5th Test Cases

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
49 views
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Download

Document Related
Document Description
ios
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  5 th  Test Cases:-Purposive Construction (Debo)  R & B Falcon v. CIT (2008 SC)- Co. incorporated in Australia   employees came to wor in mobile o!!shore ri s in #ndia   co. paid !or travel   whether conveyance money ta$able as !rin e bene!its under s. %%5 (wb)  whether it can be ta$ed under subsection & as conveyance e$pense'   $ception under subsection  was only !or subsection % and not &   it !ell under subsection % and not &   Purposive construction must be iven and interpretation must be iven in a way that subsection  should not be rendered otiose.Penal *tatute(Ani)  Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. Sae o! Mahara hra (#$% SC)- crushin re+uired !or  producin oil   Prevention o! ,ood Adulteration Act  !ood inspector went to inspect whether !ood was bein adulterated   manu!acturers pleaded uilty   !ine o! s. &5/ levied  but statute ave minimum o! imprisonment and !ine o! s. %///   0eld1 narrow construction which is usually applied to penal statutes but this cannot be applied to let the uilty escape and interpretation must be to chec mischie! (mischie! rule)(Abhay) 'anga ire urcha e * Ld v. Sae o! unja+(2000 SC)- vehicle used to carry dru s   s. 2/() o! 3DP* Act maes vehicle liable to be con!iscated e$cept i! w4o nowled e   de!ence claimed that not owner so not liable and s. 2/() uses owner6  0eld1 s. 2/() would be redundant i! owner is iven limited meanin and de!inition o! owner to be taen !rom 78 Act which says in whose name it is re istered1 thus1 the provision applies to him.(Ani)  ,aco+ Mahe v. Sae o! unja+ (200. SC)- 9$y en re+uired !or patient   cylinder was empty and doctor came late   patient declared dead   whether !alls under /A o! #PC'   e!erred to  /ocor Sure h 'ua ca e where doctor put wron tube inside and it was held that doctor was ne li ent under tort law and not criminal law as #PC re+uires ross ne li ence   *C held that doctors are a separate class and duty o! care is di!!erent   3arrow interpretation should be used. Also held that in civil law res ipsa lo+uitor can be used  but in criminal law burden is hi her thus can6t be used. Protectionist approach was applied by Court. #t !ollowed ;olam test.(Avi) Sandard Charered Ban1 v.  /irecorae o! n!orce3en (200. SC)-  3otices issued un!er s. 52 o! ,A to pvt ban   minimum punishment is imprisonment and !ine there!ore  no discretion and co. can6t be imprisoned so can6t prosecute only company   0eld1 must loo at le islative intent which is to punish the culprits and construction must be iven to mae statute applicable   di!! between penal and other statues has blurred and suppression o! mischie! is important   law cannot compel somethin impossible was claimed but held not applicable here as there is some discretion with the Court   thus1 company to be iven only !ine   concurrin opinion  rule that interpretation o! penal statute in !avour o! accused should be in li ht o! le islative intent and intent here is to prosecute and punish   7inority- <. Dharmadiari- Court must not !ill lacuna but restrict itsel! to interpretation. Parliament will mae chan es to law and it is not the =ob o! the court.Ta$ *tatute(Anish)  IRC v.  /u1e o! 4e 3in er (#$5.L)- Due promised reward to servants !or > years which !ell out o! ta$   i! he ave salary it would be ta$ed   0eld1 ordinary le al principles must be looed into and not substantive !acts o! the transaction. #! transaction !alls within the le al principle1 only then would it be ta$ed. very person is allowed to le ally avoid ta$.  Ra3 ay Rule (Ra3 ay *6 IRC)- Ta$ payer will be ta$ed on e!!ect o! transaction and not on mode o! transaction.(;a di) CIT   v.  B Srini*a a Sey (#$8# SC)- whether oodwill is sub=ect to capital ains ta$ under s. 5 o! #T Act'   sale o! oodwill o! partnership !irm   s. 5 is char in provision   only i! computation o! ta$ is possible will it be ta$ed   9n e$amination1 cost o! ac+uisition o! oodwill is not possible to be computed1 so not to be ta$ed   0eld1 not only char in provision is relevant but other provisions such as computation provisions are also relevant.(7ardia)  7aional Mineral /e*elo3en Cororaion v. Sae o! M(200 SC)- 7ines Act- s. ?- royalty to be paid   appellants had to pay royalty !or slime   s. ? is char in provision to  be read with & nd  schedule which is a computation provision   0eld1 computation provisions are important but in time o! con!lict computation provision should ive way to char in  provision otherwise it should be read in a way to support to char in provision   3o ta$ as slime not covered in computation provision.(Abhay)  Mc/oell & Co6 Ld6 v. CT9(#$8 SC)- @hether e$cise duty to be paid by li+uor manu!acturers'   $cise duty de!ined in e$cise act and leviable on manu!acturer and duty has to be paid be!ore the li+uor is removed !rom distillery. Distillery passes obtained a!ter   payment o! duty which is proo! o! payment. ;oos o! a4c did not show any payment.  ,unction o! the Court is to strictly and correctly apply the le islation enacted by parliament and tas o! court is to ascertain le al nature o! transaction to which it is sou ht to attach a ta$ (a4  IRC   v.  /u1e o! 4e3in er  )(*unny) :oI   v.  ;<adi Bachao ;ndolan(2005 SC)- DTAA b4w #ndia and 7auritius- circular states capital ains to be ta$ed only in 7auritius. Clari!ied in another circular which was constitutionally challen ed as bein a4 #T Act.   @hether authority u4s %%? o! #T Act to  pass circular'     Mc/oell ca e said that Court may li!t corporate veil   *C held that ta$in statute to be interpreted narrowly. Person has ri ht to avoid ta$ so i! transaction not !allin under ta$in statute1 no ta$. elied on  /u1e o! 4e 3in er ca e   6     Ta$in statutes should be interpreted di!!erently.;ene!icial e islations(Debo)  7oor Sa+ha =haoon v.  Moha33ed >a i3- appellant-wi!e driven out o! home   bene!icial le islation so wide interpretation should be iven and s. %&5 o! CrPC and s.  o! 7uslim law should be read harmoniously as they apply to di!!erent !ields. ;oth should be made applicable.(Pranav)  7aional In urance Cororaion v. Saran Singh##6 7aional In urance Co3any *6 Saran Singh (200) SC  Case Concernin ;ene!icial e islation  *.%?(&)(a)(ii) o! 7otor 8ehicles Act  insurer has to pay insurance amount a!ter accident to third party but not re+uired to pay i! driver does not  possess valid drivin license. 3o compensation payable as 3o valid license. Court said  bene!icial le islation as ives compensation to third parties. #nterpreted once possessin license and !ailure to renew does not mean that he did not have duly license 7oreover1 insurer can recover !rom the driver later on account o! !ailure to possess valid drivin license.
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x