Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Nominal Index Dharanidhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 71Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited Versus Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 72Sankar Mondal v. Swapan Debnath & Ors2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 73Piyali Tewari Dey v. Baidyanath Dey & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 74Ashlesh Biradar v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 75In the goods of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. Meena Agarwal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 76Tushar Kanti Das v. Kajal Saha 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 77Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 78In Re : Bhajagobinda Roy alias Bhajan Roy2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 79Orders/Judgments 1. Calcutta High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed By Customs Dept. Without Enquiry & AdjudicationCase Title: Dharanidhar Ghosh Vs. Union of IndiaCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 71The Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Md. Nizamuddin, has quashed the penalty which was imposed by the customs department without initiating any enquiry or adjudication. The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs which imposed several punishments including Punishment No. V, imposing a penalty of Rs.1 crore under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act on account of some past offences without initiating any proceeding and any adjudication order. The court while criticising the act of the department said that how an authority like a Commissioner can pass order without initiating any proceeding and any adjudication order and it shows total non-application of mind on his part since order of punishment on the offence is not a part of subject matter of the adjudication proceeding. The court has held that the impugned order is bad, in total non-application of mind and on the face of it, is not sustainable in law; and accordingly, punishment order imposing penalty for alleged past offence without any enquiry and adjudication, is set aside.2. Income Tax Commissioner In Discretionary Power Of Revision Can't Act As Appellate Authority: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Unisource Hydro Carbon Services Private Limited Versus Union of IndiaCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 72The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the power of an Appellate Authority is much wider than that of a Revisional Authority and the Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretionary power of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, cannot act as an Appellate Authority and go into the merits of the assessment by re-appreciating the facts and evidence. The single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that the petitioner/assessee has not filed any statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the sole intention of avoiding the payment of a huge amount of tax determined in the assessment order. The court stated that the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot act as an Appellate Authority over the assessment order on merits, facts, and evidence involved in an assessment proceeding. The court noted that the petitioner has deliberately chosen the forum of revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act with a view to making out a case to come up before the Court again under Article 226 of the Constitution of India tactfully indirectly to get interference in the assessment order which the Commissioner in exercising the power under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act has refused.3. Calcutta HC Stays Ex-Parte Injunction On Sale Of Books Of Veteran Cartoonist Narayan Debnath, Rs 7 Lakhs Deposit To Be Paid To Legal Heirs By PublisherCase Title: Sankar Mondal v. Swapan Debnath & OrsCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 73The Calcutta High Court imposed a stay on an ex-parte injunction issued by a trial Court in favour of the elder son of renowned illustrator Late Narayan Debnath against a publisher claiming infringement of copyright of several works of his deceased father. A Bench comprising Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and Justice Soumen Sen was apprised by the appellant publisher that the injunction application was moved ex parte on February 24, 2022 with the oblique motive to prevent the appellant from selling books authored by Late Narayan Debnath just before the commencement of the International Kolkata Book Fair, 2022. The Bench observed that the concerned trial Court should not have issued the ex parte ad-interim order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the publisher especially considering the fact that the Book Fair was to commence shortly and that such an order of injection would cause irreparable injury to him. However, taking into consideration that the appellant is obligated to pay royalties to the legal heirs of the deceased illustrator unless their inter se disputes are settled, the Court ordered the appellant to pay an amount of Rs 7 lakhs by March 14, 2022. Imposing a stay on the impugned order of injunction, the Court observed further, "The order of stay of operation of the impugned order shall remain...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 7 To March 13, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags