0

Justice must be seen to be done: Allahabad High Court

“Justice should be seen to be done” is not a term in law that should be taken lightly.

What it means is quite simply that the public needs to see justice done or they will feel that the system is failing them. The whole validity of the justice system is based on the public’s consent to justice served. This is why it’s said that justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The reason is, that rules are amoral constructs that are meant to serve a social function whereas the objective behind them serves a higher purpose: values.

Allahabad High Court in Ganesh Polytex Ltd., Raipur. Vs Union of India and others (COURT NO.37 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 1139 OF 2010) and in M/s Ganesh Polytex Ltd., Raipur. Vs Union of India and others (CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1187 OF 2010) learned bench led by HONOURABLE JUSTICE YATINDRA SINGH and HONOURABLE JUSTICE RAJES KUMAR used the doctrine JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE and dismissed the petition.

This case has pained us. Even if the stand of the revenue is correct though there are doubts about it this is not the way to go about doing it. Here are the facts.

FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioner claims to have been producing Recycled Polyester Staple Fibre. According to the petitioner, it is not an excisable good nor subject to any excise duty. In addition, the petitioner has been filing returns that they are non-excisable commodities. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act (the Act) imposing excise duty on the goods. The petitioner filed a reply, which was dismissed by the court. It was decided to file an appeal. The Commissioner approved it. New Delhi’s Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal heard the department’s case. In support of the Commissioner’s order, the petitioner also submitted a cross objection. The appeal of the department was dismissed upholding the order of the Commissioner and the objection was disposed of. Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner.

JUDGEMENT: The Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous and the other Writ petition is allowed with cost. Court also stated that in case of violation of the orders, it would be open to the petitioner to take contempt proceedings.

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY RIYA DWIVEDI

Click here to view your judgement

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat