| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | December 18, 2013 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
| Click here to download the judgement (mastek_260A_appeal.pdf) |
S. 260A(4): High Court has power to hear the appeal on questions not formulated at the stage of admission of the appeal
The department filed an appeal u/s 260A in the High Court in which it raised several questions. The High Court admitted the appeal and framed two substantial questions of law. The Department filed a SLP claiming that by necessary implication, the other questions raised in the memo of appeal before the High Court had been rejected. HELD by the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP:
The Revenue is under some misconception. The proviso following the main provision of Section 260A(4) of the Act states that nothing stated in sub-section (4), i.e., “The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated’ shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question”. The High Court’s power to frame substantial question(s) of law at the time of hearing of the appeal other than the questions on appeal has been admitted remains under Section 260A(4). This power is subject, however, to two conditions, (one) the Court must be satisfied that appeal involves such questions, and (two) the Court has to record reasons therefor.
i understand Revenue does not understand its own sections relevant. great revenue authorities they seem to waste public exchequers moneys. sad .
may be revenue authorities need to be properly trained by their in service training establishments by inviting competent advocates to teach them their own very relevant laws, else all assessees may suffer at the hands of these worthies’ hands immeasurably. God save the Assessees !
it appears every matter Revenue moves under SLP seems the revenue needs training at the hands of SC, it appears.
it is like Devayani khobergade a diplomat at USA did not know what is diplomacy itself i do not know what purpose she could achieve when she herself do not know what is her own obligation as a diplomat in USA even when she hires her own domestic help.
though US security services informed indian govt her improprieties indian govt did not witdraw her then and there to save embarrassments.
Now all round embarrassments .
when govt is itself is such a novice in diplomacy, how can we blame these great all india service personnel. sure all together will bring unfortunate problems to citizens besides unfortunate expenses to public exchequer!
Be that be so!
The order rejecting Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court is based on series of pronouncements made by the Apex Court. It is a settled principle of civil law that High Court can pronounce a judgment on the substantial issues which are not previously framed.
For some people every action of an officer is bad. Only they are the repertoir of every knowledge under the sky. The revenue authorities dont know their job, Devyani Khobragade dont know her job. Its only these people who are worthy. Then why they didnt appear in Civil Services and entered into a govt service to benifit the country by their sea of knowledge. Or did they fail in the exam.
officer also need to know what action appropriate, if he does not that he on hos own resign instead of getting bad name like judges recuse when they are any way related, so also when their r appointments are questioned many self respecting tender resignation, not without rationale , any public officer is handing public issues when so public have to respect them if not what great service is possible except draining by their salaries and remuneration from public exchequer funds is it not sirs?
that is public ethics and morality!