification as published in the official gazette. The judgment rejects the argument that the procedural mode of publicity is ancillary and of no legal consequence, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the statutory requirements.
  
  Separate Judgments Delivered:
  
  Satya Parkash Goyal, J.:
  
  Justice Goyal dissented, arguing that the decision of the government acquires the character of a notification when it is drawn and signed by the proper authority, and its publication in the official gazette is just a mode of notifying it to the public. He contended that the words "such notification" refer to the notification issued by the government and that the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality before its publication in the gazette does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. He emphasized that the publication in the locality cannot be prejudicial to the landowners, as the limitation for filing objections starts from the publication in the gazette.
  
  Final Order of the Court:
  
  The majority judgment allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notification. The court held that publication in the official gazette is essential for a notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the public notice in the locality must follow the gazette publication. The respondents were left free to issue a fresh notification in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 308
  
  Issues:
  1. Dismissal of application under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside an ex parte decree.
  2. Allegations of improper service of summons and resistance to execution of decree.
  3. Barred application by limitation.
  4. Challenge to decision in revisional application.
  5. Validity of substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20.
  6. Discrepancies in evidence regarding knowledge of decree.
  7. Jurisdictional errors in trial court's actions.
  8. Dismissal based on limitation without proper consideration of evidence.
  9. Setting aside ex parte decree and restoration of suit.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 to set aside an ex parte decree in a suit for eviction. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the application, citing that the petitioner failed to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance and that the application was barred by limitation. The petitioner challenged this decision in a revisional application, arguing against the validity of the service of summons and the knowledge of the decree.
  
  The petitioner contended that there was no proper service of summons, challenging the substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20. The petitioner's counsel argued that the evidence of resistance to execution of the decree was unreliable due to material discrepancies. The petitioner claimed to have known of the decree only on Feb. 12, 1981, and immediately filed the application the next day.
  
  On the other hand, the opposite party argued that the petitioner was avoiding service of summons, justifying the substituted service under the law. They maintained that the petitioner's knowledge of the decree on June 17, 1980, made the application time-barred and an attempt to delay execution.
  
  The Court found jurisdictional errors in the trial court's actions regarding service of summons and noted discrepancies in the evidence regarding the petitioner's knowledge of the decree. The appellate court's dismissal based solely on limitation without proper consideration of evidence was criticized. Ultimately, the Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the ex parte decree and restoring the suit, directing the defendant to file a written statement within a specified timeline for further proceedings.
  
  In conclusion, the Court held that the decisions of the lower courts were unsustainable, allowing the revisional application without costs and setting aside the impugned orders to restore the suit for further adjudication by the trial court.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 307
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the Excise Commissioner's decision to cancel the auction.
  2. High Court's authority to substitute its judgment for that of the Excise Commissioner.
  3. Compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of Rule 374 of the General Rules for Conducting Excise Sales.
  4. Adequacy of the bid and its acceptance by the Excise Commissioner.
  5. High Court's direction to compel the Excise Commissioner to accept the bid.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of the Excise Commissioner's Decision to Cancel the Auction:
  The Excise Commissioner canceled the auction of country liquor shops in Allahabad, citing that the bids were low and would result in a loss of revenue to the Government. The Commissioner compared the bids with those from neighboring districts and previous years, concluding that the bids were inadequate. The Commissioner ordered a re-auction to secure better revenue.
  
  2. High Court's Authority to Substitute its Judgment for that of the Excise Commissioner:
  The High Court quashed the Excise Commissioner's order, deeming it arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by substituting its judgment for that of the Excise Commissioner. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the Government's prerogative to decide the adequacy of bids and that the mere offer of a bid does not create a vested right in the bidder.
  
  3. Compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of Rule 374 of the General Rules for Conducting Excise Sales:
  The respondents argued that the Excise Commissioner's decision violated Sub-rules 11 and 12 of Rule 374. The Supreme Court noted that these rules provide guidelines for the Excise Commissioner but do not create any rights for the bidders. The final acceptance of any bid is subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner and the Government's decision in appeal or revision.
  
  4. Adequacy of the Bid and its Acceptance by the Excise Commissioner:
  The Supreme Court examined the methods of computation used by both parties to determine the adequacy of the bid. The Excise Commissioner's method, which compared the current year's bid with the previous year's adjusted for changes, was found to be reasonable. The Supreme Court held that it is not the Court's function to substitute its judgment for that of the Excise Commissioner, who is entrusted with protecting the revenue.
  
