Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.24 seconds)
P. Venkatachalapathi And Ors. vs Commercial Tax Inspector, ... on 26 February, 1965 cites

The Collector Of Customs, Madras vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty And ... on 25 September, 1961

In the case of customs duties they become payable at the time the goods cross the frontier and the law involves or enacts a prohibition against goods crossing the frontier without payment of the customs duty. Thirdly, whenever confiscation is provided for, the statute or the relevant rule states in clear terms the circumstances in which or the reasons for which confiscation may be ordered, so that the party affected has an opportunity of showing cause against confiscation before specified officers who are of a status superior to that of officers detaining or seizing the goods and on whom the statute imposes a duty to act judicially. We might also refer with advantage to a portion of the discussion in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs. Madras v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty strongly relied upon by the learned Advocate-General. That case dealt with an attack on the constitutionality of section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act which enacted a rule of evidence placing the burden on the person found in possession of goods to prove that they are not smuggled goods when they are seized by an officer under the Act on a reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. In the course of the discussion, Rajagopala lyengar, J., points out that the burden of proof arises only on a seizure made on the reasonable belief entertained by the seizing officer that the goods are smuggled and that the facts and circumstances on which such reasonable belief is entertained are themselves open to scrutiny and examination by another superior officer who adjudges whether or not to confiscate the goods. We refer specially to this circumstance because it was obviously regarded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as affording a reasonably strong safeguard for the person against whom action of that type is sought to be taken. In the case of confiscation provided under section 28-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, it is impossible to postulate any such safeguard. The most effective action or action which the section considers most effective for the purpose is required to be taken by a single officer of not any superior status on the basis of certain objective facts which may or may not be indicative of any attempt to evade tax with scarcely any real or effective opportunity to the person affected of either avoiding confiscation or of getting any error on the part of the confiscating officer corrected by a superior officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 258 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958

62. While it may be correct to summarise the effect of the arguments on behalf of petitioners by stating that the central point of attack is the absence of real or effective safeguards for the protection of honest men, we do not think that we can accept the suggestion of Mr. Advocate-General that the mere fact of the substantive part of the section considered in isolation having been held to be reasonable would constitute a complete answer or an almost complete answer to the attack of unreasonableness directed against the procedural part. Such a view would be opposed to the clear principle stated by the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (Private) Limited v. The Union of India that both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 335 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next