CJI Kabir retires - Justice Sathasivam to take over
CHIEF Justice of India Altamas Kabir retired yesterday after just nine months as Chief Justice of India. Justice P. Sathasivam takes over today as the new CJI. He also will have only a nine-month tenure. While the Defence Chiefs, Cabinet Secretary and the CBI director have a two-year tenure, shouldn't the Chief Justice of India also have a two-year tenure? Probably the next Chief Justice will have a three-month tenure.
On his last day in office, Justice Kabir passed several orders including the quashing of the Central Common Medical Entrance Examination, NEET.
Recently Indian Express reported that Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya has complained that Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir blocked his elevation to the Supreme Court earlier this year because, as a member of the collegium of the Calcutta High Court, he had opposed the appointment of CJI Kabir's lawyer sister to the Bench.
Yesterday at 08.36 am, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, a practicing advocate in the Supreme Court wrote in the Bar & Bench, "In a little while, on his last day in office, the Chief Justice's court will deliver the much awaited judgment concerning the validity of the national medical entrance test to be conducted by the Medical Council of India. For the better part of the last week, senior counsel and junior advocates alike have without compunction shared a story that the appeals by the private colleges will be allowed with a declaration that the MCI has no jurisdiction, and that Justice Dave will dissent from this view". This is exactly what happened!
Appellant seeking more time to make pre-deposit on ground that they are ‘expecting some refund from department' - submission not acceptable as appellants have already collected ST from customers and have misused the amounts without remitting same to exchequer
THE appellant rendered security services and collected Service Tax from their clients but did not deposit the same to the government treasury. They have done so on umpteen occasions and against the orders passed by the respective adjudicating authorities in Mumbai they have been directed by the CESTAT to make pre-deposit of the ST demands along with interest without showing any leniency as they are repeated offenders and on the ground that granting such a leniency would send wrong signals to the tax-paying community (See 2013-TIOL-1086-CESTAT-MUM).
In the present case, against the order passed by the CCE, Thane-I , the appellant had filed a Stay application before the CESTAT and the Bench had vide its order dated 01/04/2013 directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit of the amount of Rs.25.73 lakhs already collected from the customers as Service Tax.
When the appeal was called for compliance none appeared and no compliance was reported.
Later, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous application stating that they are 'expecting some refund from the department' and, therefore, time be granted, till such time they get the refund'.
The Bench observed -
"2. …This submission of the appellant is not acceptable for the reason that in this particular case the appellants have collected service tax from their customers and has misused the amounts without remitting the same to the exchequer. Therefore no leniency is called for. Inasmuch as the appellant has not complied with the directions given by this Tribunal, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994."