As it is well known that the income tax department has allowed Aadhaar card holders to use the biometric id number in lieu of the Permanent Account Number (PAN). But as per new provision of Income Tax, fine of Rs. 10,000 may be levied in case of wrong Aadhar Number. As per the latest amendments in the Finance Bill 2019, not only allowed people to use Aadhaar in lieu of PAN but also introduced a penalty for giving a false Aadhaar number. However, the new penalty rules are applicable only in cases where you are using Aadhaar in lieu of PAN and where quoting PAN is mandatory according to the income tax department rules. It is well known that although Aadhaar is issued by the Unique Identity Authority of India, yet the fine is not imposed by UIDAI but by the income tax department. Under Section 272B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the department can impose a penalty in case of default in complying with provisions relating to PAN, i.e., failure to obtain, quote, or authenticate PAN. ...
An Army engineer, who succeeded in nixing
his first transfer in 2011 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal
(CAT), failed to earn similar relief a second time with the CAT as well as the
Madras high court saying there was no scope for interference in routine
transfers.
"A government servant
holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a
particular place," a
division bench of the court comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice TS
Sivagnanam said last week.
The judges were passing orders on a
petition filed by PR Anand Kumar, who entered the Military Engineering Services
as surveyor assistant in 1985. Later, the post was re-designated as junior
engineer. On November 8, 2011, Anand was transferred from Chennai to
Visakhapatnam. When his request to be retained in Chennai was rejected, he
approached the CAT. Citing paragraph 36(b)(c) of the transfer guidelines, the
CAT said he ought not to have been transferred in the middle of an academic
year. It asked the authorities to pass fresh orders if necessary.
After withdrawing the earlier order, the
authorities then transferred Anand to Hyderabad by an order dated February 10,
2012. He again rushed to CAT, which dismissed his application this time. He
then moved the high court.
Rejecting his petition, the judges said: "The scope of judicial review of orders of transfer
is well settled. The high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226, is not expected to go into the question as to whether the transfer
was for public service, as it would essentially require factual adjudication
and depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."
"Therefore, unless an
order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to
be in violation of statutory provisions, the courts or the tribunals normally
cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine," they said.
Though the guidelines deal
with time of transfer and state that care will be taken to avoid transfers
during the middle of the academic year, exceptions are available to meet
requirements, the judges said.
Transfers on administrative grounds may be ordered giving the employee less
time, they said.
"There is no challenge to the order of
transfer on the ground of any malafide exercise of power or that the order of
transfer was passed by an incompetent authority or it violated any statutory
rule," they said of Kumar's case.
Source: Times of India
Comments
Post a Comment