TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Overreach in Delegating Judicial Functions: Supreme Court Ruling</h1> <h3>UNION OF INDIA Versus MOOL CHAND INDUSTRIES ESTATE P. LTD.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its authority by delegating judicial functions to a Committee for decisions on exemptions under the ... Area Based Exemption - exemption form levy of Central Excise - inclusion of certain Khasra Nos. of Village Ratanpura, Bajpura, Udham Singh Nagar so as to constitute a notified independent industrial area in order to avail of the exemption - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is completely beyond the scope of the High Court's power under the Constitution of India or any other law. The High Court did not have the power to set up a Committee and invested it with judicial powers. No Court of law can delegate its judicial function to any other authority. In our view, the order amounts to an obliteration to the functioning of the High Court. The direction is plainly unconstitutional and whimsical - We, accordingly, set aside the said order and dismiss the writ petitions. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. High Court's power to delegate judicial functions to a Committee for decision-making.2. Challenge against the High Court's order investing a Committee with judicial powers.3. Dispute regarding inclusion of certain Khasra Nos. in notifications for exemption under Central Excise Act, 1944.4. Correction of errors in listing industrial units for exemption.5. Remand of matters for proper adjudication in accordance with the law.Issue 1: High Court's power to delegate judicial functions to a CommitteeThe Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the High Court had the authority to delegate its judicial function to a Committee. The High Court had formed a Committee comprising various officials to decide on matters related to exemptions under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Supreme Court held that no court of law can delegate its judicial function to any other authority. The Court deemed the High Court's order as unconstitutional and beyond its scope of power, leading to an obliteration of the High Court's functioning. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order and dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Committee's decision-making authority.Issue 2: Challenge against the High Court's order investing a Committee with judicial powersThe Supreme Court reviewed the challenge against the High Court's order that invested a Committee with judicial powers to review notifications related to exemptions under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court found this order to be unprecedented and unconstitutional, emphasizing that judicial functions cannot be delegated to another authority. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's direction was whimsical and set it aside, thereby dismissing the writ petitions associated with the order.Issue 3: Dispute regarding inclusion of certain Khasra Nos. in notifications for exemptionSeveral petitioners approached the High Court seeking the inclusion of specific Khasra Nos. in notifications to qualify for exemptions under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners argued that the non-inclusion of these Khasra Nos. was an error, which was contested by the Revenue. The High Court had directed these petitioners to present their cases before the Committee, a decision that was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. The matters were remanded to the High Court for proper adjudication in accordance with the law, allowing the parties to submit additional affidavits.Issue 4: Correction of errors in listing industrial units for exemptionIn one appeal, a petitioner sought correction of an error that shifted their industrial unit from being entitled to exemption to being disentitled. The High Court had disposed of this matter by forming a Committee with judicial powers, a decision that was invalidated by the Supreme Court in another batch of appeals. The Court remanded the case to the High Court for proper adjudication, leaving all questions open for further consideration and allowing the parties to file additional affidavits.Issue 5: Remand of matters for proper adjudication in accordance with the lawThe Supreme Court remanded all related matters to the High Court for proper adjudication in conformity with legal principles. The Court emphasized the need for lawful resolution of disputes regarding exemptions under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Parties were granted the liberty to present additional affidavits to support their cases, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the issues at hand. The appeals were disposed of with directions for the High Court to proceed with the adjudication process in adherence to the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
