#MadrasHighCourt Archives - Page 3 of 12

20 Nov

High Court of Madras regarding issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the case in DIN.

Blog #JUSTICE, #law, #MadrasHighCourt, #seeking

High Court of Madras regarding issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the case in DIN.

Title : Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Case No. : W.P.No.5834 of 2022

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

Decided on : 06.10.2023.

Introduction

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the case in DIN and order No.ITBA/REV/ F/REV7/2021-22/1039075246(1) dated 25.01.2022 for the Assessment year 2019-20 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

Fact of the Case

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the 1st respondent in DIN and order No.ITBA/REV/ F/ REV7/ 2021- 22/1039075246(1) dated 25.01.2022 for the Assessment year 2019- 2020 and to direct the 1st respondent to condone the delay in filing Form-67 and grant the Foreign Tax Credit claim of Rs.23,23,484/-.The petitioner was employed in Kenya during the year 2016-2018 as CEO. For the financial year 2018-2019, the petitioner was a resident of India, including his Kenya income, he has filed. his Indian Income Tax return, and claimed the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) under Section 90/91 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Article 24 of the India-Kenya Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. During the year, he had income of both Kenya and India. The petitioner has filed the income tax return for the income at Kenya.

Case Anlayis and judgment

Court remits the matter back to the respondent to make reassessment by taking into consideration of the FTC filed by the petitioner on 02.02.2021. The respondent is directed to give due credit to the Kenya income of the petitioner and pass the final assessment order. Further, it is made clear that the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of disallowing of FTC claim made by the petitioner and hence, the first respondent is directed to consider only on the aspect of rejection of FTC claim within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Nimisha Sunny

16 Nov

High Court Madaras observation on Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records of the decision of the respondent GST Council’s Minutes of Meeting.

Prime Legal

Blog #highcourt # Madrascourt #Jusric #law #seekingjusticce, #MadrasHighCourt

High Court Madras observation on Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records of the decision of the respondent GST Council’s Minutes of Meeting.

Case No. : W.P.Nos.16608 & 16613 of 2020

Title : M/s.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

Decided on : 31.10.2023.

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

Introduction

the petitioner has prayed for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the decision of the 3 rd respondent GST Council’s Minutes of Meeting taken on 22nd December, 2018 classifying “flavoured milk” under HS Code No. 2202 instead of HS Code 0402 as being contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner versus Amrit Food 2015 (324) ELT 418, Articles 279 A (4), 14, 19(1) (g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India and to quash the same and to direct the 2 nd respondent to classify “flavoured milk” under HS Code 0402 in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ancillary and collect Goods And Service Tax.

Fact of the Case

The applicant has relied on various decisions from different judicial fora and has claimed that the addition of flavour do not change the characteristics of the product and the product still remains milk and therefore classifiable under CTH 04. And do not disagree with the fact that the product in hand is a form of milk but as brought out supra, the product being a ready for consumption drink, i.e. a beverage with a basis of milk, is specifically classified under CTH 22029930 and excluded from the chapter 04. Further, the decisions in the cases relied upon on the classification, the same is based on the tariff existed before aligning the same with HSN.

Case Analysis and Judgment

The contention of the petitioner for the relief based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner versus Amrit Food 2015 (324) ELT 418cannot be accepted, nevertheless, the petitioner is entitled to relief. “Flavoured Milk” that was proposed to be manufactured at the time of institution of the Writ Petition merits classification under residuary Sub Heading 0402 99 90 of the Customs Tariff Act. The 3 rd respondent GST Council has given a wrong recommendation. It also cannot determine the classification. Determination of classification also does not fall within the preserve of the 3 rd respondent GST Council.

Having adopted classification of ‘Goods’ and ‘Services’ under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the 3 rd respondent GST Council cannot impose a wrong classification of “Flavoured Milk” as a “Beverage Containing Milk” under the residuary item as “Non-Alcoholic Beverages” under Sub Heading 2202 90 30 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Written by Nimisha Sunny

6 Nov

Harmony between all kinds of ideologies is the recognition of a country, not a single person has the right to hold a meeting to destroy any Ideology – Madras High court

Prime Legal

Blog #MadrasHighCourt

Case Title: Magesh Karthikeyan v The Commissioner of Police

Case No: W.P.No.30692 of 2023

Dated: 31.10.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Introduction

At the run of dismissing approval to conduct a meeting to eliminate “Dravidian Ideology” the Madras High Court recently pointed out that not anybody had a right to disseminate divise ideas and conduct meetings to exterminate or eliminate any ideology. The court added that the co-existence of multiple ideologies was the identity of the country.

Rattling about the recent meetings held on eliminating sanatana dharma added that the failure of police to take any action against Ministers and members of the ruling party who had made inflammatory speeches was a dereliction of duty.

Facts of the Case

petitioner herein claims that it is the fundamental right to conduct such a meeting. This Court cannot subscribe to this view. No person in this Country can have a right to propagate divisive ideas and conduct meetings to abolish or eradicate any Ideology. The co-existence of multiple and different ideologies is the identity of this Country.

This Court is of the view that people in power should realize the danger of speech unflaring fissiparous tendency and behave responsibly and restrain themselves from propagating views which will divide people in the name of Ideology, Caste, and Religion. Instead, they may concentrate on eradicating intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injuries to health, corruption untouchability, and other social evil.

The court was hearing a plea by a man seeking permission to conduct an indoor meeting for eradicating “Dravidian” and coordinating “Tamizhan”. The petitioner had relied upon an earlier order of the court allowing a man to conduct a meeting addressing views about Dravidian ideology and sought for similar permission to conduct the meeting.

Court Analysis

The court however observed that while the earlier order was for conducting a meeting about Dravidian ideology, the present meeting was an attempt to counter the recently held Sanatana Eradication conclave. Though the man claimed that he had a fundamental right to conduct such a meeting, the court took a different view. The court remarked that no one could expect the courts to aid them in propagating ideas to create ill-will among people.

The court also observed that since the police had failed to take action against the earlier meeting to eradicate Sanatana Dharma, permissions were being sought to counter that by conducting meetings to eradicate Dravidian ideologies. The court added that if such permissions were granted, it would further disturb the peace and tranquillity of the public who were already fed up with office bearers acting in breach of their oath.

the court was not in favor of granting permission for the meeting and dismissed the petition.

Written By

Kaulav Roychowdhury
Click here to read the Judgement

20 Sep

Madras High Court upholds the tribunal decision that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers under Railways.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # .JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR, # JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI., #Casual labourers, #MadrasHighCourt, #railways, #tribunal

Title: C. Sekar and Others. Vs. Union of India.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.15918 of 2019.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Krishnakumar. And P.B. Balaji.

Facts:

The petitioners were engaged as casual labourers during the year 1983 under the Permanent Way Inspectors (presently Senior Section Engineers/P.Way) in the Engineering Department, Tiruchirapally Division, Southern Railway. The petitioners state that 345 casual labourers including the petitioners were brought into the supplementary casual labour register as on 2003. The grievance of the petitioners is that according to the Railway Board’s practice, all classified vacancies that became available upto 31.12.1982 should be filled from among casual labourers and substitutes, with a special relaxation in respect of Class IV vacancies in workshops due to special requirement of workshops and that despite being eligible the respondents have not regularized the petitioners, who were all casual labourers. The respondents filed a counter before the Tribunal denying the claim of the petitioners that they were all casual labourers. The Tribunal held that the petitioners never worked as casual labourers in the Railways and therefore they cannot claim any legal right to the status of casual labourers and consequently seek absorption. So, the petitioner approached this court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioners vehemently contended before the court that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioners’ claim that they were all entitled for absorption and in such process the Tribunal has not considered several instructions on the said subject that came to be issued by the respondent themselves and that when several casual labourers were included for appointment to the post of Trackman, the petitioners were also entitled for being absorbed. The respondents submits that the impugned order does not require any interference as admittedly the petitioners were not casual labourers and they have not been able to establish the said factum even before the Tribunal by producing any reliable or relevant piece of evidence and he therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The documents that are relied on by the petitioners are certificates issued by the Permanent Way Inspector, Mayiladuthurai Junction, Southern Railway Mayavaram. On a perusal of the various certificates that have been issued to the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners were engaged as labourers for a brief period of time viz., between 28.12.1983 and 04.01.1984 to meet flood/emergency situation. The said certificates clearly spells out that the concerned labourers would not be entitled for engagement as casual labourers and that they will have no claim for being considered for engagement as such, in future, as a matter of course. It is also mentioned that no medical examination was carried out. Thus, it can be seen that the respondents have made it abundantly clear that the petitioners cannot claim to be casual labourers.

