News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 Delhi High Court issues Video-Conferencing Rules to streamline and consolidate process and its usage in Courts
 Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, 599, 2nd Floor, Gandhi Cloth Market, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi
 Excess ITC has to be Refunded back to Dealer, can’t be carried Forward for Adjustment of Future Tax Liability: Madras HC
 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4828-29/24, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi
 Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya A-21, First Floor, Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Karnal
 Shri Surat Singh, VPO Bhapra, Samhalka, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward : 4, Panipat.
 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi
 SC directs DRT to Transmit Rent received from Property attached to the Amrapali Account
 Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon- Vs. The ITO, TDS Ward, Gurgaon.
 M/s. Sheela Foam Ltd., (Foprmerly known as Sheela Foam Pvt.Ltd.), 37/2, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi.
 ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs Sh. Sohan Singh Dhingra (HUF), 85, Golf Links, New Delhi

High Court in Exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction cant disregard the Substantive Provisions of a Statute: SC
May, 07th 2020

The Supreme Court while rejecting condonation of delay application held that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.

The respondent, M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited is a registered dealer and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Horlicks, Boost, Biscuits, Ghee, Ayurvedic Medicines, etc.

The Assistant Commissioner had called upon the respondent to produce books of accounts for the assessment year for finalization of assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The authorized representative of the respondent produced a declaration in Form “F” in support of its claim that certain transactions are inter­ State transfers. The information and declaration furnished by the respondent was duly verified and after giving personal hearing to the respondent, final assessment order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner against the turnover on the finding that the respondent had failed to submit Form “F” to the tune of the turnover reported in the Central Sales Tax (CST) return. This assessment order was duly served on the respondent. The respondent did not file an appeal against this assessment order within the statutory period.

The Division Bench of the High Court directed the respondent to pay an additional amount equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax within one week, which was an ex ­parte order.

The issue raised in this case was whether the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation.



The division bench consisting of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari rejected condonation of delay application and held that the High Court has wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provisions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism prescribed by the statute.

“Since the statutory period specified for the filing of appeal had expired long back in August 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without substantiating the plea about an inability to file the appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all,” the division bench said.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting