DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

ANALYSIS OF CASES DEALT BY JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

SUBJECT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Mr. R. BHARAT KUMAR

Name of the Candidate

PRADEEP PUNURU
Roll No. 2016076

Semester-VI

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me through

the course of the project. I would like to thank our teacher who encouraged, guide and
supported me for doing this project. And sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful
and illuminated views on the issues related to the project.

I express my warm thanks to Mr. Bharat Kumar for his support and guidance to the project
without his help it would be difficult task for us .I have no valuable words to express my
thanks, but my heart is still full of the favour received from you. .It was all my pleasure to
have you as my teacher and guider throughout this project for this I am thanking you from
my heart.

2|Page
 ABSTRACT

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

Justice V Ramasubramanian, of Madras High Court, Known for his wit, wisdom and
scholarly treatment of complex legal issues,is scheduled to take oath as Judge of
Telangana High Court of Judicature. Ramasubramanian is the fifth senior most judge
in the Madras High Court.

Born on June 30,1958, Justice Ramasubramaian studied B.Sc at

Vivekananda College in Chennai. He was enrolled as a Bar He was enrolled as a
member of the Bar on February 10, 1983 and practiced under senior advocates
K.Sarvabhaumam and T.R.Mani. He was appointed as additional judge of the Madras
High Court on July 31st,2006.

Subject: Natural Justice

1. K. Sathyabal and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Ors
[21.03.2016-MADHC]
2. S.V.R. Nagesh Vs. The high Court of A.P. and Ors. [21.08.2018 – HYHC]
3. Jakir Hussain Kosangi and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
[04.07.2017-HYHC
4. C. Andiappan and Ors. Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endownment Board and Ors. [14.12.2015 - MADHC]
5. Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited and Ors. Vs. Anupam Saraogi of Indian
Inhabitant [01.03.2017 - HYHC]
6. A. M. S. Shihabuddin and Ors. Vs. The Tamil Wakf Board and Ors
[ 26.11.2015 - MADHC]
7. K. thaimanavar Vs. Govt of Tamil Nadu and Ors [31.07.2015 - MADHC]
8. T. R. Nanniar and Ors vs Commissioner of customs, Tiruchirapalli [25.02.2016
- MADHC]
9. A. V. Thomas Leather and Allied Products Private Limited Vs The Assistant
Commissioner [09.10.2015 - MADHC]
10. P. Sukanya Vs. Union of India and Ors 09.07.2015 - MADHC]
11. Grace C. naulak Vs. The Management of Air India Limited and Ors.
[12.02.2015 – MADHC]
12. T. Gnanasambanthan vs. The Board of Governors and Ors. (31.01.2014 -
MADHC)

3|Page
 13. Vijaya Mining & Infra Corporation Private Limited Vs The Commercial Tax
Officer-I, Kadapa and Ors [24.01.2018 – HYHC]
14. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India[31.10.2017 – HYHC]
15. Asst. Commissioner Vs. C. Bhaskar Reddy[13.12.2016 – HYHC]
16. Non-Conventional Energy Dev. Corp. and Ors. vs. P.M. Ravikumar
17. Toleti Rama Mangayya Naidu and Ors. vs. The High Court of Judicature and
Ors. (24.03.2017 - HYHC) :
18. K. Kathiresan vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors

19. Sheer Gold Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Air)
and Ors. (26.02.2016 - MADHC)
20. King Overseas vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)
(13.10.15-MADHC)
21. Venkateswara Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (07.02.2017-HYHC)
22. T.R. Nanniar and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli (25.02.201
6 - MADHC)

23. Lakshmi Traders vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (08.09.2017 - HYHC)

24. Float Glass Centre vs. Union of India and Ors. (12.12.2014 - MADHC)

4|Page
 CONTENTS

1. K. Sathyabal and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Ors
[21.03.2016-MADHC]
2. S.V.R. Nagesh Vs. The high Court of A.P. and Ors. [21.08.2018 – HYHC]
3. Jakir Hussain Kosangi and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
[04.07.2017-HYHC
4. C. Andiappan and Ors. Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endownment Board and Ors. [14.12.2015 - MADHC]
5. Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited and Ors. Vs. Anupam Saraogi of Indian
Inhabitant [01.03.2017 - HYHC]
6. A. M. S. Shihabuddin and Ors. Vs. The Tamil Wakf Board and Ors
[ 26.11.2015 - MADHC]
7. K. thaimanavar Vs. Govt of Tamil Nadu and Ors [31.07.2015 - MADHC]
8. T. R. Nanniar and Ors vs Commissioner of customs, Tiruchirapalli [25.02.2016
- MADHC]
9. A. V. Thomas Leather and Allied Products Private Limited Vs The Assistant
Commissioner [09.10.2015 - MADHC]
10. P. Sukanya Vs. Union of India and Ors 09.07.2015 - MADHC]
11. Grace C. naulak Vs. The Management of Air India Limited and Ors.
[12.02.2015 – MADHC]
12. T. Gnanasambanthan vs. The Board of Governors and Ors. (31.01.2014 -
MADHC)
13. Vijaya Mining & Infra Corporation Private Limited Vs The Commercial Tax
Officer-I, Kadapa and Ors [24.01.2018 – HYHC]
14. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India[31.10.2017 – HYHC]
15. Asst. Commissioner Vs. C. Bhaskar Reddy[13.12.2016 – HYHC]
16. Non-Conventional Energy Dev. Corp. and Ors. vs. P.M. Ravikumar
17. Toleti Rama Mangayya Naidu and Ors. vs. The High Court of Judicature and
Ors. (24.03.2017 - HYHC) :
18. K. Kathiresan vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors

19. Sheer Gold Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Air)
and Ors. (26.02.2016 - MADHC)
20. King Overseas vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)
(13.10.15-MADHC)
21. Venkateswara Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (07.02.2017-HYHC)
22. T.R. Nanniar and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli (25.02.201
6 - MADHC)

5|Page
 23. Lakshmi Traders vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (08.09.2017 - HYHC)
24. Float Glass Centre vs. Union of India and Ors. (12.12.2014 - MADHC)

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

6|Page
Interpretation means the art of finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words
of the enactment their natural and ordinary meaning. It is the process of ascertaining the true
meaning of the words used in a statute. The Court is not expected to interpret arbitrarily and
therefore there have been certain principles which have evolved out of the continuous
exercise by the Courts. These principles are sometimes called ‘rules of interpretation’.