  5. High Court's Direction to Compel the Excise Commissioner to Accept the Bid:
  The Supreme Court found the High Court's direction to compel the Excise Commissioner to accept the respondents' bid to be unsustainable. If the High Court believed the Excise Commissioner's approach was incorrect, it should have directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter with the correct criteria. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Excise Commissioner's order.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the Excise Commissioner's order and substituting its judgment for that of the Commissioner. The Supreme Court restored the Excise Commissioner's order, emphasizing that the Government and the Excise Commissioner are responsible for protecting the revenue and determining the adequacy of bids. The appellant was awarded costs.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 306
  
  The judgment pertains to a revision by the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 regarding the exemption of sales tax on purchases made from dealers who had paid the tax. The claim for exemption was denied due to the absence of Form III-C (2) but there are conflicting views on whether other documentary evidence can suffice. The matter has been referred to a larger Bench for decision.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 305
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the withdrawal of tax exemption for tourist vehicles by Karnataka.
  2. Alleged misuse of All India Tourist Permits.
  3. Impact on freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301 of the Constitution.
  4. Claims of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  5. Applicability of promissory estoppel against the State Government.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of the withdrawal of tax exemption for tourist vehicles by Karnataka:
  The Supreme Court examined the withdrawal of tax exemption by Karnataka for tourist vehicles holding permits u/s 63(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court acknowledged the State Legislature's power to levy taxes on vehicles suitable for use on roads and to grant or withdraw exemptions. The court held that the State's action did not violate any constitutional provisions.
  
  2. Alleged misuse of All India Tourist Permits:
  The judgment detailed the misuse of All India Tourist Permits by transport operators who registered vehicles in smaller states to avoid taxes and then operated these vehicles as stage carriages in states like Karnataka, contrary to the intended purpose of promoting inter-state tourism. The court found substantial evidence supporting these allegations of misuse.
  
  3. Impact on freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301 of the Constitution:
  The court addressed the argument that the withdrawal of tax exemption impaired the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301. It concluded that taxes of a compensatory and regulatory character are outside the scope of Article 301. The court held that the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and similar acts in other states were regulatory and compensatory, thus not violating Article 301.
  
  4. Claims of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
  The petitioners argued that treating all-India tourist vehicles the same as state contract carriages violated Article 14 (right to equality). The court rejected this argument, stating that the state's taxation policy did not result in unequal treatment, as the tax burden was uniformly applied.
  
  5. Applicability of promissory estoppel against the State Government:
  The petitioners contended that the principle of promissory estoppel prevented Karnataka from withdrawing the tax exemption. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that policy decisions, including tax exemptions, are within the legislative and executive domain and can be altered as deemed necessary.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed all writ petitions, upheld the withdrawal of tax exemption by Karnataka, and vacated the interim orders. The court found no constitutional violations in the state's actions and emphasized the need for regulatory measures to address the misuse of All India Tourist Permits.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 304
  
  Issues:
  1. Controversy over Electricity Duty on consumption of electrical energy in Uttar Pradesh by a person with own source and purchasing from licensee.
  2. Interpretation of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the U.P. Electricity (Duty) Act, 1852.
  3. Validity of exemption from Electricity Duty for persons consuming energy from own source installed before January 2, 1973.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the question of whether Electricity Duty is payable by a person in Uttar Pradesh who has their own source of energy generation and also purchases energy from a licensee, Board, State, or Central Government. The contention arises from the interpretation of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the U.P. Electricity (Duty) Act, 1852. The Allahabad High Court initially upheld that a person with own source of generation and purchasing energy is not liable for duty, but a Full Bench later ruled that duty is payable regardless of purchasing from another source.
  
  2. The interpretation of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act is crucial in determining the liability for Electricity Duty. The Court emphasized that duty is levied on the consumption of energy, irrespective of the source of acquisition. The provisions do not exempt a person from duty simply because they have their own source of energy generation and also purchase from another source. The legislative intent behind levying duty is to raise additional revenue, as clarified in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary. The Court concluded that the duty is chargeable for energy consumed from one's own source, regardless of purchasing from other sources.
  
  3. Another issue addressed in the judgment concerns the validity of exemption from Electricity Duty for persons consuming energy from their own source installed before January 2, 1973. The argument was made that exemption should apply to all persons with their own source of energy generation, irrespective of installation date, to avoid discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Court upheld the rationality of the exemption being granted prospectively to promote industrial production and address power shortages, without retroactively encouraging those who already had their own source of generation.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, set aside the High Court's decision, and dismissed the writ petition challenging the exemption. The other appeals were also dismissed, emphasizing the rational classification for granting exemptions and the legislative intent behind levying Electricity Duty.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 303
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Initiation and validity of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
  2. Examination of charges of professional misconduct against the appellant.
  3. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee in appellate proceedings.
  4. Remand of the case by the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Initiation and Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Appellant:
  The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant, an advocate, based on a complaint by Chhotey Singh and Faqir Chand. The allegations included forging an application and implicating an Assistant Registrar in a criminal case, and forging a Vakalatnama and consent application in a civil suit. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee. The appellant did not enter the witness box to deny or contradict the allegations, which was noted as significant by the disciplinary committee.
  
  2. Examination of Charges of Professional Misconduct Against the Appellant:
  Three charges were framed against the appellant:
  - Charge 1: Whether the advocate got a gift deed executed against Khazan Singh's instructions.
  - Charge 2: Whether the advocate got a forged Vakalatnama and written statement filed on behalf of Khazan Singh.
  - Charge 3: Whether the advocate filed an antedated application and falsely implicated an Assistant Registrar.
  
  The disciplinary committee found the appellant guilty of the first two charges but not the third. The evidence from Chhotey Singh, who later sought to withdraw from the complaint and supported the appellant, was discarded due to inconsistencies and his relationship with the appellant. The Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee reversed the findings on charges 1 and 2, citing unreliable affidavits and lack of personal knowledge in the statements. Charge 3 was remitted back to the State Bar Council for lack of adequate reasons in the disciplinary committee's decision.
  
  3. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee in Appellate Proceedings:
  The jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, was examined. The committee has wide jurisdiction to pass any order it deems fit, including varying the punishment imposed by the State Bar Council's disciplinary committee. The appellate body's jurisdiction encompasses the power to review and enhance punishment, ensuring the integrity of the legal profession is maintained. The committee's decision must be germane to the functions of the Bar Council of India and relevant to the Act's purposes.
  
  4. Remand of the Case by the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee:
  The Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee remanded the matter concerning Charge 3 to the State Bar Council, directing it to provide adequate reasons for its decision. This action was within the appellate body's powers and was not constrained by technical rules of appeal against acquittal. The appellant's counsel had requested the remand during the appeal hearing, which was not adequately countered by the appellant's current counsel. The Supreme Court found no merit in interfering with the remand order, emphasizing the importance of the appellant presenting his defense before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee's decision to remand the case for Charge 3. The appellant's failure to participate in the initial proceedings and the legislative intent behind the Advocates Act were significant factors in the Court's decision. The appellant was encouraged to present his defense before the State Bar Council's disciplinary committee.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 302
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the Andhra Pradesh Catering Establishments (Fixation and Display of Prices of Foodstuffs) Order, 1978.
  2. Competence of the State Government to issue price control measures for cooked food under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
  3. Alleged arbitrariness and unprofitability of the maximum prices fixed under the impugned orders.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of the Andhra Pradesh Catering Establishments (Fixation and Display of Prices of Foodstuffs) Order, 1978:
  The hoteliers of Andhra Pradesh challenged the 1978 Order, which mandated the display of prices and fixed maximum prices for certain food items. The petitioners argued that the prices should be re-examined to ensure a reasonable return on investment, satisfying Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Court found that the petitioners suppressed material facts and obtained an ex-parte stay order, which was unjustified. The Court held that the review of prices at reasonable intervals is implicit in any price fixation measure and rejected the petitioners' contention about the impossibility of complying with the conditions of the Orders.
  
  2. Competence of the State Government to issue price control measures for cooked food under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955:
  The petitioners argued that the State Government lacked the authority to issue price control measures for cooked food, as the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, did not cover cooked food. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the expression "foodstuffs" in the Act includes cooked food. The Court referred to previous judgments and dictionaries to support its interpretation that "foodstuffs" encompasses both raw and cooked food.
  
