Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Writ Jurisdiction of High Court - Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within jurisdiction of court, writ petition would be maintainable before Court; doctrine of forum conveniens and nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by High Court: Delhi HC LB

AN order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens .

Income Tax

Whether when assessee stands convicted for two AYs and complaint filed for third u/s 276B, any revision of compounding guidelines and an intimation to assessee in this regard would mean that assessee is entitled to compounding even after complaint being filed - NO, rules Delhi HC

DURING the AY 1982-83, TDS by the company was deposited beyond the period prescribed by law. Similarly, during AY 1983-84 and 1984-85 also, the company deposited the tax beyond the period prescribed by law. That being so, the I.T Department filed complaints against the Company & Directors u/s 276B before the Court of CMM for all the three A.Y. The complaint for the A.Y 1982-83 was still at trial stage. As regards the complaints for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the ACMM convicted the two Directors of the company.

Central Excise

Limitation - Facts known to the Department in 1996 - Show Cause Notice issued in 2000 - No finding to the effect that there was a fraud or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts.- Demand barred by limitation: SC

IT is not in dispute that alleged suppression of payment of duty by the respondent-company was brought to the notice of the authority on 25th October 1996, when the Superintendent of Central Excise had inspected the premises of the respondent-assessee, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 26th June 2000. The department could not establish that there was any suppression of facts or a fraud on the part of the respondent-assessee. The honest mistake committed in maintenance of stock register etc. was frankly admitted by the Managing Director of the respondent-assessee. There is no finding to the effect that there was a fraud or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Thus, it is very clear that the notice was issued after expiry of the period of limitation.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements