Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (8) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed September 30, 1986 and the addendam thereto dated March 17, 1987 both issued by respondent No. 4 for the alleged contravention of the Act and the Rules is bad, as ex-facie, there is no jurisdiction to issue the said show cause notice and the addendam thereto to the petitioners who was in no way connected with Duncan Agro Companies Ltd. during the relevant period and thus there was no liability .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... capacities of Senior Executives in DAIL, Shri S.S. Chandalia, Shri R.K. Agarwal, (late) Shri P.S. Menon, Shri T.C. Ghosh of the four companies mentioned the para 2(ii) above and Shri S.R. Guharoy, the then factory manager and authorised Central Excise representative at Biccavolu factory had devised procedures for generating cash and income and for the suppression of assessable values with the fra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Manager (Finance). The show cause notice has been issued for the period September, 1981 to February, 1983. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was a Senior Executive prior to April 1, 1984 in a front company of M/s. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. with Tabac Traders Pvt. Ltd. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner is liable as alleged in the show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice (i.e. September, 1981 to February, 1983). The admitted fact is that the petitioner joined on April 1,1984 though the petitioner claims that he joined on August 1, 1984. It is well-settled that public orders cannot be explained in the affidavit. In "Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others", A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851,it was held:- "The second .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 5. The other grounds raised in this petition are common to that raised in C.W.Ps. 1039 and 1708 of 1987. For the reasons recorde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates