Telangana State lower courts come to a standstill

The boycott of courts by the Telangana State lawyers has completed a week now. The boycott was total and successful, claimed a functionary of the Joint Action Committee. The future course of action appears to be to intensify the agitation. The ongoing agitation has the support of the court
employees also.

The ostensible reason that prompted the lawyers to boycott courts is the allocation of judges of Andhra Pradesh origin to various courts in Telangana State. Besides, other administrative reasons too, have been cited by the agitating lawyers.

Without going into the merits of the reasons for the mass boycott of legal work by the lawyers, one thing is crystal clear that in the result it is the client, the litigant, who suffers.

Higher courts time and again have decried the tendency of the lawyers’ bodies giving the call for boycott or striking the work, but of no avail.

When the courts are regarded as the temples of justice, it is the pious duty of everyone concerned to maintain their sanctity and decorum.

The judges are looked upon by public as the demy-gods and lawyers as the angels. Therefore, it is the Constitutional and moral duty not only of lawyers but also of the State to see that there is no erosion of dignity and virtue of this highly privileged segment.

True, due to the bifurcation of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh like respective governments of two States, judiciary too, has been struggling to sort out certain irritants in order to create a long-lasting mechanism.

This can best be achieved by adopting the give and take policy and mutual trust. The past skirmishes have undoubtedly left scars which are bound to take sometime to vanish.

Therefore, it is high time that the issues on hand and others likely to emerge subsequently are tickled in the right earnest, so that the people at large do not suffer due to the avoidable bickering between the stakeholders in the judiciary.Too lenient view not good: SC
The apex court has ruled that in a given case it is not proper to take a too lenient view of the matter.

In a judgement delivered recently concerning Nirmal Das v.

State of Punjab, Crl. Appeal No. 531 of 2016, the division bench comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan said: “We, however, cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel that the sentence of the appellant should be reduced to that of actually undergone as against his total sentence of two years.

In our view, it would be too lenient in the facts of the case.” The court modified the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000. In default, the appellant would serve imprisonment of three months more.

In short, the facts of the case were: the appellant, a 75-year- old man was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment along with two others (since died) for the alleged offences of forgery, using the forged document as genuine, conspiracy, etc. The sole surviving appellant had approached the apex court with the solitary plea of leniency.

Income declaration scheme
The Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 incorporated as Chapter IX of the Finance Act, 2016 has now become available to all persons who have not declared their income correctly in earlier years. Under the Scheme, such income as declared by the eligible persons would be taxed at the rate of 30 per cent plus a “Krishi Kalyan Cess” of 25 on the taxes payable and a penalty at the rate of 25 per cent of the taxes payable, thereby totalling to 45 per cent of the income declared.

The scheme shall apply to undisclosed income whether in form of investment in assets or otherwise, pertaining to Financial Year 2015-16 or earlier.

Further, where the declaration is in the form of investment in assets, the Fair Market Value of such asset as on June 1, 2016 shall be deemed to be the undisclosed income. However, foreign assets or income to which Black Money Act, 2015 applies are not eligible for declaration under this scheme.

The scheme also makes it clear that the assets specified in the declaration shall be exempt from Wealth Tax and there shall be no scrutiny and enquiry under the Income Tax Act or Wealth Tax Act.

The scheme further grants immunity from prosecution under these Acts and also from the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 subject to transfer of asset to actual owner within the period specified in the Rules.
The schemes make it clear that non-payment of total taxes, surcharge and penalty in time or declaration by misrepresentation or suppression of facts shall render the declaration void.

Further, the circumstances in which the Scheme shall not apply or where a person is held to be ineligible are specified in section 196 (Chapter IX) of the Finance Act, 2016.

Non-declaration of undisclosed income under the Scheme will render such undisclosed income liable to tax in the previous year in which it is detected by the Income Tax Department. Besides, other penal consequences will also follow.

The Scheme shall remain in force for a period of four months from June 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 for filing of declarations. The payments towards taxes, surcharge and penalty must be made latest by November 30, 2016.
Indeed, this is a golden opportunity for the holders of undeclared income to clear off their tax-dues and buy peace of mind.

By:DR H C UPADHYAY