Power Generation in SEZs - Guidelines withdrawn
07 04 2015
Tuesday
VARIOUS issues relating to setting up of power units and power distribution facilities in SEZ have been under examination of the Commerce Department and in consultation with Ministry of Power/ Department of Revenue and Ministry of Law. After due consideration of the comments/ views received from these Ministries, the Department issued guidelines vide No. P.6/3/2006-SEZ.I, dated 27.02.2009.
These guidelines were in force for three years. Vide letter in No.P.6/3/2006-SEZ, dated 21.03.2012, the Commerce Department superseded the 2009 guidelines and issued fresh guidelines. These fresh guidelines allowed certain fresh benefits like no obligation for NFE, sale of power to DTA etc,.
Now suddenly, the Government has withdrawn the 2012 guidelines and brought back the 2009 guidelines. Why the Government has taken this backward step is anybody's guess.
Department of Commerce (SEZ) Division No.P.6/3/2006-SEZ., Dated: April 06, 2015
Jurisprudentiol - Recent Supreme Court Judgements
DEVILISH design of the borrower to harass the bank officers with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. Here is an interesting case where a person took a housing loan from PNB Housing Finance Ltd and when asked to repay, he started filing criminal cases against the bank officers and one of the victims was an officer who was not connected with the disbursal of the loan or its recovery. She had to go all the way till the Supreme Court to get the FIR against her quashed.
The interesting facts: One Prakash Kumar Bajaj obtained a housing loan from PNB Housing Finance Ltd in the year 2001. As he did not pay the dues, the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in 2007. Our Prakash filed a writ in the High Court, which was dismissed. Then he filed a criminal complaint against some officers of the Banking Company alleging that the accused persons had intentionally taken steps to cause injury to him. The magistrate dismissed the criminal complaint and declined to take cognizance. Against this, Prakash filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, who remanded the matter to the trial court with the direction that he shall hear the complaint again and pass a cognizance order according to law. Thereafter the magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the officers of the PNBHFL. In the meantime, Prakash filed an objection under the SARFAESI Act and on that not being considered filed a writ in the High Court. On the direction of the High Court, the authorities disposed of his objection and rejected it. Then he approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the meanwhile, he again filed criminal complaints against the Finance Company officers alleging criminal conspiracy and fraud. And he succeeded in making the officers agree to a one time settlement on the condition that he would withdraw all the criminal cases against them.
The determined Prakash filed another complaint against the vice-president of the banking company before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate requiring the Police to investigate the case against the bank officers. The magistrate directed to register an FIR. The poor officer of the PNBHFL is before the Supreme Court. The observations of the Court in the classical language of Justice Dipak Misra who wrote the judgement are worth preserving in the time capsule of legal library.
|
The present appeal projects and frescoes a scenario which is not only disturbing but also has the potentiality to create a stir compelling one to ponder in a perturbed state how some unscrupulous, unprincipled and deviant litigants can ingeniously and innovatively design in a nonchalant manner to knock at the doors of the Court, as if, it is a laboratory where multifarious experiments can take place and such skillful persons can adroitly abuse the process of the Court at their own will and desire by painting a canvas of agony by assiduous assertions made in the application though the real intention is to harass the statutory authorities, without any remote remorse, with the inventive design primarily to create a mental pressure on the said officials as individuals, for they would not like to be dragged to a court of law to face in criminal cases, and further pressurize in such a fashion so that financial institution which they represent would ultimately be constrained to accept the request for "one-time settlement" with the fond hope that the obstinate defaulters who had borrowed money from it would withdraw the cases instituted against them.
|
| |
|
Such persons, pretentiously aggrieved but potentially dangerous, adopt the self-convincing mastery methods to achieve so.
|
| |
|
It is apposite to state that the third respondent, have possibly mastered how to create a sense of fear in the mind of the officials who are compelled to face criminal cases.
|
| |
|
The labyrinth maladroitly created by the respondent does not end here. It appears that he had the indefatigable spirit to indulge himself in the abuse of the process of the Court.
|
| |
|
If a borrower is allowed to take recourse to criminal law in the manner it has been taken it, needs no special emphasis to state, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation.
|
| |
|
It is clearly noticeable that the statutory remedies have cleverly been bypassed and prosecution route has been undertaken for instilling fear amongst the individual authorities compelling them to concede to the request for one time settlement which the financial institution possibly might not have acceded.
|
| |
|
That apart, despite agreeing for withdrawal of the complaint, no steps were taken in that regard at least to show the bona fide. On the contrary, there is a contest with a perverse sadistic attitude.
|
| |
|
Issuing a direction to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in the society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the Magistrate. It also encourages the unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like the respondent, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions on their knees.
|
| |
|
As the factual exposition would reveal, he had prosecuted the earlier authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys.
|
| |
|
We are only stating about the devilish design of the respondent to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan.
|
| |
|
When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. He has been able to do such adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will not be taken to task.
|
| |
|
We are slightly surprised that the financial institution has been compelled to settle the dispute and we are also disposed to think that it has so happened because the complaint cases were filed. Such a situation should not happen.
|
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and directed the circulation of this order among all High Courts, Sessions Courts and Magistrates.