The petitioners have not produced any other documents before the Tribunal to establish their legal right to claim absorption. The Tribunal has also rightly considered all these factors and found that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers and even from the relevant documents it was noticed that they were not even listed in the casual labour service camp. The certificates issued to the petitioners and relied on by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as before us does not give us a slightest indication that the petitioners were employed as casual labourers. On the other hand, it only clearly shows that the petitioners cannot claim the status of casual labourers. Thus, the court held that the order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

20 Sep

Madras High Court directs Public Health Department to consider compassionate appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND., #Compassionate appointment, #MadrasHighCourt, #Public Health Department, #Suitable post

Title: V. Priyadharsan. Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

W.P.No.1563 of 2020.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Battu Devanand.

Facts:

The petitioner is the only son of his mother Late G.Usha Rani, who worked as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife in Government Primary Health Centre, Kottarakudi, who died in harness on 14.05.2012. On the date of death of his mother, the petitioner was only 14 years of old. The father of the petitioner was working as Driver. But he is unable to support the petitioner, since he has another wife and separate family. At the time of death of his mother, he was studying only 9th Standard and after his mother’s death, he was put in dark distress, as he depended on his mother emotionally and financially. After completion of +1, he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06.04.2015. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.10.2019 as a reminder by enclosing all relevant documents to all the respondents. But the respondents failed to consider the claim of the petitioner. Against the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s claim for terminal benefits, family pension and compassionate appointment, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31203 of 2019. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.11.2019 to consider the representations dated 06.04.2015 and 14.10.2019 of the petitioner. In pursuance to the same, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 stating that the request of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner is working as Driver in Government. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner contends that he is emotionally and financially depended on her mother, as his father is having separate family, cannot be brushed away in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents. However, as and when the father of the petitioner also issued No Objection Certificate to grant terminal benefits, pension and for appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner, for the death of the petitioner’s mother, as he is the only legal heir of her, the reasons stated in the order impugned in the writ petition to reject the claim of the petitioner are irrational, illegal and unjust. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family tied over the sudden crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from financial destitution and to help it to get over the hard situation. In the present case, after sudden death of his mother, the petitioner has no support to survive at the age of 14 years. However, by doing some coolie works, he studied up to +1 and submitted application on 06.04.2015 within the time permitted to submit application seeking compassionate appointment. The respondents failed to consider the fact that the father of the petitioner is having another wife and separate family and the petitioner is the son of the second wife of his father. Without considering all these factual aspects, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner by order dated 24.12.2019, which is unjust and irrational. The respondents ought to have kept in mind that the scheme of compassionate ground appointment was introduced by the Government as a welfare measure to help the legal heirs of the deceased Government servants appreciating the services rendered by them for the Government.

The court allowed the petition by issuing the following directions:

The impugned letter dated 24.12.2019 of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside.
The respondents are directed to release the terminal benefits for the death of the mother of the petitioner to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The respondents are further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in any suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

The Court held that in the present case, the respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. As such, the letter dated 24.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, is unsustainable and accordingly, it was set aside and directed the respondents to consider appointment of petitioner in any suitable post.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3 4 5 … 12