The objective is to finding out the true sense of an enactment by giving the words of the
enactment their natural and ordinary meaning.

The aim of the study is to know how different cases are interpreted in different ways by the
Hon’ble. Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Research Methodology used was doctrinal methodology. Descriptive and analytical type of
study is done in this project. Doctrinal Methodology includes doing research from books,
articles, journals, case study, newspapers and also taking the help of web articles. OXFORD
style of citation is used in this project.

CASE 1

7|Page
Case Name: K. Sathyabal and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and
Ors
Name of the Court: Madras High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and K. Ravichandrabaabu, JJ.
Case Citation: (21.03.2016 - MADHC)
Subject: Natural Justice
Facts: Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and
Loss) Act, 1992, s. 3 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 143, 186, 188, 189, 294, 341, 353,
506(i), 509 - Prohibition from practice - Complaint lodged against petitioners for alleged
offences u/ss. 143, 186, 188, 189, 294, 341, 353, 506(i), 509 of IPC read with s. 3 of Act -
By impugned order petitioners prohibited from practicing as Advocates in any Court until
conclusion of disciplinary proceedings
Issues: Whether, impugned order of State Bar Council is justified in law
Reasoning: petitioners were suspended from practice, by prohibitory orders issued by
Chairman of State Bar Council. As of now, period of more than about 100 days has
passed and professional lives of petitioners have been thrown out of gear. When these
writ petitions came up for hearing before another Bench, Bench appears to have permitted
petitioners to file affidavits expressing regret for whatever has happened. Petitioners also
filed affidavits. But, respondents pointed out those affidavits did not contain unqualified
and unconditional expressions of regret. But, when petitions came up it was pointed out
by counsel for petitioners that considering nature of complaint pending before
Disciplinary Committee, it would not be possible for petitioners to plead guilty and tender
apology, as same may tantamount to admission of guilt of a professional or other
misconduct. State Bar Council is directed to take sympathetic view and revoke interim
prohibitory orders issued against petitioners without prejudice to pending disciplinary
proceedings
Conclusion: Petition disposed of.

Case 2

Case Name: C. Andiappan and Ors. Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endownment Board and Ors.
Name of the Court: Madras High Court
Bench Composition: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, N. KIRUBAKARAN
Case Citation: 2015 Indlaw MAD 2787; 2016 (1) MLJ 700

8|Page
Subject: Land & Property
Facts: By a deed of partition, executed on 07.09.1921, three brothers by name
Chidambaram Pillai, Malaiperumal Pillai and Paramasivam Pillai, all sons of one
Andiappa Pillai, partitioned the properties belonging to the family among themselves.
The deed of partition covered several items of properties. One of the properties covered
by the deed of partition was described as Item No. 4 in the IV-Schedule. The said
property was a Mandapam at Door Nos. 12, 13, 13-A, 14, 14-A and 14-B, Sannathi
Street, Thiruchendur. This property and another property at Alagiyamanavalapuram in
Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, were dedicated for the purpose of conduct of
the second day mandagapadi in the Tamil months of Avani and Masi in Shri
Subramaniyasamy Temple, Thiruchendur. The eldest member of the family, namely
Chidambaram Pillai, was entrusted with the obligation of conducting this mandagapadi
from out of the income arising from the above properties. The partition deed stipulated
that these properties cannot be alienated and that if there was a shortfall in the income,
proving it to be inadequate for the conduct of the mandagapadi, the shortfall should be
compensated by Chidambaram Pillai and his male heirs.
Issues: Next line of succession should be followed or not?
Should the trustees be suspended for their acts.
Reasoning: if wishes of founder of specific endowment were to be honoured, it was
necessary that rule of next in line of succession statutorily recognised, had to be followed
Irrespective of whether steps were taken for restoration of properties or not, those
alienations were null and void - If Appellants, who fight for devolution of trusteeship,
were interested in honouring wishes of founder, they should certainly take steps to
recover possession of properties already alienated
Conclusion: Order of appointment of fit person was set aside - Appeal partly allowed

Case 3

Case Name: Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited and Ors. Vs. Anupam Saraogi of
Indian Inhabitant
Name of the Court: Hyderabad High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian, J. Uma Devi
Case Citation: 2017 Indlaw HYD 497
Subject: Civil Procedure
Facts: Respondent filed a case against appellants for recovery of sum of Rs.44,60,170,
together with interest at rate of 18% p.a. from 10-11-2007 till realization, upon principal
amount of Rs.44,08,000.

9|Page
Issues: Whether, appellants for recovery of sum of Rs.44,60,170, together with interest at
rate of 18% p.a
Reasoning:  Respondent-plaintiff is entitled to pre-lite and pendente lite interest at 18%
p.a., nature of transaction between parties was commercial and that return on investment
was expected even by appellants to be of a high order. But in so far as payment of interest
from date of decree is concerned, Court have no evidence on record to know what was
rate at which monies were lent or advanced by Nationalised Banks in relation to
commercial transactions on date of suit.
Conclusion: Therefore, respondent-plaintiff will be entitled to interest, post decree, only
at 6% p.a.  on principal amount of Rs.44,08,000, from date of the decree., 29-6-2015 up
to date of payment; and appellants are liable to pay costs of plaintiff throughout. Appeal
partly allowed.

Case 4

Case Name: A. M. S. Shihabuddin and Ors. Vs. The Tamil Wakf Board and Ors
Name of the Court: Madras High court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran
Case Citation:
Subject: civil
Facts: By two deeds of gift executed more than a century ago on 16.02.1900 and
06.04.1901 one Haji Khadir Mohideen Marakayar of Athiramapattinam in Thanjavur
District endowed a vast extent of wet and dry land measuring about 1500 acres, with the
noble object of providing religious education through Madrasas. The endowment was
known as Madurasathul-salahi-adramil Filaki otherwise known as M.K.N. Madarasa
Trust of Adirampattinam. The management of the trust was vested with a committee of
trustees consisting of the founder trustee Khadir Mohideen Marakayar and his three
brothers and the son of one pre-deceased brother. As per the recitals of the deeds of trust,
six male line descendants of the family of the founder trustees are eligible to become
trustees. Since the eldest founder member Khadir Mohideen Marakayar did not have any
issues, his three brothers represented the trust. As per the scheme, the District Court,
Thanjavur, was actually nominating the trustees, once in three years. Every time a
nomination was made, it was invariably challenged before this Court, making this trust
gain huge popularity. When the term of office of the members of the board of trustees,
expired on 31.03.2011, the District Court, invited applications by making due publication
in the newspapers on 30.12.2010 and 20.01.2011. The appointment was for two
hereditary trustees from each of the three branches totaling to six hereditary trustees apart

