The Constitution of the Bombay High Court’s Tax Bench w.e.f 22.08.2016 is as follows:
|
The Hon’ble Shri Justice S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND The Hon’ble Shri Justice B.P. COLABAWALLA (Court Room No.31) |
For admission, final hearing and order matters therein: (A) Writ Petitions challenging Vires of Direct / Indirect Tax Laws. (B) Writ Petitions, Appeals, References and applications in Maharashtra VAT, Sales Tax, Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act,1992 including FERA, FEMA. (C) All Writ Petitions in Indirect Tax matters under Central Acts (including Excise Duty, Customs duty and Service tax). (D) All Appeals, References and Applications under Indirect Taxes under Central Acts. (E) All Writ Petitions of even years except those assigned to other Courts. (F) Civil Writ Petitions relating to Judicial Officers and candidates for the posts of Judicial Officers. (G) Civil Writ Petitions arising out of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and all other matters relating to acquisition and requisition of properties. (H) Matters under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 except assigned to Court No. 1. (I) Specially assigned matters. AND |
|
The Hon’ble Shri Justice M.S. SANKLECHA AND The Hon’ble Shri Justice S. C. GUPTE (Court Room No. 6) |
For admission, final hearing and order matters therein: (A) WritPetitions, Appeals and references, under Direct Tax Laws and Municipal Tax Laws. (B) Chartered Accountant References (C) Property taxes and other Municipal Panchayat taxes in area of Municipal Corporation, (except vires (D) Specially assigned matters. AND |
In fact Modi govt crossed its brief when it went ahead with ‘demomintization ‘ idea, after all ‘demonetization is not a political decision’ but general decision concerning every one – down to the poorest to the richest citizen’ so like the Brexit decision in the UK, whether to go out of EU, the referendum only decided not the British (the UK) parliament alone – the demonetization is like the EU exit idea – so referendum is the right process even in india – though British constitution is not a written constitution as such, but UK parliament is mentally superb is proved when it adopted the ‘referendum ‘ idea of the American constitution, while india is modelled on several advanced constitutions in 1946 -47, including the American constitution, Indian parliament as an Art 12 institution ought to have chosen ‘referendum’ pathway when it decided on demonitization, without peoples clear mandate demonetization by Modi is indeed an arbitrary action by mr . Modi is m considered opinion too, after all Art 12 institutions are basically subservient to the very constitution of india. Walking away is indeed not a pardonable situation if well considered. friends.
In fact, constitution is well prepared for various issues – see how
Dr chandrachud Dhananjay as justice and two other Justices is no dissent on ‘secularism of the constitution paradigm as such.
It is not to say that the law makers to decide such fundamental issues never meant,
that the present law makers among them includes the opposition law makers.
they need to be taken into consideration,
and that means ‘opposition law makers;
if it was a healthy strong opposition’
that dissent may consider;
but such issues like on the Constitutional preferences has to be decided by the backing of ‘referendum principle’ like in the case of Brexit in the UK; Brexit was adopted through referendum is the obvious way forward for secularism of the constitution ;
so it is obvious their dissent is no dissent on Secular ideals as the members of the constitution bench which said that secularism does not mean the political parties can decide issues by ‘going away’ from the secular fundamental ideals of the constitution of india is my considered opinion;
secularism as such the ‘basic principle of the indian constitution,
in the similar way even ‘demonetization is; Modi government alone cannot decide the’demonetization’ without referendum to people (referal to the people of india -as citizen is sovereign in india not parliament as it is an instrument under Art 12 it has to refer sch main issues to the people of india, as demonetization is no political policy but people daily issue, so referendum route has to have been adopted by Mod govt, it failed is obvious, that very question is like the UK govt sought referendum on the exit from EU; the referendum said in 52% majority said ‘we have to go out of EU’ – that only made Cameron to resign on the issue; similar position is in india too; for india is based upon the UK or British constitutional principles; though the British constitution is an unwritten constitution,except magna carta and bill of rights; yet it followed ‘referendum’ process – why the British parliamentarians are mentally advanced to ensure the major issues ought to go through the ‘referendum process’ so they followed, they sustained the Breixt even today; so what Mamta WB CM that LK Advaniji ot Arun Jaitleyji be nominated as PM in place of Modiji is indeed a tenable argument, unquestionably as indian constitution s modelled on the British constitution as also the American constitution is my considered opinion, by default, as she sought for different objective, yet her view is correct constitutionally..
Nice