  3. Alleged arbitrariness and unprofitability of the maximum prices fixed under the impugned orders:
  The petitioners contended that the maximum prices fixed were economically unprofitable and arbitrary. The Court declined to engage in a detailed examination of the cost structures presented by both sides, emphasizing that the mechanics of price fixation should be left to the executive's judgment. The Court noted that the petitioners had agreed to a review of prices after three months but instead sought an ex-parte stay, suppressing the fact that the latest order had replaced the earlier ones. The Court held that no price fixation order needs to guarantee profit for each unit of article served or sold, and the overall trade or commerce picture should be considered. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions and dismissed the petitions with costs.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the petitioners had obtained an unfair advantage by suppressing material facts and obtaining an ex-parte stay order. The notification fixing the maximum prices will revive and can be enforced, but the unjust enrichment enjoyed by the hoteliers during the stay period cannot be undone. The petitions were dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 301
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the demand for Rs. 50,000 constituted an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate.
  3. Interpretation of the term "dowry" under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  4. Applicability of inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings at the threshold.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Whether the demand for Rs. 50,000 constituted an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  The appellant alleged that during the marriage ceremonies, the respondents demanded Rs. 50,000 for the transport of the bride and groom to the United States, threatening to halt the ceremonies if the demand was not met. This demand was claimed to be made under the pretext of dowry. The Supreme Court considered whether this demand constituted an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 4 states, "If any person after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both."
  
  The Court held that the term "dowry" should be interpreted liberally to include any property or valuable security demanded as consideration for marriage. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for marriage. Therefore, the mere demand for Rs. 50,000, even without the appellant's consent to pay, constituted an offence under Section 4.
  
  Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate.
  The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that no offence under Section 4 was disclosed since there was no allegation that the appellant had agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning, stating that the High Court should have refrained from invoking its inherent powers at the threshold to quash the proceedings. The Court observed that these powers should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, especially when there is no reason to believe that the process of law is being misused to harass a citizen.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "dowry" under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act defines "dowry" as "any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage." The Supreme Court noted that the definition includes property or valuable security demanded as consideration for marriage, even if not agreed to be given. The Court held that for the purposes of Section 4, the term "dowry" should be interpreted to include any property or valuable security demanded, whether or not there was consent to give it.
  
  Issue 4: Applicability of inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings at the threshold.
  The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for invoking its inherent powers to quash the proceedings at the threshold. The Court emphasized that such powers are meant to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Court found that the complaint was filed after obtaining the necessary sanction as required by the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, and there was no misuse of the process of law to harass the respondents.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order quashing the proceedings. The Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to take further proceedings on the complaint and dispose of the case according to law. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting the Dowry Prohibition Act liberally to achieve its objective of eradicating the practice of dowry.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 300
  
  Issues:
  Refund of excess duty paid on survey shortages; Interpretation of Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellants sought a refund of duty paid on goods with shortages discovered after clearance for home consumption. The claim was rejected based on Section 13, which requires shortages to be reported before clearance. The Collector of Customs upheld the rejection citing Section 13 and the condition of notifying shortages before clearance. The appellants argued physical impossibility of surveying before clearance but failed to meet Section 13's requirements. The Tribunal emphasized the categorical nature of Section 13, stating that the appellants could have safeguarded their interests by delaying assessment or clearance. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 13.
  
  In response to the argument that Section 23 should apply, the Tribunal referenced a previous case to distinguish between "lost" and "pilfered" goods. Section 13 deals with pilfered goods where duty liability may revive if goods are restored, while Section 23 pertains to remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods. The Tribunal clarified that "lost" in Section 23 does not cover pilferage, emphasizing that duty liability continues for pilfered goods under Section 13. Without evidence of irretrievable loss, the Tribunal found no basis for a refund under Section 23. The presence of intact packaging upon landing did not prove non-arrival of goods, and the absence of conclusive evidence precluded a refund claim. The Tribunal reiterated the claimant's responsibility to establish entitlement to a refund, emphasizing that mere possibilities of non-arrival or loss were insufficient. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed for failure to establish a valid refund claim under the circumstances of the case.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 299
  
  Issues:
  1. Maintainability of the application for reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  2. Condonation of delay in filing the application for reference.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The Collector of Central Excise filed an application under Section 35G(1) of the Act, seeking reference to the High Court. However, the application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, prompting the need for condonation of delay. The non-applicants raised concerns about not being served with the application and requested access to the documents before the hearing. The Tribunal questioned the maintainability of the application and the delay condonation, emphasizing the need to establish the application's validity. The Departmental Representative argued that the order in question primarily dealt with the determination of excise duty rate, making the reference application valid. However, the Tribunal found that the issues in the order pertained to the applicability of specific notifications and the excise duty rate, making it clear that the application for reference was misconceived and not maintainable under Section 35G(1).
  