10 | P a g e
from three non hereditary trustees. The trustees newly selected were supposed to hold
office for a period of three years, from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. In response to the
advertisement issued in the local dailies as well as in the notice boards, applications were
received from the male lineal descendants of the first branch, five applications received
from second branch and 11 applications received from the third branch. The parties also
exchanged objections to the applications of each other. After considering all the
applications as well as objections raised on all sides, the Principal District Judge,
Thanjavur, appointed a group of six hereditary trustees and three non-hereditary trustees
by his order dated 21.09.2012, valid for a period of three years
Issues: weather the order passed is valid or not?
Reasoning: The Wakf Board is now conferred with the power to decide all questions
including the questions whether some persons are disqualified or not. By pointing out
documentary evidence, the appellants cannot invite a finding from this Court that they are
not guilty of any misapprehension and misfeasance.
Conclusion: petition dismissed

Case 5

Case Name: K. thaimanavar Vs. Govt of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Name of the Court: High court of Madras
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan
Case Citation:
Subject: Service
Facts: In pursuant to the Notification of the Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 21.1.2012
inviting applications for appointment of 185 posts of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State
Judicial Service to be made by direct recruitment, the petitioner herein had applied and
appeared for the written examination held on 24.3.2012 and 25.3.2012 at Coimbatore and
got through the examination. Subsequently, he was called for oral interview. As it
revealed from the results of interview held between 28.5.2012 and 8.6.2012 as well as
from the marks secured by the candidates, the petitioner was able to secure 20th rank. His
registration number is 12937. In the written examination, he had secured 236 marks,
whereas in viva-voce, he had secured 35 marks and in total, he had secured 271 marks.In
the interregnum, that on 30.7.2012 an unsigned complaint was received from the
members of Coimbatore Bar Association alleging that the petitioner had furnished a Bar
experience certificate obtained from the Coimbatore Bar Association. But during the
three years of practice, he had joined M.B.A. Regular Course in Anna University of
Technology, Coimbatore and had completed the course without obtaining suspension
certificate from the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Issues: weather the petitioner is entited for the post or not?

11 | P a g e
Reasoning: This exemption granted by Bar Council did not had over-riding effect on
selection criteria notified by Government - Moreover, Petitioner had no explanation for
suppression of information in his application submitted for selection held in earlier year
Conclusion: petition did not deserve any merit - Petition dismissed.

Case 6

Case Name: T. R. Nanniar and Ors vs Commissioner of customs, Tiruchirapalli

Name of the Court: Madras High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran
Case Citation:
Subject: Customs
Facts: The officers attached to the Customs Preventive Unit conducted a search on
16.6.1992 in the business premises of the assessee by name T.R. Nanniar (who is now no
more) and seized 6 silver ingots weighing 19.165 kilograms, on a reasonable believe that
the same was smuggled. A statement was recorded from T.R. Nanniar on 16.6.1992 under
section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, Nanniar retracted his statement on
19.6.1992. In the meantime, the silver bars were assayed and found to be of purity
ranging from 99.42 to 99.51. A show cause notice was issued on 10.12.1992 proposing
confiscation and imposition of penalty. After a reply was sent, an order in original dated
4.8.1993 was passed confiscating the silver bars and imposing a penalty. The said order
was confirmed by the Commissioner on 23.12.1993.
Issues:
1) Whether the Tribunal erred in relying upon the statement of one Sundaram when the
said statement was not made available to the appellants either through the show cause
notice or during the proceedings before the learned Collector?
2) Whether the decision of the Tribunal that because no cross-examination was asked for,
therefore, the non-supply of the said statement of Sundaram to the appellants during the
course of proceedings before the learned Collector does not violate the principles of
natural justice is correct in law?
Reasoning: He has pleaded that purity alone could not be a factor for confiscation of the
silver. In the alternative, he has pleaded for release of the silver on payment of
redemption fine. The seizure took place about 24 years ago. The reference itself was of
the year 2000.
Today, even if we uphold the contention that Sundaram ought to have been produced for
cross-examination, we may have to remit the matter back, but, it is impossible to produce
Sundaram for cross-examination.

12 | P a g e
Conclusion: Therefore, taking into account the developments and also taking into
account the admission made by Nanniar, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal
did not commit any mistake in relying upon the statement. Therefore, the questions of law
are answered against the applicants and in favour of the Department

Case 7

Case Name: A. V. Thomas Leather and Allied Products Private Limited Vs The
Assistant Commissioner
Name of the Court: Madras High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan
Case Citation: W.A. Nos. 1281 to 1287 of 2015
Subject: Sales Tax/VAT
Facts: The appellant is a manufacturer of finished leather, leather products and shoes. In
the course of business, the appellant effected local and inter-State purchases of raw
materials and other materials for use in the manufacture of finished product. They also
purchased tools and accessories for use in repairing the machineries available in the
factory. Naturally they also purchased packing materials for use. On the basis of an
inspection carried out by the enforcement wing officials of the Department of
Commercial Taxes, on 4.12.2013, the assessing officer issued seven notices, all dated
18.7.2014, for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-
13 & 2013-14, holding that the appellant purchased packing materials, tools & spares etc.,
from inter-State dealers, without those articles being included in the certificate of
registration. However, the appellant issued 'C' forms to the sellers, enabling them to avail
the concessional rate of tax. The appellant submitted separate replies in respect of each
assessment year on 6.8.2014, contending that insofar as the exports are concerned, they
made purchases against the issue of Form-H and that insofar as the other items are
concerned, such as packing materials, they were included in the certificate of registration.
However, rejecting the reply made by the appellant, the assessing officer passed separate
orders, all dated 26.3.2015, confirming the proposals for the levy of penalty under Section
10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
Issues:
(i) that the exports were covered by Form-H and
(ii) The purchase of packing materials, tools, spares etc., were covered by the
certificate of registration issued to them?

Reasoning: the learned Judge agreed with the contention of the appellant that the issue is
covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. The assessing officer, instead of
following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, has chosen to follow the decision

13 | P a g e
of the Guwahati High Court. It is a fundamental principle that the assessing officers are
bound by the rulings of the jurisdictional Courts. Since the assessing officer chose to
follow the decision of the Guwahati High Court, but chose to ignore the decision of the
Full Bench of this Court which is binding on her, this is a case which calls for
interference.Even the exports covered by Form-H, have not been taken note of by the
assessing officer. They are also packing materials, which were covered against Form-H.
Therefore we are of the considered view that the orders passed on 26.3.2015, are clearly
erroneous. It is not required of an appellate authority to find out that they are erroneous.

