The country’s Apex Court [Supreme Court of India] in one of its recent judgements delivered on 03/11/2008 in re: Union Of India vs Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., while disposing of the Civil Appeals Nos. 6457-6458 of 2008, observed that the High Court, while adjudicating an interim matter had given a categorical finding on merits holding inter alia that there was nothing to show that even prima facie goods are liable to confiscation and that the High Court appears to have decided the matter on merits finally even though that was not the stage for doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition.

The Apex Court further observed that that was not the way the High Court should have dealt with the matter. Apart from that, the High Court had not indicated any reason as to why the condition of execution of indemnity bond equivalent to seizure value of goods and or furnishing of Bank Guarantee equal to 10% of value of goods , as stipulated by the authorities, was not justified. This also adds to the vulnerability of the order.

The Apex Court, then, proceeded to set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and further directed that the High Court hear the matters afresh and in order to avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the High Court, without further notice.

Even though the judicial system in our country, over the decades, have been moving towards more litigant-friendly systems and procedures, it appears that the country’s highest Court [the Supreme Court] has to step in occassionally to guide the lower Courts as to how the judicial approach should be balanced to meet the ends of justice in each and every case.

It is now upto the lower Courts [which include the various Tribunals and appellate courts] to get guided by the above observations of the Apex Court and maintain the judicial supremacy at every state of disposal of litigations. JAI APPELLANTS —JAI RESPONDENTS.

Taxes Systems In India