Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The petitioner pointed out the orders made by the Supreme Court in the Aadhaar case and contended that insisting on an Aadhaar Card for opening a Bank account was not legal or proper.”
The petitioner, Purple Products, imported Tin Ingots manufactured from Malaysia, with a valid Certificate of Origin and based on such certification, it claimed and availed benefits under Customs Exemption Notification No. 46 of 2011, dated 1-6-2011, from time to time.
The appointment of the petitioner to the 2008 Civil Services, based on the subsequent legislative reform made in 2016, would lead to administrative chaos and raise several complications regarding seniority, induction etc.
“Delay, laches, and disputed questions of fact are all matters that cannot be ignored when it comes to exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The jurisdictional parameter about failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment are missing and without compliance with the said parameters, the respondents have no jurisdiction to proceed with the reopening of the assessment.
Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 provides for change when same is desired in the interest of the administration of public trust, therefore, changing name at the behest of and on the directions of Charity Commissioner will not fall within the provisions of Section 22(1) of the said Act.
When the Assistant Commissioner of Customs purports to exercise public powers as a Customs official, his personal opinions or preferences must necessarily take a back seat and he cannot allow his personal opinions, however strong, to cloud his judgment.
Article 144 of the Constitution provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in the aid of the Supreme Court.
The present petition is instituted to question the show cause notice dated 07-12-2023 only after the show cause notice is adjudicated and the order dated 22-07-2024 is made.
The Court stated that State authorities cannot retain the excess amount which is not in accordance with law and the same would be violative of Article 265 of the Constitution.
“Judges, while discharging their functions, exercise the sovereign judicial power of State, and hence standards expected to be maintained are of highest nature”