Conclusion: Therefore the writ appeals are allowed, the common order of the learned
Judge is set aside and the orders imposing penalty are also set aside

Case 8

Case Name: P. Sukanya Vs. Union of India and Ors

Name of the Court: Madras High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan
Case Citation: W.P. No. 12382 of 2015
Subject: Service
Facts: A Notification was issued by the Southern Railway, inviting applications from
candidates eligible for taking a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for
promotion to the Group B post of Assistant Personnel Officer. When the petitioner
applied, her application was rejected by an order dated 08.01.2015, on the short ground
that she had not completed three years of non-fortuitous service in the particular grade
pay, as per Rule 203.1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. It is seen from the
Rules extracted above that fundamentally, a person to be eligible for consideration for a
Group B post, should satisfy three criteria viz., (a) that he should be working in any one
of the Group C posts on a regular basis, (b)that he should be working in a grade the
minimum of which is Rs. 5,000/- in the revised scale and (c)that he should have rendered
not less than three years of non-fortuitous service in the grade.
Issues: Whether Petitioner's claim for allowing her to write examination for promotion
was rightly rejected?
Reasoning: Petitioner took ground that as per Rule lays down in Manual, she was entitled
to be considered in view of her juniors having been considered - Respondents was not
justified in contending that unless person belongs to same seniority unit, he was not
entitled to benefit of Rule - Admittedly, Rule enables all categories of employees to be
eligible for participation in process of selection - It did not make distinction between one
category and another - Therefore, Respondents could not deny benefit of said Rule to
Petitioner, if person established that many of his juniors had been permitted to write
exams
Conclusion: In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of
the Tribunal is set aside. We only hold that the petitioner is eligible to participate, as per
Rules 203.1 and 203.2, if any future selection takes place.

14 | P a g e
Case 9

Case Name: Grace C. naulak Vs. The Management of Air India Limited and Ors.
Name of the Court: Madras High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and P.R. Shivakumar
Case Citation: [12.02.2015 – MADHC]
Subject: Service
Facts: The appellant is a Senior Cabin Crew with the Air India Limited. She was placed
under suspension on 2.6.2014 and a charge sheet was issued on 11.7.2014. The gravamen
of the charge was that the appellant tested positive in the Alcoholic Breath Analyser Test,
during the pre-flight medical check-up. Where appellant made a representation through a
lawyer. Where it was rejected.

The Standing Order No. 32 reads as follows:-

An employee may be permitted, if he so desires, to have under his own arrangements, the
assistance of a "friend" during the course of the enquiry. Such a "friend" must be a
serving employee of the Corporation. No outside representation shall be permitted in any
circumstances."

Issues: Weather the lawyer representing her is valid or not?

Reasoning: In the case on hand, there is no denial of the fact that the Standing Order 32
though in the realm of a contract was binding on the appellant. There were no
circumstances for the exercise of any discretion for the respondent to grant permission to
the appellant to seek the assistance of a lawyer

Conclusion: The writ appeal is disposed of, confirming the order of the learned Judge,
but directing the enquiry officer to grant two weeks time to the appellant to engage the
services of a friend

Case 10

Case Name: Vijaya Mining & Infra Corporation Private Limited Vs The Commercial
Tax Officer-I, Kadapa and Ors
Name of the Court: Hyderbad High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

15 | P a g e
Case Citation: 2018 Indlaw HYD 41
Subject: TAX( VAT)
Facts: The petitioner is carrying on the business of execution of civil works contracts,
both within and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is registered as a
dealer in the office of the 1st respondent.
4. The petitioner filed monthly returns during the year 2012-13 and had reported
exempted purchases to the tune of Rs. 56,03,70,515/- and exempted sales to the tune of
Rs. 294,03,22,541/- in the returns filed in Form-200.
5. Pursuant to an audit conducted by the 2nd respondent and on the strength of the
authorization granted by the Joint Commissioner, Enforcement, a notice dated 13.11.2014
was issued in Form VAT-305A proposing to assess the petitioner and levy tax to the tune
of Rs. 9,58,20,937/-. Out of the proposed tax, the 2nd Respondent treated an amount of
Rs. 5,12,88,948/- as liability under Section 4(8), treating the works contract receipts, as
receipts towards hire charges for transfer of right to use goods in respect of the works
executed for two companies by name AMR Constructions and Sushee Infratech Private
Limited. The balance amount of Rs. 4,45,31,989/- was treated as liability under Section
4(7) not covered by documentary evidence.
In response to the notice, the petitioner filed detailed objections on 16.01.2015. Apart
from raising issues on merits, the petitioner also contended that the works pertaining to
other States are not liable to tax in Andhra Pradesh and requested the 2nd respondent to
grant time to produce relevant agreement copies.
But the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 04.02.2015 confirming the levy and raising
a demand for Rs. 9,58,20,937/-.
Pursuant to the assessment order, a notice dated 21.02.2015 was also issued in Form
VAT-203A, proposing to levy penalty under Section 53(1) (ii) of the A.P VAT Act, 2005.
The petitioner filed objections on 14.05.2015, but the proposal was confirmed by order
dated 12.08.2015.
In the meantime, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 04.04.2015 before the 3rd
respondent, as against the order of assessment dated 04.02.2015. But the appeal was not
accompanied by a deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner claims that they
were unable to make the deposit due to financial crisis. Therefore, the appeal was rejected
by an order dated 07.10.2015, on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Ankamma
Trading Company v. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur (2011) 53
APSTJ 1.
Thereafter, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the
original order of assessment dated 04.02.2015 and the order of rejection of the appeal
dated 07.10.2015, on the short ground that the judgment of this Court in Ankamma
Trading Company has already been suspended by the Supreme Court on a Special Leave
Petition
Issues: (a) that the original order of assessment was without jurisdiction, as it included
the turnover relating to works executed in other States; and (b) that in any case, the
decision of this Court in Ankamma Trading Company has been suspended by the
Supreme Court.
Reasoning:  Date on which show cause notice was received by petitioner is not known.
However, dealer was issued VAT 310 calling upon them to furnish pending agreement
copies. Petitioner sought time of one month. Though time was granted, they failed to

16 | P a g e
submit pending agreement copies. It was only thereafter that show cause notice was
issued. After petitioner submitted their objections, personal hearing was held. It is only
thereafter that impugned order of assessment was passed. From date of service of VAT-
310, petitioner had about three months time to collect records. Therefore, failure to grant
time to produce records tantamounted to violation of principles of natural justice cannot
be agreed. Therefore, this is not case where Court would have entertained writ petition as
against original order of assessment, even if petitioner had come up before filing of
statutory appeal
Conclusion: Petition dismissed.

