- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- The Complete Supreme Court Annual...
The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XIX]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
12 May 2024 10:00 AM IST
Sexual Harassment 'Aggrieved woman' not covering lgbtqia persons : Supreme Court refuses plea to make its sexual harassment regulations gender-neutral. Binu Tamta v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 969 In sexual harassment cases, Courts shouldn't get swayed by 'hyper technicalities; must consider broader context. Union of India v. Dilip Paul, 2023 LiveLaw...
Sexual Harassment
'Aggrieved woman' not covering lgbtqia persons : Supreme Court refuses plea to make its sexual harassment regulations gender-neutral. Binu Tamta v. High Court of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 969
In sexual harassment cases, Courts shouldn't get swayed by 'hyper technicalities; must consider broader context. Union of India v. Dilip Paul, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 959
States/UTs must notify 'district officers' under POSH Act: Supreme Court issues slew of directions. Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 910 : (2024) 1 SCC 779
Ensure ICCs are constituted under POSH Act : Supreme Court to all Govts, Statutory Professional Bodies, Universities etc. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
'Serious lapses in POSH Act enforcement': Supreme Court issues directions to strengthen law protecting women from Sexual Harassment at workplace. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 - Supreme Court issued directions for the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. (Para 22) Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 910 : (2024) 1 SCC 779
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Directions - To fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country, it is deemed appropriate to issue the following directions : (I) The Union of India, all State Governments and Union Territories are directed to undertake a timebound exercise to verify as to whether all the concerned Ministries, Departments, Government organizations, authorities, Public Sector Undertakings, institutions, bodies, etc. have constituted ICCs/LCs/ICs, as the case may be and that the composition of the said Committees are strictly in terms of the provisions of the PoSH Act. (ii) It shall be ensured that necessary information regarding the constitution and composition of the ICCs/LCs/ICs, details of the email IDs and contact numbers of the designated person(s), the procedure prescribed for submitting an online complaint, as also the relevant rules, regulations and internal policies are made readily available on the website of the concerned Authority/Functionary/Organisation/Institution/Body, as the case may be. The information furnished shall also be updated from time to time. (iii) A similar exercise shall be undertaken by all the Statutory bodies of professionals at the Apex level and the State level (including those regulating doctors, lawyers, architects, chartered accountants, cost accountants, engineers, bankers and other professionals), by Universities, colleges, Training Centres and educational institutions and by government and private hospitals/nursing homes. (iv) Immediate and effective steps shall be taken by the authorities/ managements/employers to familiarize members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs with their duties and the manner in which an inquiry ought to be conducted on receiving a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, from the point when the complaint is received, till the inquiry is finally concluded and the Report submitted. (v) The authorities/management/employers shall regularly conduct orientation programmes, workshops, seminars and awareness programmes to upskill members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs and to educate women employees and women's groups about the provisions of the Act, the Rules and relevant regulations. (vi) The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) shall develop modules to conduct workshops and organize awareness programmes to sensitize authorities / managements / employers, employees and adolescent groups with the provisions of the Act, which shall be included in their annual calendar. (vii) The National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies shall include in their annual calendars, orientation programmes, seminars and workshops for capacity building of members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs established in the High Courts and District Courts and for drafting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to conduct an inquiry under the Act and Rules. (viii) A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted to the Secretaries of all the Ministries, Government of India who shall ensure implementation of the directions by all the concerned Departments, Statutory Authorities, Institutions, Organisations etc. under the control of the respective Ministries. A copy of the judgment shall also be transmitted to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories who shall ensure strict compliance of these directions by all the concerned Departments. It 2 shall be the responsibility of the Secretaries of the Ministries, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of every State/Union Territory to ensure implementation of the directions issued. (ix) The Registry of the Supreme Court of India shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Director, National Judicial Academy, Member Secretary, NALSA, Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. The Registry shall also transmit a copy of this judgment to the Medical Council of India, Council of Architecture, Institute of Chartered Accountants, Institute of Company Secretaries and the Engineering Council of India for implementing the directions issued. (x) Member-Secretary, NALSA is requested to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretaries of all the State Legal Services Authorities. Similarly, the Registrar Generals of the State High Courts shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Directors of the State Judicial Academies and the Principal District Judges/District Judges of their respective States. (xi) The Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Apex Bodies mentioned in sub-para (ix) above, shall in turn, transmit a copy of this judgment to all the State Bar Councils and the State Level Councils, as the case may be. The Union of India and all States/UTs are directed to file their affidavits within eight weeks for reporting compliances. (Para 77) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Rule 14 - Non-framing of the articles of charge – Effect of - In the instant case, though the Committee appointed by the Disciplinary Authority did not hold an inquiry strictly in terms of the step-by-step procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, nonetheless, we have seen that it did furnish copies of all the complaints, the depositions of the complainants and the relevant material to the appellant, called upon him to give his reply