Jurisprudentiol–Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise

Suppression of fact is a question of fact, not a Substantial Question of Law - finding of fact by the Tribunal is final. It would be binding on the High Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction – Supreme Court

WHETHER non furnishing of information was willful and would amount to suppression of material fact in terms whereof the extended period of limitation as provided for in Section 11-A of the Customs Act, 1944 could be invoked or not, was not a substantial question of law. The finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal should have been treated to be final. It would be binding on the High Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. A `ubstantial question of law' would mean - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with - technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely.

Income Tax

The power to make assessment or reassessment, where the initiation has been made within four years would be attracted even in cases where there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts - 'reason to believe' cannot mean that the A.O should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence - ITAT

WHERE, however, the period of four years has not expired, the conduct of the assessee regarding disclosure of material facts need not be the basis for initiating the proceedings and they can be commenced if the A.O has 'reason to believe' that the income has escaped assessment notwithstanding that there was full disclosure of material facts on record. The assessee in such cases cannot defend the initiation of action on the ground that the facts were already placed on record and that the A.O must have or ought to have considered them. The power to make assessment or reassessment, where the initiation has been made within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year, would be attracted even in cases where there has been a complete disclosure of all relevant facts upon which a correct assessment might have been based in the first instance, and whether it is an error of fact or law that has been discovered or found out justifying the belief required to initiate the proceedings.

Customs

Renewal of CHA Licence – No Appeal; Writ permissible in High Court; Hearing must before order – High Court

THERE can be no dispute that the order rejecting application has visited the petitioner with civil consequences. In a case where an order, whether it be administrative or quasi judicial, visits the party with civil consequences in absence of any statutory exclusion under the Regulations, there would be a right to a hearing. The right to hearing would include right to a person being heard in person if such a request is made.

See our columns Monday for the judgements