TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 clarifies trial court order, allows department's freedom to decide issue based on law, not bound by specific judgments.</h1> The High Court of Calcutta clarified that the Trial Court's order did not restrict the department to decide the issue based solely on specific judgments ... Restraint on further action under the Service Tax Act against the writ petitioner unless the above fact is established - requirement to consider the case of ALL ASSAM TEA PLANTATION SECURITY VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [2002 (4) TMI 995 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] and BAKHTAWAR SINGH BAL KISHAN VERSUS U.O.I. [1988 (2) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT] - HELD THAT:- Mr. Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent submitted that it was not the intention of the Court that the determination is to be made only in the light of the views expressed in the judgments referred to in the operative part of the order. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of by clarifying that it will be open to the department to decide the issue, in accordance with law. Issues:Interpretation of Trial Court's order directing the department to determine the issue based on specific judgments.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta considered a writ petition where the Trial Court had allowed the petition and directed the department to determine the issue after considering specific judgments. The Trial Court's order stated that 'No further action under the Service Tax Act can be taken by the department against the writ petitioner unless the above fact is established.' The Trial Court referred to judgments such as M/s. Bakhtawar Singh Bal Kishan Vs. Union of India and All Assam Tea Plantation Security Vs. The State of Assam for guidance. The appellant argued that the Trial Court had restricted the determination to be made by the department only based on the views expressed in the referred judgments. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the Trial Court did not intend to limit the determination solely to the views in those judgments.The High Court clarified that the Trial Court's order did not restrict the department to decide the issue based only on the judgments mentioned. The respondent's counsel, a Senior Advocate, submitted that the intention was not to confine the determination to the views expressed in the specific judgments. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by emphasizing that the department has the freedom to decide the issue in accordance with the law, without being bound by the specific judgments mentioned in the Trial Court's order. The High Court's decision provided clarity on the interpretation of the Trial Court's directive, ensuring that the department can make its determination following legal provisions rather than being limited to the views expressed in the referred judgments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
