19(1)(d) and (e) must in the circumstances be held to be unreasonable. In support of this proposition, we refer to the judgment in K. It has been found as a fact that WIMCO’s representative was not present on all occasions when sawar logs used to be loaded on the railway wagons. There is no evidence that he was actually present when these particular sawar logs, with the sale proceeds of which we are concerned, were put into the wagons. Learned counsel for the department lays strong emphasis on the provision of cl.
, that the logs must be carried to Ambernath and delivered there (See The Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik v. This being the case, having regard also to the two English precedents cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it is clear that Section 66A is unconstitutionally vague. If reserves were not used for this purpose the concern would have to borrow money and pay interest thereon. Top Barrister in Chandigarh High Court view of these difficulties, learned counsel for the department did not press the case of express assent of the representative of WIMCO and concentrated on the case of implied assent.
4 in the contract that the sawar logs should be despatched by rail from certain stations within the Central Provinces and contends that delivery by the seller of sawar logs of the contract quality and 716 description to the railways in terms of the contract without the reservation of any right of disposal has the effect of passing the property therein to WIMCO at the railway stations in the Central Provinces Direction Under Section 482 Law Firm in Chandigarh s. Similarly, in the Chambers case, the Crown Court would have convicted Chambers whereas the Queen’s Bench acquitted him.
ITO,  INSC 160; (1982) 1 SCR 629. The argument is prima facie sound unless there be some other provision in the contract to negative this conclusion, e. This being the case, we feel that since the provision has the deterrent effect of preventing tax evasion, it should be made to apply only to tax evaders. So construed, the appellants’ possession of the lands being illegal from the inception, they could not be described as persons retaining possession of the said 809 lands in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being Best Counsels in Chandigarh force, so as to be outside the scope of s.
That is the view taken by the High court and we see no reason to differ from it. Quite obviously, a prospective offender of Section 66A and the authorities who are to enforce Section 66A have absolutely no manageable standard by which to book a person for an offence under Section 66A. It is quite clear from the language of s. In Collins’ case, both the Leicestershire Justices and two Judges of the Queen’s Bench would have acquitted Collins whereas the House of Lords convicted him.
If judicially trained minds can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same set of facts it is obvious that expressions such as “grossly offensive” or “menacing” are so vague that there is no manageable standard by which a person can be said to have committed an offence or not to have committed an offence. The appellant was entitled to a 4% return on the deprecia- tion reserves used as working capital. 23 as well as of constituting delivery of them at the railway stations under ss.
In the present case, the question that arises before us is also as to whether bonafide assessees are caught within the net of Section 143 (1A). The Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler (1)). These two cases illustrate how judicially trained minds would find a person guilty or not guilty depending upon the Judge’s notion of what is “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. Synthetics case, Section 143 (1A) has in fact been challenged on Constitutional grounds before the High Court on the facts of the present case.
In other words, the restrictions which it allows to be imposed on the exercise of the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed by Art. Annexure to UGC Regulations, 2010 prescribes the minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of University and College Teachers, Librarians, Directors of Physical Education and Sports The result of this infirmity is that it has left to the unguided and unfettered discretion of the authority concerned to treat any citizen as a goonda.
If the statute is silent in respect of one of such conditions precedent it undoubtedly constitutes a serious infirmity which would inevitably take it out of the provisions of Art. 23 itself, that the appropriation may be by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, that assent to representation may be express or implied and that it may be given after the appropriation or in advance before such appropriation.
The Court in that case was concerned with the correct construction of Section 52 (2) of the Income Tax Act: We hasten to add that unlike in J. Where a statute empowers the specified authorities to take preventive action against the citizens it is essential that it should expressly make it a part of the duty of the said authorities to satisfy themselves about the existence of what the statute regards as conditions precedent to the exercise of the said authority. bind WIMCO by any assent.
We are, however, not impressed by this argument. Nor is there an iota of evidence that the representative of WIMCO had any authority to.