Case 11

Case Name: Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Name of the Court: Hyderabad High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Case Citation: 2017 Indlaw HYD 496
Subject: Indirect Tax
Facts: The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of various stainless steel items, such
as S.S. Wire, S.S. Flat, S.S. Wire Rod, S.S. Angle etc., classifiable under Ch. 72 of the
Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Search operations were conducted at the
factory premises of the petitioner, the residential premises of its Directors and other
related premises, on 24-6-2009, on the ground that the officers of the Directorate of
Central Excise Intelligence had specific information that the petitioner was irregularly
availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on certain goods claiming them as inputs without
actually using the same in or in relation to the manufacture of their dutiable finished
goods.

After the search and after recording the statements of a few persons including a
consultant of the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued on 1-3-2012, calling upon the
petitioner to show cause as to why CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 4,50,52,629, for the
period from 01-02-2007 to 02-10-2011 should not be demanded and recovered under
Section 11A(1). This show-cause notice resulted in an ex parte Order-in-Original being
passed on 20-5-2013.

As against the Order-in-Original dated 20-5-2013, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
CESTAT. The CESTAT allowed the appeal by an order dated 08-9-2014 and remanded
the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority.

In the de novo proceedings, held on 20-10-2015, the authorised representative of the

petitioner seems to have requested for cross-examination of some persons. The petitioner

17 | P a g e
also requested permission to inspect the documents.But the request was rejected and
hence the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, a personal hearing
took place on 18-3-2016. It appears that the petitioner reiterated their demand for cross-
examination. However, by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 31-3-2016,
which was later modified by a corrigendum dated 24-8-2016, the 3rd respondent
confirmed the demand. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with
the above writ petition.

Admittedly, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal as against the
impugned order.

Issues:

1. That there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the
request of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were
relied upon, was turned down arbitrarily and

2. That the rejection of the request for cross-examination was also contrary to the
order of remand passed by the CESTAT, on 08-9-2014.

Reasoning: The right to cross-examine is not absolute at least insofar as the cases of this
nature are concerned. If there are factual grounds to show that the denial of cross-
examination was based upon the sound logic, then the order of adjudication cannot be
interfered with. Therefore, the Court is not convinced that the impugned order could be
set aside solely on the ground of denial of permission to cross-examine the witnesses. In
view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the
petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. The
order impugned in the writ petition was passed on 18-3-2016 and a corrigendum was
issued on 24-8-2016. The petitioner field the above writ petition on 24-11-2016.
Therefore, if the petitioner files an appeal as against the impugned orders, the period from
24-11-2016 up to the date of issue of the copy of this order shall be excluded for
computing either the period of limitation or the period of delay.

Conclusion: The Registry shall return the original impugned order to enable the
petitioner to file an appeal. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.

Case 12

Case Name: Asst. Commissioner Vs. C. Bhaskar Reddy

Name of the Court: Hyderbad high court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and G. Shyam Prasad
Case Citation: Writ Petition No. 13295 of 2013
Subject: Service

18 | P a g e
Facts: The respondent was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in Physics on 07-12-
1988. On 26-06-1999 and 29-04-2000, the respondent submitted an application for
sanction of education leave to pursue a four year Ph.D. programme, with effect from 01-
05-2000. The petitioners agreed to grant leave on condition that the pursuit of Ph.D.
should not come in the way of the discharge of his duties as a teacher. However, the
respondent wanted leave on loss of pay, since there was no question of pursuing a Ph.D.,
in a manner not detrimental to the discharge of the official duties. Therefore, the
application for leave was rejected on 25-09-2000 and the respondent rejoined duty on 26-
09-2000. It appears that the respondent went on medical leave from 17-10-2000. During
this period, he was transferred to West Bengal on 13-11-2000. Since the respondent did
not join the transferred place, a show cause notice dated 17-01-2001 was issued under
Article 81 (d) (3) of the Education Code. Though the petitioner submitted a reply on 01-
02-2001, the petitioners ordered termination of the services of the respondent, by an order
dated 19-03-2001.
Issues: Weather the termination is valid or not?
Reasoning: A perusal of the order of termination dated 19-03-2001 shows that the
respondent has suffered some injustice. But unfortunately, he agreed to go under the
Amnesty Scheme, at least after the order of the Tribunal, without questioning the
correctness of the order of termination. Therefore, when we apply the parameters for
testing the correctness of the orders of the petitioners refusing to extend the Amnesty
Scheme, the case on hand would not fall within any of the mischiefs that would entitle the
Tribunal to interfere.
Conclusion: Writ petition was allowed and the order of the tribunal was set aside.

Case 13

Case Name: S.V.R. Nagesh Vs. The high Court of A.P. and Ors.

Name of the Court: Hyderbad High Court

Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and K. Vijaya Lakshmi,

Case Citation: Writ Petition No. 2388 of 2010

Subject: Service
Facts: The petitioner was initially appointed as an Examiner in the year 1993 and was
promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1998. When he was working as Junior Assistant
in the First Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Bhimavaram, he was issued with a
show cause notice dated 16-9-2008, alleging that he had created four fake orders by
forging the initials of the Presiding Officer, on the withdrawal petitions arising under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The incident referred to in the show cause notice allegedly
happened when the petitioner was working in Eluru. Not satisfied with the explanation
given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, a charge memo dated 04-10-2008 was
issued under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and

19 | P a g e
Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo on 23-10-
2008. But an enquiry followed and the petitioner made a request to permit him to engage
an Advocate to defend himself and also to permit him to peruse the records. While
rejecting his request for permission to engage a counsel, the petitioner was permitted to
take the assistance of any Government servant and he was also directed to approach the
First Additional District Judge for permission to scrutinise the records. Penality being
removal of service by compulsory retirement.
Issues: Removal of service by compulsory retirement valid or not?
Reasoning: any and every violation of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating
such facet may not make the final orders altogether void. Hence, we find no reason to
interfere with the impugned orders. As a matter of fact, the Appellate Authority has been
kind enough to modify the order of removal from service into one of compulsory
retirement. The petitioner was appointed in 1993 and the order of removal from service
was passed on 17-01-2009.
Conclusion: this is not a case where our interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is warranted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed

Case 14

Case Name: T. Gnanasambanthan vs. The Board of Governors and Ors.

Name of the Court: High Court of Madras.
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian,
Case Citation: W.P. No. 18450 of 2010
Subject: Service
Facts: the petitioner made a representation to the Board of Governors of the Technical
Teachers Training Institute, in November 2000, requesting them to re-designate his post
as "Professor of Computer Centre". The petitioner need not have made such a request at
all, as he was not only paid salary in the category of Professor, but was also granted the
benefit of availing vacations every year. He was treated on par with other Professors and
there was no occasion for him to make a request for re-designation.

In a meeting held on 25.11.2000, the Board of Governors of the Institute rejected the
request of the petitioner, along with the request of another person by name S. Dhanapal,
who was working as Senior System Analyst, for changing his designation as Assistant
Professor. an office order was passed on 05.5.2010, purportedly on the basis of audit
objections, indicating that the pay of the petitioner should have been fixed only at Rs.
38,830, instead of Rs. 47,440 in the pay band of Rs. 37400-67000. Consequently, by the
same office order, a direction was issued to re-fix the pay and recover the excess
payment. the respondents stopped payment of salary from the month of May 2012
onwards. Therefore, when salary was not paid for the months of May, June, July and
August 2012. In meantime he Director issued another memorandum dated 08.8.2013,

20 | P a g e
informing the petitioner that he would retire on superannuation on 30.9.2013, as he was
not holding a teaching post.

Issues: Is he entitled to change his designation and cancelation of retirement?

Reasoning: the petitioner has been guiding Ph.D., students, as indicated in the
proceedings dated 15.6.2010. These proceedings issued in the name of the Director show
the date of retirement of the petitioner only as 16.9.2018. If the petitioner is retired now,
the number of candidates currently undergoing Ph.D., Programme, will be put to
irreparable loss and hardship

Conclusion: On the contrary, if an interim order is not granted, but the petitioner
succeeds in the writ petition, he can always be compensated even with full pay and
allowances..Director, from out of his personal funds, shall pay costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the
writ petitioner.

Case 15

Case Name: Non-Conventional Energy Dev. Corp. and Ors. vs. P.M. Ravikumar
Name of the Court: Hyderbad High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and A. Shankar Narayana
Case Citation: Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2016

Subject: Labour and Industrial

Facts: Respondent was first appointed as a Technician in a public limited Company, by
name, Agro Pump sets & Implements Limited, on 13.04.1983 and his services were
regularized with effect from 15.05.1985. The Management of the said Company was
taken over by a State-owned Corporation known as Non-Conventional Energy
Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh, coming under the control of the
Department of Energy. The name of the Corporation subsequently changed.

On 28.09.1992, the respondent applied for casual leave for a period of three days, on the
ground that he had pain in the knee. Upon the expiry of the period of three days, for
which he applied for casual leave, the respondent made a request for extension of leave
by six months from 01.10.1992. The leave application was neither sanctioned nor
rejected, as a consequence of which, the respondent did not attend the office, for a full
duration of the calendar year 1993.

On 19.01.1994, the respondent submitted an application for sending him on medical

invalidation. Unfortunately for the Management, they did not consider the application for

21 | P a g e
medical invalidation favourably, but chose to issue a notice dated 29.03.1994 for his
dismissal from service. It went on till 2016

Issues: Is he entitled for back wage?

Reasoning: In other words, the period of non-employment of the respondent is actually

twice to that of the period of employment. In such circumstances, the award of full
backwages from 1994 onwards up to 2016 may not be in public interest, since the
appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking wholly owned by the Government. The second is
that in all cases where the Supreme Court had confirmed the award of full backwages, the
litigation arose from the awards of Labour Courts. The standard principle that the
Supreme Court has applied in all those cases, is that when the Labour Court or the
Industrial Tribunal had exercised its special jurisdiction under Section 11-A, it would not
be open to the superior Courts to reduce the quantum of backwages.

Conclusion: confirming the order of the learned Judge in so far as setting aside the order
of penalty is concerned, but modifying the same to the extent that the respondent would
be entitled to 50% of the backwages with all other attendant benefits. The appellants shall
calculate all the benefits payable, as a result of this order, and disburse the same to the
respondent, within a period of two (2) months.

Case 17

Case Name: Toleti Rama Mangayya Naidu and Ors. vs. The High Court of Judicature
and Ors.
Name of the Court: Hyderbad High Court
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi
Case Citation: 24.03.2017 - HYHC
Subject: Service
Facts: Aggrieved by the cancellation of a selection made to 69 posts of Office
Subordinates (Attenders) in the unit of the District Judge, West Godavari District at
Eluru, the petitioners, who were successful in the selection, have come up with the above
writ petitions. Heard M/s. K. Satyanarayana Murthy and Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Posani Venkateswarlu, learned standing counsel
appearing for the High Court. By a notification dated 01-05-2015, the Principal District
Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru invited applications from eligible candidates for
selection to the 69 posts of Office Subordinates (Attenders) in his Unit. The selection was
to be based only upon oral interview, as per the clauses contained in the notification. It
appears that about 14,959 candidates applied, out of whom the applications of about
13,740 candidates were accepted. When all of them were invited for oral interview,
10,727 candidates appeared. After conclusion of the interviews, the Principal District
Judge, prepared a merit list in the ratio of 1:3. The said list, along with a consolidated

22 | P a g e
merit list of 207 candidates in the descending order of merit was sent to the High Court.
By the proceedings dated 07-12-2015, the Registrar (Recruitment) communicated to the
Principal District Judge, the approval of the High Court for the appointment of 69
candidates from out of the said list and the District Judge was also directed to issue
appointment orders to all the candidates. However, before the issue of actual appointment
orders, the High Court took a decision to direct the cancellation of the selection.
Accordingly, the Principal District Judge issued a cancellation notification dated 04-08-
2016.
Issues: Is the cancellation order valid?
Reasoning: The only method of selection was by oral interview. Though the post for
which recruitment was sought to be made was only the post of Office Subordinate, the
attempt to shortlist candidates only on the basis of oral interview, can sometimes come
under the cloud of suspicion. The selection of 69 candidates from out 13,000 candidates
only on the basis of performance in oral interview, may not really be considered to be the
best method of selection. Therefore, if a policy decision had been taken by the Court to
cancel the selection so that a scientific method of selection could be evolved, the same
cannot be said to be arbitrary. More over as rightly pointed out by the respondents, a mere
inclusion in the select list does not confer any right upon a candidate to seek appointment.
Conclusion: writ petitions are dismissed.

Case 18

Case Name: K. Kathiresan vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.
Name of the Court: High Court of Madras
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and P.R. Shivakumar
Case Citation: (16.02.2015 - MADHC)
Subject: service
Facts: The petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 28.2.2009, by the Chief General
Manager, in terms of Rule 36 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006.
An enquiry followed, which ultimately resulted in a penalty of compulsory retirement by
proceedings dated 18.1.2011 imposed by the Chief General Manager.
Issues: Weather maneger is competent to impose or initiate a major penality of
compulsory retirement upon him?
Reasoning: As per the above rule, even an Authority competent to impose minor
penalties, can initiate major penalty proceedings. However, if such an authority does so, it
should be forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority, as can be found in the detailed
procedure laid down in Sub-Rule (19) of Rule 36. Sub-Rule (19) of Rule 36 reads as
follows: "(19)(a). Where a Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the
penalties specified in Clause (a) to (e) of Rule 33 (but not competent to impose any of the
penalties specified in Clause (f) to (j) of Rule 33), has itself inquired into or caused to be
inquired into the articles of any charge and that authority, having regard to its own

23 | P a g e
findings or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any Inquiring Authority
appointed by it, is of the opinion that penalties specified in Clause (f) to (j) of Rule 33
should be imposed on the employee, that authority shall forward the records of the
inquiry to such Disciplinary Authority as is competent to impose the last mentioned
penalties. The Disciplinary Authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on
the evidence on the record or may, if it is of the opinion that further examination of any of
the witnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witness and examine, cross-
examine and re-examine the witness and may impose on the employee such penalty as it
may deem fit in accordance with these rules." It is clear that the competence of the Chief
General Manager to initiate departmental enquiry even for the imposition of major
penalties, cannot be questioned.
Conclusion: the writ petition is dismissed

Case 19

Case Name: Sheer Gold Private Limited and Ors. vs. The Commissioner of Customs
(Air) and Ors.
Name of the Court: High Court of Madras
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran
Case Citation: Writ Appeal Nos. 1709, 1710 of 2015
Subject: Customs
Facts: appellants are said to have imported gold jewellery from Thailand by availing the
benefit of exemption under Customs Notification. On the basis of intelligence, the
officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted a search in the premises of
the appellants and issued show cause notice dated 21.12.2012 under section 124 of the
Customs Act, 1962. In the show cause notice, the second respondent herein claimed that
the certificates produced by the appellants, from the parties in Thailand which allegedly
sold the gold jewellery to them, were referred to Government of Thailand for verification.
Therefore, the appellants sought copies of those documents. However, by letter dated
13.11.2013, the adjudicating officer claimed that those documents are not sought to be
relied upon in the adjudication proceedings.
Issues: Denial of copies of those documents is valid or not?
Reasoning: It is true that the show cause notice made a mention about certain documents,
but, by the orders impugned in the writ petitions, the Department has taken a stand that
those documents are not relied upon. Once the Department takes a stand that they are not
relying upon certain documents mentioned in the show cause notice, there is no way the
appellants could compel the Department to furnish copies of such documents before
adjudication. If at all the Department relies upon any document that they do not furnish to
appellant, the appellant can always challenge the order in original passed thereafter, on

24 | P a g e
the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But, at the stage of adjudication
proceedings, the appellant cannot forestall the enquiry
Conclusion: the writ appeals are dismissed. It is open to the appellant to raise all those
points before the adjudicating officer.

Case 20

Case Name: King Overseas vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)
Name of the Court: High Court of Madras
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and T. Mathivanan,
Case Citation: Writ Appeal No. 1331 of 2015
Subject: Customd
Facts: appellant filed a refund claim for a sum of Rs. 8,64,044.30 Ps, being the amount
paid against 4% additional duty of customs levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975, for the import of reprocessed LLDPE granules vide 11 Bills of Entry.
The refund was claimed in terms of Notification dated 14.9.2007 as amended by
Notification dated 1.8.2008 read with Board's circular Nos. 6/2008-Customs dated
28.4.2008 and 16/2008-Customs dated 13.10.2008. The application for refund was made
on 4.5.2012. Though Circular dated 13.10.2008 obliges the jurisdictional commissioners
to process the applications for refund within a period of three months and though the
Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations 1995 also oblige the proper officer to
return the application, if there are any defects, within 10 working days of receipt, the
respondent sent a notice after nearly two years only on 18.2.2014 pointing out only one
defect in the application made by the appellant. The only defect pointed out in the notice
dated 18.2.2014 (sent after 21 months of filing of the refund claim) is as follows :
"Certificate from statutory auditor/ Chartered Accountant, correlating the payment of
ST/VAT on the imported goods (in respect of which refund is claimed) with the invoice
of sale. By the said notice, the respondent called upon the appellant to appear before the
proper officer on 24th, 25th and 26th of February 2014 along with the documents
indicated in the notice, which we have extracted above. But unfortunately, the notice
dated 18.2.2014 sent from Chennai was received by the appellant in their office at New
Delhi, on 24.2.2014, the date on which, the appellant was supposed to appear and produce
the documents. Therefore, the appellant could not comply with the demand.
Issues: Weather the respondents are entitled to send another copy after 21 month?
Reasoning: By sending a notice on 18.2.2014 from Chennai to an assessee in New Delhi
asking them to appear for a personal hearing on the 24th, 25th and 26th February 2014,
the respondent cannot claim to have fulfilled the requirements of the Notification, the
Regulations and the Circular. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant received
the deficiency memo only on 24.2.2014. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot be
said to have complied with the statutory requirements, while rejecting the application for
refund and this is a case where there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural
justice warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, despite the availability of an
alternative remedy
25 | P a g e
Conclusion: Appeal allowed

