DELHI H.C. while deciding the writ petition no. 11435 of 2009 on 4.9.2009 in re: BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs DELHI DEV. AUTHORITY observed as follows: -

QUOTE: This cannot be disputed that as to when a discretionary juridiction is to be exercised or refused to be exercised by the High Court, it is to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hig Court can entertain a writ petition if its is shown that there is something more which goes to the root of the jurrisdicionor something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to forcehim to adopt the remedies provided unde the civil law. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner has not contended that, any provision of law is ULTRA VIRES and has not sought quashing of the same nor i can be infered that the denial of the alleged ppayment to petitioner of service taxand the interest thereon is in violation of any written agreement or is in violation of any principles of natural justice. In ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD vs EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. [2004-3-SCC-553] it was held that the High Court having regard to the facts of he case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain the writ petition and it is the Court that has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercis of this powr. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com   and click on the citation taxind_2010_hc_del_wp_11435]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS isretionary jurisdiction, palpable injustice, root of the jurisdiction, ultra vires

DELHI HIGH COURT while deciding the W.P.(C) No.1210/2003 on 20.2.2010 in re: BRIG. V.K. ANAND vs UNION OF INDIA observed as follows:

QUOTE: When the two judges decided the writ petition under Article 226, which is in the nature of original proceedings, differed on a question of fact or law, reference to a third judge as contemplated is required to be made for disposal of the matter as per the majority opinion of the three judges/ [SEE RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs PRAVEENBHAI JASBHAI PATEL AIR 1997 SC 3892] . The issue referred to the third judge is whehe the petitioner’s trial by GCM was time-barred or not.  While deciding this issue the line of reasoning which may be adopted by the third judge may not be the same as adoped by either of the learned judges who made the reference. But that cannot be a reason for making a reference to a Full Bench. We are afraid such a course is not permissible under the Rules. We, therefore, remit the mater back to the learned single judge with a request to decide the refrence expeditiously. UNQIOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_1210]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS Article 226, REFERENCE TO THIRD MEMBER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, while deciding on 29.8.09 the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1793 of 3008 in re: VIRENDER KUMAR YADAV vs UNION OF INDIA, it was observed as follows:-

QUOTE: From various judicial pronouncements on this issue, the position which emerges is that the Tribunal while considering any application for waiver of deposit is to take into account firstly the existence of a PRIMA FACIE case. In case, it is found that a party has a very strong PRIMA FACIE case, and / or where the errors in the impugned order are writ large on the record, in such a case, it would be competent for the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to grant waiver of pre-deposit since in such a case requiring a pre-deposit itself would amount to UNDUE HARDSHIP. There is no denying of the fact that while dealing with the application for stay it is neither desirable nor proper for the Tribunal or any other authority to embark upon a detailed inquiry to find out whether the stand of the applicant before it is correct or not because expression of any opinion on merits at that juncture, without full-fledged hearing and consideration of entire material, is likely to cause prejudice to either side. But at the same time, the authority concerned is required to consider whether with reference to the material placed before it, a PRIMA FACIE case for grant of stay is made out or not and the balance of convenience lies in whose favour. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_1793]

HIGH COURT ORDER

[EDITOR's NOTE:  This judgement of the Delhi High Court re-emphasises what a quasi-judicial authority as well as a Tribunal shall keep in mind while considering an application for grant of stay of any order which is under appeal, from the aggrieved party [whether it is the Dept. of Revenue or the asseessee / importer]. In fact, this is how the appellate / revisionary authorities as well as the Tribunal benches [since its inception in 1982] have been dealing with the stay applications. If this practice continues, then, lot of relief would be available to the aggrieved persons and their confidence on their application on merits being dealt with by the adjudicating forum would also increase. SATHYAMEVA JAYATHE]

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS DISPENSATION, ERROR IN ORDER MANIFEST ON RECORD, PRE-DEPOST, PRIMA FACIE, STAY, UNDUE HARDSHIP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 24.9.09 the Customs Application No.9 of 2001 in re: COMMR. OF CUS. [PREVENTIVE] vs LEELA SCOTTISH LACE PVT. LTD, it was held as follows:-

QUOTE: It would be clear that what the Supreme Court has held that Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act contemplates confiscation of goods which were exempted from duty subject to a condition which is not observed by the importer within the time prescribed. The occassion for the action under this clause arises only when the condition is not observed within the period prescribed. In the instant case, the respondents had not cleared the goods. The Bill of Entry was filed by some other person. Therefore, the question of breach of condition by the respondents would not arise. What Section 111(o) of the Act reiterates is “the condition is not observed”. The stage for observing the condition had not yet arisen as the goods themselves had not been clered by the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR [UNION OF INDIA vs SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR - 1992-58-ELT-163-SC] UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_bom_cusa_9]

HIGH COURT ORDER

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS confiscation, CUSTOMS ACT 1962, PENALTY, SEC 111(O)