Search Results For: N. C. Mohanty


PCIT vs. Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) (No. 2)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Objection taken to SMS from Dept Advocate that what Court is “pressurising me to do is both wrong and unethical. No Advocate of any worth would stoop so low. Sorry I am not able to comply with this rather unusual demand”. The SMS is contrary to the statement made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The SMS either stems from not understanding our view or it is a made up indignation so as to accuse of us of pressurizing him to do an activity not expected of an Advocate. It appears to be in the second category as the SMS appears to give a completely different twist to the facts as stated to him by Associate. Copy of order sent to CBDT Chairman

The aforesaid SMS communication by Mr. Pinto to the Associate of this Court is contrary to the statement made on behalf of the Revenue yesterday by the learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate for the Revenue. Requesting an Advocate to put in a praecipe the facts which correctly records the reason for having the matters taken out of turn and being put on board, does not in any manner detract from dignity of an advocate. We are not sure, whether this indignation on the the part of the Advocate Mr. Pinto stems from not understanding our view or it is a made up indignation so as to accuse of us of pressurizing him to do an activity not expected of an Advocate. It appears to be in the second category as the SMS appears to give a completely different twist to the facts as stated to him by Associate

PCIT vs. Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A: We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. Revenue has not carried out the assurance which was made earlier. Revenue should give proper explanation why assurance given earlier is not being followed. It is time responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped

We are pained at this attitude on the part of the State to obtain orders of admission on pure questions of law by not pointing out that an identical question was considered by this Court earlier and dismissed by speaking order. We would expect a proper response from the Revenue and explanation as to why assurance given to us earlier that consistent view would be taken by the Revenue is not being followed. It is time, responsibility is fixed and the casual approach of the Revenue in prosecuting its appeals is stopped. We would also request the Additional Solicitor General to assist us on the next date

Top