  2. The Tribunal also addressed the application for condonation of delay in filing the reference application. The application lacked specific details and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant attributed the delay to an inter-ministerial reference, but the Tribunal found the explanation vague and unsatisfactory. It reiterated that the term "sufficient cause" should not be liberally interpreted, especially when dealing with government entities. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to justify the delay adequately, thereby rejecting the application for reference on grounds of both maintainability and limitation. The decision was pronounced in open court on 29th August 1983.
  
  Editor's Comments:
  The Editor's comments shed light on the provisions of Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Editor clarifies that the Tribunal's order must directly relate to the rate of duty or value of goods for a reference to the High Court or an appeal to the Supreme Court. In cases where the order does not specifically address these aspects but disposes of the appeal on other grounds, such as limitation or jurisdiction, a reference may still be maintainable. The focus should be on the subject matter of the Tribunal's order rather than the subject matter of the appeal itself. This distinction is crucial in determining the applicability of Sections 35G and 35L in excise duty cases.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 298
  
  Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification for anti-malarial drug Camoquin as Amodiaquine or Amodiaquine Hydrochloride
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi involved the interpretation of an exemption notification for an anti-malarial drug, specifically Camoquin, as either Amodiaquine or Amodiaquine Hydrochloride. The dispute arose as the Central Excise authorities contended that only Amodiaquine, not Camoquin, should receive the exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. The crux of the issue was whether Amodiaquine Hydrochloride, present in Camoquin, could be considered synonymous with Amodiaquine for the purpose of the exemption.
  
  The appellant, M/s. Parke Davis, argued that the Government's amendment to the notification supported their claim that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride should be exempted as it is equivalent to Amodiaquine. They presented technical evidence from various pharmacopoeias and pharmaceutical texts to establish that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride is the form in which Amodiaquine is administered and that the two terms are used interchangeably in the industry.
  
  On the other hand, the Central Excise department contended that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride is chemically distinct from Amodiaquine as it is a salt of the latter. They emphasized the need for a strict interpretation of the exemption notification and argued that the later amendment could not have a retrospective effect to include Amodiaquine Hydrochloride under the exemption.
  
  The Tribunal acknowledged the technical complexity of the issue, recognizing that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride is not the same as Amodiaquine from a chemical standpoint. However, they also considered the practical aspect of medical administration, noting that Amodiaquine is typically administered as Amodiaquine Hydrochloride for its therapeutic effects against malaria. The Tribunal highlighted that the active base of Amodiaquine is always administered as a hydrochloride and that no other form is known to be used for medical purposes.
  
  In their analysis, the Tribunal concluded that Amodiaquine Hydrochloride should be entitled to the exemption as demanded by the appellant. They emphasized the importance of a strict reading of exemption notifications to prevent discrimination among qualifying articles and upheld that the exemption should apply to Amodiaquine Hydrochloride, which is the medically administered form of Amodiaquine. The Tribunal directed that assessments of the disputed goods be done accordingly, granting the exemption to Amodiaquine Hydrochloride within three months.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 297
  
  Issues: Classification of goods under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of goods as "Diamond Products" under Item 51
  The dispute revolved around the classification of goods described as "Diamond Products" by the appellants under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appellants contested the classification by Excise authorities under "Grinding Wheels and the like." The matter was brought before the Tribunal for resolution.
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of Tariff Description
  The appellants argued that some goods were not in the shape of wheels and, therefore, should not be classified as "Grinding Wheels." The Tribunal noted that the description in Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff was comprehensive, covering not only complete grinding wheels but also segments and finished parts. The Tribunal emphasized that even if some goods were not complete wheels, they still fell within the scope of Item 51.
  
  Issue 3: Comparison with CCCN Classification
  The appellants contended that their goods were correctly classifiable as tools under a separate Item 51A introduced later. They referenced a Trade Notice listing tools under Item 51A. However, the Tribunal observed that during the relevant period, Item 51 covered the goods adequately, and the subsequent introduction of Item 51A did not exclude the applicability of Item 51 to the goods.
  
