Jurisprudentiol– Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Rule 9 of CER , 2002 – De-registration - When appeals are pending, it cannot be said that there were enforceable dues to the government as on the date of surrender of registration certificate – Tribunal.

Simply put, the department's argument was that although M/s Milton Polyplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. had surrendered their registration certificate, the department had not cancelled the same and hence the premises continued to remain registered in their name and there could not be two registrants for the same premises!

Income Tax

Question of Law pending before HC – ITAT should have waited for High Court decision before deciding identical case for another assessment year - ITAT here has failed to apply its mind as required and therefore, very purpose of putting Section 158A in statute book has been frustrated: Bombay HC

Thus salutary provisions made by the Parliament to put an end to unnecessary litigation and to reduce number of cases required to be followed in letter and spirit, have been defeated in the present matter. The Parliament expects the authorities empowered under the said provisions to act in accordance with the spirit of the provisions made the ITAT here has failed to apply its mind as required and therefore, the very purpose of putting Section 158A in the statute book has been frustrated. It is clear that in view of the scheme of Section 158A , it would have been proper for it to wait till the question of law is adjudicated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the appeals pending before it.

Customs

Undertrial in NDPS case does not return to jail on completion of Interim Bail – DRI to apprehend and put back in jail bail jumpers: Delhi HC

This Court is also not satisfied with the explanation that the DRI cannot itself take steps to ensure that undertrials involved in serious offence under the NDPS Act, upon their jumping the bail granted to them, are apprehended and put back to the jail. If this explanation were to be accepted by this Court it would mean that the system of prosecuting offenders for grave offences under the NDPS Act will stand severely challenged since the presence of the accused at the trial cannot be ensured.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements