TIOL-DDT 390 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html> <head> <title>Taxindiaonline's DDT 390</title> </head> <body > <p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 390</font></strong><br> <strong>22 06 2006<br> Thursday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">CBEC creates Geography! </font></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Where is Thawachpuri? </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While bureaucrats would like to create history by their extraordinary performance, our Revenue Boards seem to be creating Geography! According to CBEC and CBDT if somebody wants to set up an industry in the non industrial area in the village of Thawachpuri existing in the tehsil of Bazpur, Udhamsingh nagar District , State of Uttranchal he is entitled to exemption under central excise notification 50/2003 dated 10.6.2003 and income tax exemption under 177/2004 dated 28.6.2004. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But the catch is Thawachpuri simply does not exist in the map. Industrialists wanting to avail this exemption have been searching for this elusive village in the net and maps to start their industries, but found their efforts futile. For love or money nobody could tell them where this blasted village is. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where did our Revenue Boards get this village from? Obviously the state government, but the District Industries Centre of Udhamsingh Nagar had written to the State Government and the Centre more than three years ago that the village does not exist and it was a mistake but nobody had bothered to correct it so far. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These notifications have a lot of fiscal value for the real estate around the notified area suddenly turns into gold and it seems that the mighty ones of the land including the Chief Ministers sit with the TRU officers to ensure that the places are correctly notified. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These alchemic notifications being so important, it is surprising that non existent villages figure in them. It certainly can’t be the mistake of the North Block, for how will any one sitting in North Block know what and where Thawachpuri is?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But why is the mistake not corrected even after three years and even though the DIC has pointed out the mistake? Is it that somebody is yet to buy land near the non existent Thawachpuri?</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Why is the CESTAT partial and the Supreme Court not?</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Appeal partially allowed</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The other day a friend asked me, “if they are partial, should they mention it in their orders?” I had a tough time explaining to him that they were not partial, but the appeals were allowed only partly.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When an appeal is allowed not wholly, the Tribunal Benches normally state that the appeal is partially allowed. Partial means biased, prejudiced - a decision that was partial to the plaintiff.. Of course it also means partly. But since we have high hopes of the judiciary being impartial, these partially allowed orders sound a little annoying. Interestingly, we checked up over two thousand orders of the Supreme Court of India pertaining to taxation and did not find a single instance where the Apex Court used the phrase “partially allowed”, while we found that the Tribunal benches frequently used this phrase. When ‘partly allowed’ conveys the meaning better, what is the need to use ‘partially allowed’ which sounds most un judicial? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is it that the language of the Supreme Court is more precise than that of the Tribunals? We found that in several judgements the Supreme Court had used the phrase “partially allowed”, but that was to cite that the Tribunal had “partially allowed” the appeal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not as if the Supreme Court had never used the phrase “partially allowed”. We could get about 50 cases in the last sixty years when the Supreme Court “partially allowed” an appeal.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe their lordships should consider banishing the concept of partially allowing an appeal and ensure that appeals are partly allowed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Today we are carrying a <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=44&filename=legal/cestat/2006/2006-TIOL-760-CESTAT-MAD.htm">judgement</a> of the Tribunal where the appeal was allowed partially.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>With growing competition from China and India not just in low tech and low skilled industries but also in the high tech and high skill, having the best educated, best-skilled and best-trained workforce in the world is not for Britain an option in a global economy, but a necessity.-</strong> from the speech by the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown at the mansion house, London, 21 June 2006</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><strong>I believe that no civil servant should be allowed to work in the Finance Ministry unless he has taken a Foundational Course which emphasises one truth. The truth is that stability in tax laws is to a nation what stability in family life is to an individual; and therefore, where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. But stability is anathema to the North Block. Our Finance Ministry is filled with bureaucrats who eternally mistake amendment for improvement and change for progress.</strong></em></font><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em><strong> </strong></em></font><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> — Nani Palkhiwala </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more DDT </font></p> <p align="justify" ><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice Day. </font></p> <p align="justify" ><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p> </body> </html>