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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2010 with C.A. Nos. 787-792 of 2010, on 20.01.10, in re: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs EMPTEE POLY-YARN PVT. LTD, observed as follows: -

QUOTE: Repeatedly this Court has recommended to the Deaprtment, be it under Excise Act, Customs Act or the Income Tax Act, to examine the process applicable to the product in question and not to go only by the dictionary meanings. This recommendation is not being followed over the years. Even when the assessee gives an opinion on a given process, the Department does not submit any counter opinion wherever such counter opinion is possible. PRIMA FACIE, however, in this case, we do not see possibility of any counter opinion to the opinion given by the Mumbai University, vide letter dated 10th July, 1999.

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com      and click on the citation taxind_2010_sc_ca_786]

SUPREME COURT ORDERS

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS Customs Act, DICTIONARY MEANING, Excise Act, INCOME TAX ACT, PRIMA FACIE