Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 151A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Appellate ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Ofincome-Tax ... on 17 January, 1996
25.In this context, it is necessary to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1996) 7 SCC 454 and in paragraph 14, it was observed as follows:
Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
26.Further, even for exercising the quasi judicial power, the executive authorities in order to determine certain objective facts, as a preliminary step to discharge an executive function and those decisions are administrative in character and are not amenable to the writ of certiorari as held by the Supreme Court in Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani reported in 1950 SCR 621 = AIR 1950 SC 222 and in paragraph 6, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
U.P. Financial Corporation vs Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 2 March, 1993
28.For making judicial review under Article 226 as to what constitute an unreasonable act came to be considered by the Supreme Court in U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) (P) Ltd., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 299 and in paragraphs 10 and 11, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
11.The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine is complementary to the principles of natural justice which the quasi-judicial authorities are bound to observe. It is true that the distinction between a quasi-judicial and the administrative action has become thin, as pointed out by this Court as far back as 1970 in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India1. Even so the extent of judicial scrutiny/judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi-judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred.
S. Jagannath vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 1996
29.Finally as contended by the respondents, the concern for issuance of the impugned Standing Order is also an innumerable concern and such concern cannot be ignored while discussing the precautionary principle. The Supreme Court held that the statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. When there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation as held in the case in S. Jagannath v. Union of India reported in (1997) 2 SCC 87. In paragraph 49, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:
Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 15 April, 2004
In doing so, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the judgment of TATA Teleservices Ltd.'s case (cited supra). The following passage found in paragraph 6 of the judgment may be usefully extracted below: