The woes of judiciary

IN the editorial “Judicious recommendations” (November 13) it has been rightly viewed that the recommendations of the first National Judicial Pay Commission, if accepted, will go a long way in enhancing the status of the judicial officers in the country, and the higher pay scales and perks will improve their financial condition.

The judiciary, which is most important organ of the government, is being neglected at the hands of the executive as well as the law-makers. The common man in the country has to face the high-handedness of the executive and the police. He pins his hopes ultimately on the judiciary.

The judiciary, responsible for giving justice to others, is being neglected and the time has come when the service conditions and the financial status of it are improved. This will encourage the judicial officers to discharge their duties very calmly.

The commission has ignored the heavy load of work being handled by judicial officers at the lower level. At present these officers are handling cases thrice in number than the prescribed load.

The two judicial courts at Ambala Cantt are handling 1,200 cases whereas they should have only 4000 cases to deal with. There is only one vacancy in the Supreme Court. The strength of the High Courts is also quite satisfactory. But it is very sad that no one cares for the lower courts.

Mr Ram Jethmalani, the Union Law Minister, should see to it that more judicial officers are appointed at the lower level to cope with the heavy load of work so that the much delayed justice is speedily given to the public in order to restore its confidence in the judicial system of the country. The litigant public has to wait for 15 years in a number of cases for getting a decision.

OM PARKASH MALIK
Ambala Cantt

Sales tax law

The Tribune dated 16-11-99 carried a letter, “Amended sales tax law in Punjab”, written by Mr Ajit Singh, AETC (retd), Chandigarh. He has suggested to the Government of Punjab the following two things:

(1) Withdrawal of the notification dispensing with the furnishing of declaration in From “C “ for purposes of deemed assessment.

(2) The exclusion of dealers showing a declined turnover for the purpose of deemed assessment.

The suggestions given are wholly wrong in view of the following facts:

(1)The Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of the Digvijay Cement Company vs The State of Rajasthan (1997), 106 STC 11 (SC), nowhere lays down that the state government does not have powers to dispense with the “C” form. The judgement says that the state government can dispense with the “C” form if it is in public interest, and public interest is to be seen not in respect of the state dispensing with the “C” form public interest will have to be interpreted in the context of the CST Act and Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution. Though an increase in revenue and its utilisation for the public of the state can generally be regarded in public interest, in the context in which it is required to be considered, that by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient if it has the effect of going against the policy enshrined in the CST Act and the objective of the constitutional provisions.

Dispensing the “C” form for the purpose of deemed assessment does not offend or go against the objective enshrined in Articles 301 to 304 or against the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act.

In the Digvijay case the Supreme Court held the dispensing of the “C” form void because these affected the free flow of trade secondly, the notification dispensing the “C” form had the effect of creating a preference for the cement manufactured and sold in a particular area.

To interpret the judgement of the Supreme Court in the way it is interpreted by Mr Ajit Singh is not right. If the interpretation given by the learned author is accepted, then Section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which gives power to state to dispense with the “C” form, will become redundant.

So the state government has the power to dispense with the “C” form provided it is in public interest. The notification with dispensing the “C” form for purposes of deemed assessment is absolutely legal.

(2) Now coming to the second point, there is no need to exclude dealers showing declined turnover. The object of deemed assessment is to clear the backlog of the pending cases upto the year 1994-95. Already there are many ifs &buts in the scheme. If such restriction as suggested is imposed it will create unnecessary hurdles for the Government as well as businessman. The person whose turnover has declined has rightly been entitled to the benefits of deemed assessment scheme and Government is not looser in this process. Rather Government is gainer if such cases remain covered under the deemed assessment scheme.

P.C. GARG
Chandigarh

* * * *

Debate over February

This refers to Mr R.N. Malik’s letter (“Computers and February”), published in The Tribune on November 17, in which he has mentioned that February, 2000, will have 30 days. However, according to my calculations, February, 2000, will have 29 days and not 30 days. The reason is that in the astronomical year, the time taken by the earth to complete its orbit around the sun is about 365.242 days, or, approximately 365.25 days.

To account for the odd quarter day, an extra calendar day is added every four years, as was first done in 46 BC, with the establishment of the Julian calendar. Over centuries the difference between the approximate value 0.25 day and the more accurate 0.242 day accumulates significantly. In the Gregorian calendar, now in general use, the discrepancy is adjusted by making some centennial years as common, and not leap years.

As per the Gregorian calendar, only those centennial years are leap years, with February having 29 days, which are divisible by 400. Thus the year 1600 had 29 days in February, but the years 1700, 1800 and1900, though divisible with 4, were non-leap years with February having 28 days. Similarly, the year 2000 would be a leap year with February having 29 days.

Very early in the Julian calendar February used to have 30 days in a leap year, and this remained in force for a short time resulting in the present confusion.

SANJAY KHURANA
Chandigarh