Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
From the Courts »
 Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 & Others
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Order of a Four-Member Appellate Authority constituted under Chartered Accountants Act is Valid: Delhi HC
 Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court)
 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-op Society Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)

Judicial people must head information panels: Supreme Court
September, 14th 2012

The Supreme Court has held that the Central Information Commission and state information panels are forums performing quasi-judicial functions and these should be headed and manned by people with judicial background.

"We are of the considered view that it is an unquestionable proposition of law that the commission is a 'judicial tribunal' performing functions of 'judicial' as well as 'quasi-judicial' nature and having the trappings of a court," said the apex court bench of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar on Thursday.

The commission "is an important cog and is part of the court attached system of administration of justice, unlike a ministerial tribunal which performs functions akin to the machinery of administration", the court said.
Judicial people must head information panels: Supreme Court

The judges said posting of people with judicial background in information panels would render the adjudicatory process, which involved critical legal questions and nuances of law, more adherent to justice and enhance public confidence in their working.

"This is the obvious interpretation of the language of these provisions and, in fact, is the essence thereof," the court said.

"There is an absolute necessity for the legislature to reword or amend the provisions" of the Right to Information Act to avoid any ambiguity and to make it in consonance with the constitutional mandates," the court said.

"We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a judge of the high court for appointment as information commissioners. Chief information commissioner at the centre or state level shall only be a person who is or has been a chief justice of the high court or a judge of the Supreme Court," the court said.

The court said that one of the two members hearing a plea challenging the denial of information under the transparency law had to be from judicial background.

Justice Swatanter Kumar said: "The appointment of the judicial members to any of these posts shall be made 'in consultation' with the Chief Justice of India and chief justices of the high courts of the respective states, as the case may be."

It further said that a law officer or a lawyer could also be eligible provided he has practiced law at least for a period of 20 years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work.

The court's direction came on a petition contending that the criteria for the appointment of people who have to adjudicate the disputes under the transparency law were too vague, general and ultra vires the constitution.

"The information commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in benches of two members each. One of them being a 'judicial member', while the other an 'expert member'. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions," the court said.

Partially allowing the petition of Namit Sharma, the court said that its verdict would be effective only prospectively.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions