SimranLaw Examine This Report on Chandigarh Advocate

Please log in or register to like posts.

lawyers in chandigarhA comparative consideration of the 1940 Act and 1996 Act disclose the extent of control and operation of a Court under the former Act was far more intensive and elaborate than the latter Act. On a plain reading of the section it is clear that the subsection is not limited only to persons who made extraordinary profits and to a substantial extent evaded payment of taxation on income, but applies to all persons who may have evaded payment of taxation on income, irrespective of whether the evaded profits are substantial or insubstantial.

The more significant distinction as between the 1940 Act and the 1996 Act is clear to the position that the former Act does not merely stop with the initiation and enforcement of an Arbitration and its award, but effectively provides for intervention at every stage of the Arbitral proceedings upto its final consideration and enforcement as if it were a regular civil suit, whereas under the 1996 Act, the scope of intervention is not that of a Civil Court as it could do in the matter of a suit.

Such clear distinction could be discerned from the reading of the various provisions of both the Acts. But in the facts and Chandigarh Lawyers circumstances of this case and the conduct of the parties, Ex. Sub-section (1) of section 5 provided that where the Central Government “has prima facie reasons for believing that a person has to a substantial extent evaded payment of taxation on income”, while clause (a) of section 5(4).

On the phraseology employed in the sub-section it is difficult to read therein Chandigarh Lawyer the limitations contained in sub-section (1) of section 5 as contended for by the learned Solicitor-General. it may 460 make a report to the Central Government. Sub-section (4) which has been set out above in clear and unambiguous terms provided that where the Commission “has reason to believe that some person ther than the person whose case is being investigated has evaded payment of taxation on income.

The prima facie belief of the Central Government is substituted by the expression “The Commission has reason to believe”. nThe learned Judges dealt with that argument as under:- “In our opinion, this is a roundabout and objectionable way of attempting to prove the statements made by the accused without actually proving them. says that if the Commission “has reason to believe that some person other that the preson whose case is being investigated has evaded payment of taxation on income”.

D-22 appears to record the family settlement already arrived at between the parties. When the police officer speaks of “in consequence of a statement made by an accused a discovery was made”, he involves the accused in the discovery. in Durlav Namasudra v. ” It does,not repeat the phraseology used in section 5(1) that some person other than the person whose case is being investigated “have to a substantial extent evaded payment of taxation on income.

The scope and ambit of the power and jurisdiction of Court defined under Section 2(e) of the 1996 Act is circumscribed to certain specified extent as set out in Sections 8, 9, 14, 27, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 58 and 59. Therefore, in the light of such distinctive features that prevail in respect of an Arbitral proceeding which emanated under the 1940 Act, this Court held in Jagdish Chander case (supra) to the effect that an Arbitral proceedings governed by 1940 Act would squarely fall under the category of other proceedings as specified in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act.

As discussed earlier, when the terms of the family settlement/arrangement between the parties have been reduced to writing, it has to Chandigarh Lawyer be registered. Whether he gives evidence as to the actual words used by the accused or not, the connection between the statement made by the accused and the discovery of the relevant fact is clearly hinted at. D22-resolution was acted upon is also supported by the subsequent conduct of the parties.

Even if the statement is not proved, the statement must be such as can be proved under section 27. ” On no principle of construction of statutes can the words to a “substantial extent” be read in sub-clause (a) of section 5(4). In other respects also the phraseology of the section is different from that employed Lawyers in Chandigarh sub-section (1) of section 5. The first question that requires consideration is whether sub-section (4) of section 5 deals with the same class of persons as are said to have been grouped together in subsection (1) of section 5 as persons who to a substantial extent evaded payment of taxation on income: in other words, does sub-section (4) of section 5 confer an the Commission the power merely to add to the number of persons included in section 5(1) by, the Central Government or does it confer larger power on the Commission.

” The learned Judges then proceeded to consider the following observations of Rankin C. In our opinion, 118 926 therefore, evidence cannot be given of any statement made by accused which results in the discovery of a fact unless it satisfies the conditions laid down under section 27 and this would be so even if the actual statement is not attempted to be proved by the prosecution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *