The legislative policy is apparent on the face of the present enactment. n" Whether the revised assessments for the chargeable accounting periods 1941, 1942 and 1943 are liable to be cancelled on the ground that the Excess Profits Tax Officer erred Lawyer in Chandigarh
invoking the provisions of section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. " There was also another question referred by the Tribunal to the High Court, and that was answered adversely to the appellant.
" Though these observations appear at first Bight to support the contention of Mr. We thus, proceed to examine as to whether Section 43 was attracted in the present case which obviated the requirement of Section 42(1) proviso. Advocates in Chandigarh
my view it is incompetent to the revenue authorities to make a fresh assessment on him by reason of a fact which is a real fact which arose after the year of assessment. to challenge the order passed by the Recovery Officer before DRT. In my view that is the reasoning of the decision of Rowlatt J.
in Anderton and Halstead Ltd. In paragraph 12 of the judgment Special Judge noted the above arguments of defence. Aggregate Revenue Requirement: (ARR) means the revenue required to meet the costs pertaining to the licensed business, for a financial year, which would be permitted to be recovered through tariffs and charges by the Commission. n" There is, however, another difficulty Lawyers in Chandigarh
the way of the Crown.
Is the tariff fixed under a PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) sacrosanct and inviolable and beyond review and correction by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission which is the statutory authority for fixation of tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter for short the Act). 96 750 provisions of this Act and consequently there is no standard or criterion to guide the administrative authority in the exercise of the subsidiary legislative powers.
The High Court has reversed the above findings of the Special Judge. Section 43 of the Act is as follows: In this context, it is relevant to note that before the Special Judge also the breach of Section 42(1) and 42(2) was contended on behalf of the defence. No evidence was brought on the record that there was any permit for public transport vehicle. It is difficult to conceive that there are two remedies. Special Judge coming to compliance of proviso to Section 42(1) held that vehicle searched was being used to transport Chandigarh Advocates
passengers as has been clearly sated by its owner Veera Ram, hence, as per the explanation to Section 43 of the Act, the vehicle was a public transport vehicle and there was no need of any warrant or authority to search such a vehicle.
The description of qualifying ship is contained in Section 115VD, as already noted above, and owning at least one qualifying ship is one of the eligibility conditions for getting the income computed under these special provisions. The brother in law of Viraram i. "For the purposes of this section, "place of effective management of the company" means" (A) the place where the board of directors of the company or its executive directors, as the case may be, make their decisions; or (B) in a case where the board of directors routinely approve the commercial and strategic decisions made by the executive directors or officers of the company, the place where such executive directors or officers of the company perform their functions.
But as no argument was addressed before us on that question, there is no need to refer to it Chandigarh Lawyers
It is well settled in law that if there is only one remedy, the doctrine of election does not apply and we are disposed to think that the Official Liquidator has only one remedy i. However, the arguments based on non-compliance of Section 42 (2) were brushed aside by observing that discrepancy in Exh. (iii) The jeep which was the personal jeep of Viraram could not be treated as public transport vehicle.
Kartararam do not support the case that the vehicle was a public transport vehicle. P-15 is totally due to clerical mistake and there was compliance of Section 42(2). Thus, we are inclined to conclude and hold that the Official Liquidator can only take recourse to the mode of appeal and further appeal under the RDB Act and not approach the Company Court to set aside the auction or confirmation of sale when a sale has been confirmed by the Recovery Officer under the RDB Act. As may be seen from the reading of the aforesaid provision, apart from the conditions that a company has to be an Indian company with effective management of the company in India and main objective of the company is to carry on business of operating ships, the other significant condition is that the company itself should own 'at least one qualifying ship'.
We do not think that this is the correct view to take. Section 43 of the Act was not applicable; hence, the view of the court below that compliance of Section 42 was not necessary, is incorrect. Be it noted, an order passed under Section 30 of the RDB Act by DRT is appealable. Kolah, when examined closely it will be seen that is not their true effect In my opinion it is not lawful for an additional assessment or an original assessment to be made by reference to facts which arise after the year of assessment.