  Issue 4: Relevance of Indian Standard Specifications
  The appellants referred to Indian Standard Specifications for grinding wheels and diamond tools to support their classification argument. However, the Tribunal noted that the specifications did not conclusively differentiate diamond tools from grinding wheels. The existence of separate specifications did not imply mutual exclusivity but rather indicated different varieties within the same category.
  
  Issue 5: Conclusion
  After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' classification of the goods under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal emphasized that the wide scope of Item 51 encompassed the appellants' goods, even if they were not explicitly labeled as "diamond wheels." The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the correctness of the classification under Item 51 during the relevant period.
  
  This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, interpretations, and conclusions drawn by the Tribunal regarding the classification of goods under Item 51 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule in the given legal judgment.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 296
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Notification No. 203/C.E., dated 28-9-1972 regarding duty concession for sugar factories.
  2. Validity of the demand for refund based on adjustment in the Personal Ledger Account.
  3. Application of Rule 10 or Rule 10A for raising the demand for refund.
  4. Time-barred nature of the show cause notice for refund.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi involved a dispute where a sugar factory contested a demand for refund made by excise authorities based on an adjustment in the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) relating to a duty concession notification. The Central Government had issued Notification No. 203/C.E., dated 28-9-1972, allowing relief to sugar factories for excess production during specific periods. In this case, the factory claimed a rebate for exceeding production in October and November 1972 compared to the same period in 1971. The excise authorities initially allowed the rebate but later issued a show cause notice in 1977, seeking a refund of the amount, alleging it was erroneously allowed.
  
  The Assistant Collector upheld the demand for refund, stating that since there was no production in October and November 1971, the factory was not eligible for the duty concession under the notification. The factory's argument of the notice being time-barred was not addressed at this stage. The Appellate Collector affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the benefit of the notification applied only if there was production during the corresponding period. The factory's plea that the demand should have been raised under Rule 10 was rejected, citing Rule 10A as applicable without a time limit for refund demands.
  
  Upon appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the factory argued that the notice was time-barred under Rule 10, emphasizing a judgment from the Allahabad High Court supporting their interpretation of the notification. The Tribunal considered the mistake in allowing the rebate and concluded that it amounted to a refund of duty paid, thus falling under Rule 10 with a one-year time limit. As the notice was issued almost four years later, the Tribunal ruled it was time-barred, setting aside the Appellate Collector's decision based on Rule 10A. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of the notice being barred by time, without delving into the notification's applicability.

  ---

• 1983 (8) TMI 295
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of exemption Notifications related to the number of workers employed in a factory; Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 68; Applicability of Gujarat High Court judgment on goods manufacturing; Entitlement to exemption from excise duty based on Tariff Entry exclusion.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to the benefit of exemption Notifications related to the number of workers employed in a factory during specific periods. The appellants contested that certain categories of employees should not be considered as "workers" for the purpose of the Notifications. The Department disagreed, leading to the impugned Order-in-Appeal that found the number of workers exceeded 49 for certain periods, thus denying exemption for those periods (1975-76 and part of 1976-77).
  
  During the appeal, the appellants raised a new legal point based on a judgment by the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the goods they manufactured should not be classified under Tariff Heading 68. The appellants claimed that the goods were exempt from excise duty under a specific Tariff Entry and should not fall under the residuary Item 68. The appellants relied on the Gujarat High Court judgment to support their argument.
  
  The Tribunal considered the legal argument presented by the appellants and found merit in their claim. The Tribunal agreed with the interpretation of the Gujarat High Court judgment, stating that goods specifically mentioned in a Tariff Entry, even by way of exclusion, should not be classified under the residuary Item 68. The Tribunal concluded that the goods manufactured by the appellants were statutorily exempt from excise duty under a specific Tariff Entry exclusion, and therefore, the appellants were entitled to exemption without relying on any other Notification.
  
  The Departmental Representative attempted to argue a distinction between "articles of hosiery" and "hosiery garments," but the Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the items in question before the Gujarat High Court were the same items manufactured by the appellants. The Tribunal held that based on the Gujarat High Court judgment, the goods were exempt from excise duty and did not need to meet the conditions of any other Exemption Notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted consequential relief by way of refund, if applicable.

  ---

12345........ 12