Please see Mrs Priyanka Srivastavavs State of UP - 2015-TIOL-45-SC-MISC
Customs - EOU - Export obligation - Goods cleared from one unit and exported from another unit - it could not be denied that the respondent-undertaking had exported out of India 100 per cent of articles manufactured by it. The only argument which is sought to be raised is that the unit at Bhimli (Visakhapatnam) which was given the status of E.O.U. has not fulfilled this obligation and in fact, goods were sent to Chennai unit and it is from Chennai unit that the export was effected. This is no ground to deny the exemption. The EOU has fulfilled its obligation. Whether it is done from Bhimli (Visakhapatnam) or Chennai unit, would be totally irrelevant and immaterial. No error in the order passed by the CESTAT. The Show Cause Notice was issued in this case on 12.12.1997 and the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court in 2003. Last month, the Supreme Court dismissed this Revenue appeal.
Please see Commissioner of Customs vs Alsa Marine - 2015-TIOL-44-SC-CUS
Customs - Custody of seized goods - Failure to hand over the goods to the Department - Prosecution initiated - Appellant undertakes to pay the cost of the goods with interest - prosecution quashed. In 1993, the Customs Department seized 2080 kgs of cardamoms of foreign origin, valued at Rs.6,24,000/-, 12,330 kgs of javitir (mace) of foreign origin, valued at Rs.6,16,500/- and 68,000 kgs of cloves of foreign origin, valued at Rs.34,00,000/- and not knowing where to keep all these goods, they handed over possession to one Gurnam Singh. Later the department found that the goods were not available with him and they asked him to pay the value of the goods and when he didn't pay, they launched prosecution against him. In the Supreme Court, last month, the custodian agreed to pay the amount with interest and on that undertaking, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Please see Gurnam Singh Vs Supdt of Customs - 2015-TIOL-43-SC-CUS
Customs - Over-invoicing - penalty -Father imposed penalty because son cleared the goods. The Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-on one GP Jaiswal only on the ground that the goods were cleared for export by his son. The Supreme Court held, that can hardly be the ground to fasten the liability or attribute abetment on the part of respondent. Similarly in the case of another person, the Commissioner imposed penalty on the ground that he had supervised the stuffing of the goods at ICD Varanasi and received the payment. The Supreme Court held that only on this allegation, it cannot be attributed that he became party to the over invoicing of the goods. The penalties were set aside.
Please see Commissioner of Customs Vs GP Jaiswal & ORS - 2015-TIOL-47-SC-CUS
India, no tax haven - Cairn Abel to go to High Court
FINANCE Minister Arun Jaitley told the CII yesterday, Legitimate taxes must be paid and should not be perceived as 'tax terrorism'; while pursuing tax-related cases, the fairness of the Government has been partly misunderstood; while India does not practice tax terrorism, it is not a tax haven either.
And yesterday Cairn India has filed a writ in the Delhi High Court against the Income Tax demand of over Rs. 21,000 Crores. Their plea is that they cannot be penalized for not expecting that the Government would bring in a retrospective tax.
Income Tax - Kingfisher loses 372 crores battle in Supreme Court
YESTERDAY the Supreme Court dismissed SLPs filed by the beleaguered Kingfisher Airlines against the judgement of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2014-TIOL-1533-HC-KAR-IT. The Assessing Officer had demanded an amount of Rs.372,09,44,786 as TDS and interest payable by Kingfisher. The ITAT had remanded the matter to the AO as the Airlines had pleaded that proper opportunity of being heard was not given to the assessee. Against the Tribunal's orders, the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and the assessee filed appeals before the Karnataka High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Kingfisher Airlines and directed that the TDS amounts due should be recovered.
Kingfisher filed SLPs against the Karnataka High Court order.
The Supreme Court yesterday decided the SLPs.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Heard learned senior counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material.
We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
DDT Blunder - Deep Regrets
YESTERDAY it was a faux pas of the worst kind for DDT, when it reported that the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act was not amended to substitute ‘Foreign Trade Policy' for Exim Policy. On realizing the mistake, we deleted the capsule. DDT regrets the lapse and deeply apologises for the same.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in