Case 21

Case Name: Venkateswara Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Name of the Court: High Court Of Hyderbad
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi
Case Citation: Writ Petition Nos. 15888
Subject: Sales Tax/Vat
Facts: On 02.07.2015 an audit of the firm of the petitioner/dealer was conducted by the
Assistant Commissioner (CT). Though in the course of audit, it was found that what was
reflected in the books of accounts tallied with what was indicated in the returns, for the
periods 2014-15 and 2015-16, both in relation to purchase and in relation to sales, the
audit found that the petitioner was storing their goods in the A.P. State Warehousing
Corporation go down. Therefore, presuming that the stock stored in the said go down, had
not been included in the purchase or sales, a show cause notice dated 24.09.2015 was
issued. Though, the petitioner filed their objections and appeared in person and contended
that the stock held in the go down of the Warehousing Corporation was a tax paid stock
already included in the turn over, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and passed an
order dated 31.12.2015 demanding tax to the tune of Rs. 1,40,760/-. Subsequently, the
Assessing Officer also issued a notice for imposition of penalty under Section 53(3) of
the Act and passed an order dated 15.03.2016 demanding a penalty to the tune of 100% of
the tax.
Issues: Is the petitioner entitled to pay tax on the goods?
Reasoning: The petitioner should either be guilty of fraud or guilty of willful neglect. In
the case on hand, storage of goods of the petitioner was with a State owned Warehousing
Corporation. It is not with any private go down, which could not come to light to the
competent authorities. The positive claim of the petitioner is that the stock register
maintained by the Warehousing Corporation, contained the details of the stock.
Therefore, merely because the petitioner has not properly maintained the stock register,
the same cannot lead to a presumption that the turnover was not included.
Conclusion: Penalty is set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Case 22

Case Name: T.R. Nanniar and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tiruchirapalli
Name of the Court: High Court of Madras.

26 | P a g e
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran
Case Citation: R.C. No. 5 of 2000
Subject: Customs
Facts: The officers attached to the Customs Preventive Unit conducted a search on
16.6.1992 in the business premises of the assessee by name T.R. Nanniar (who is now no
more) and seized 6 silver ingots weighing 19.165 kilograms, on a reasonable believe that
the same was smuggled. A statement was recorded from T.R. Nanniar on 16.6.1992 under
section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, Nanniar retracted his statement on
19.6.1992. In the meantime, the silver bars were assayed and found to be of purity
ranging from 99.42 to 99.51. A show cause notice was issued on 10.12.1992 proposing
confiscation and imposition of penalty. After a reply was sent, an order in original dated
4.8.1993 was passed confiscating the silver bars and imposing a penalty. The said order
was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 23.12.1993. However, on an appeal
made by the party, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal passed an
order dated 4.11.1997, modifying the order of confiscation and allowing redemption of
the silver bars upon payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/-. Penalty was also sustained.
Issues: Weather the seizure is valid or not?
Reasoning: The seizure took place about 24 years ago. The reference itself was of the
year 2000. Today, even if we uphold the contention that Sundaram ought to have been
produced for cross-examination, we may have to remit the matter back, but, it is
impossible to produce Sundaram for cross-examination.
Conclusion: Therefore, the questions of law are answered against the applicants and in
favour of the Department.

Case 23

Case Name: Lakshmi Traders vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Name of the Court: High Court of Hyderbad
Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and T. Rajani
Case Citation: Writ Petition No. 30281 of 2017
Subject: Sales Tax/Vat
Facts: The first is that there seems to be a discrepancy between the VAT returns and the
CST forms, in respect of the turnover. The second is that the Officer, who issued the
notice, was different from the Officer, who has now passed the impugned order. Before
passing the impugned order, the present Officer has not issued a show-cause-notice
Issues: Weather the order passed is valid or not?
Reasoning: The Assessing Officer is granted liberty to issue a fresh notice. If the
petitioner fails to avail this opportunity as she had done in the past, she will not be

27 | P a g e
entitled to take a plea of violation of the principles of natural justice in the next round of
litigation.

Conclusion: The present Officer may issue the show-cause-notice, within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall file her objections,
within two weeks from the date of receipt of the show-cause-notice.

Case 24

Case Name: Float Glass Centre vs. Union of India and Ors.

Name of the Court: High court of Madras

Bench Composition: V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi

Case Citation: Writ Petition No. 15751 of 2014

Subject: Customs

Facts: The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading clear float glass in India, after
importing the same from Saudi Arabia on regular basis through Chennai Port. On a
complaint jointly filed by the respondents 3 to 5, who are the domestic manufacturers of
the product, the Designated Authority under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, initiated an
antidumping investigation on 11.4.2013. The period for completion of the investigation in
terms of Rule 17(1) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995,
expired on 10.4.2014. Despite the fact the Designated Authority sought extension of time
under the first proviso to Rule 17(1), the Central Government passed an order only on
12.5.2014 granting extension of time upto 10.7.2014. Since the investigation could not be
completed even within 10.7.2014, another order of extension was passed on 10.7.2014
granting time upto 10.10.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know about the
first extension granted on 12.5.2014, by a communication issued by the second
respondent on 5.6.2014. contending that no extension of time can be granted after the
expiry of the initial period, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

Issues: Can extension be granted after expiry period?

Reasoning: This test can be applied as a litmus test in the very case on hand. Section 9-
A(5) prescribes a period of five years as the period of validity of anti-dumping duty
imposed under this provision. The first proviso to Sub-section (5) which enables the
Central Government to extend the period of validity, makes it clear that such extension
would commence only from the date of the order of extension. If the expression

28 | P a g e
"extension" used in the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 9-A is to be given the
very same meaning as the petitioner wants me to give, there is no necessity for the
Parliament to state in the last line of the first proviso that "such further period shall
commence from the date of the order of such extension". If an extension, to be valid, has
to be ordered before the expiry of the original period, the commencement of the extended
period, will be the day following the date of expiry of the first period. Therefore, if the
word "extension" had been used in the provisos to Sub-section (5) of Section 9A, in the
sense as projected by the petitioner, the last line of the first proviso would become otiose.
The very fact that the last line of the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 9A speaks
about the date of commencement of the order of extension, shows that the Parliament
understood and used the expression "extension", in a manner diametrically opposite to
what is pleaded before me by the petitioner

Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed.

OUT COME OF THE PROJECT:

The researcher observed the way Hon’ble. Justice V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN had decided
the cases related to civil law. Researcher had acquired knowledge about how the laws of
Services, tenancy, family, land acquisition and education.are interpreted according to facts
and circumstances of the case. The judge used literal, golden, strict and purposive rules of
approach in his various decisions. By analysing 24 cases, researcher is finally of an opinion
that there isn’t a method followed by the judges while interpreting cases of a particular
subject matter. Each case is interpreted by considering its facts and circumstances and
decided accordingly. 

29 | P a g e