in defence and directed him to furnish the list of witnesses that he proposed to rely on. Records also reveal that the appellant had furnished a detailed reply in defence. He had also submitted a list of witnesses and depositions. This goes to show that he was well-acquainted with the nature of allegations levelled against him and knew what he had to state in his defence. Given the above position, non-framing of the articles of charge cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the appellant. (Para 70) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Defects and the Procedural Lapses - In fact, the glaring defects and the procedural lapses in the inquiry proceedings took place only thereafter, in the month of May, 2009, when 12 hearings, most of them back-to-back, were conducted by the Committee at a lightning speed. On the one hand, the Committee kept on forwarding to the appellant, depositions of some more complainants received later on and those of other witnesses and called upon him to furnish his reply and on the other hand, it directed him to come prepared to cross-examine the said complainants and witnesses as also record his further deposition, all in a span of one week. Even if the medical grounds taken by the appellant seemed suspect, the Committee ought to have given him reasonable time to prepare his defence, more so when his request for being represented through a lawyer had already been declined. It was all this undue anxiety that had led to short circuiting the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Committee and damaging the very fairness of the process. (Para 71) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Fairness of the Process - the appellant 3 cannot be faulted for questioning the process and its outcome. There is no doubt that matters of this nature are sensitive and have to be handled with care. The respondents had received as many as seventeen complaints from students levelling serious allegations of sexual harassment against the appellant. But that would not be a ground to give a complete go by to the procedural fairness of the inquiry required to be conducted, more so when the inquiry could lead to imposition of major penalty proceedings. When the legitimacy of the decision taken is dependent on the fairness of the process and the process adopted itself became questionable, then the decision arrived at cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is wide open to interference. It is not without reason that it is said that a fair procedure alone can guarantee a fair outcome. In this case, the anxiety of the Committee of being fair to the victims of sexual harassment, has ended up causing them greater harm. (Para 72) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - the proceedings conducted by the Committee with effect from the month of May, 2009, fell short of the “as far as practicable” norm prescribed in the relevant Rules. The discretion vested in the Committee for conducting the inquiry has been exercised improperly, defying the principles of natural justice. As a consequence thereof, the impugned judgment upholding the decision taken by the EC of terminating the services of the appellant, duly endorsed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside with the following directions: (i) The matter is remanded back to the Complaints Committee to take up the inquiry proceeding as they stood on 5th May 2009. (ii) The Committee shall afford adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. (iii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment of the proceedings. (iv) A Report shall be submitted by the Committee to the Disciplinary Authority for appropriate orders. (v) Having regard to the long passage of time, the respondents are directed to complete the entire process within three months from the first date of hearing fixed by the Committee. (vi) The procedure to be followed by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. (vii) The Rules applied will be as were applicable at the relevant point of time. (viii)The decision taken by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be purely on merits and in accordance with law. (ix) The appellant will not be entitled to claim immediate reinstatement or back wages till the inquiry is completed and a decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority. (Para 73) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424 : AIR 2023 SC 2485 : (2023) 7 SCR 772 : (2024) 1 SCC 632
Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985
Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 - Rehabilitation scheme under Section 18 of the SICA, 1985 shall bind all the creditors including the unsecured creditors - Dues cannot be recovered post revival of sick company - Compelling unsecured creditors to accept the scaled down value of their dues would not be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the rehabilitation scheme is prepared under Section 18 of SICA, which has a binding effect on all the creditors. Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Continental Carbon India Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 208
SLP
After withdrawing SLP with liberty to file review in HC, is subsequent SLP against HC order maintainable? The Supreme Court refers to a larger bench. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 504
Slum Rehabilitation
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has to act in terms of its own policies without allowing private arrangements to prevail. Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1070
Supreme Court declines to interfere with Delhi HC Judgment that jhuggis outside recognized clusters are not entitled to rehabilitation. Manoj Kumar v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 555
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976; Section 2(2)(b) - Provisions of SAFEMA would apply to every person against whom an order of detention has been passed under COFEPOSA unless it comes under exception given in proviso to section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA. (Para 23) Thanesar Singh Sodhi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 980
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 - Object behind enacting the Act, 1976 is to provide for forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators, and at the same time to ensure effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulation - It is necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill-gotten gains. It also provides that such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth tax, income tax or other laws or by other means and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner and to nail such persons who are holding the properties acquired by them through such gains in the name of their relatives, associates and confidants. (Para 9) Platinum Theatre v. Competent Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 226 : AIR 2023 SC 1614
Social Media
'Substantial progress made to prevent circulation of child porn, rape videos on social media': Supreme Court closes PIL. In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604
Specific Performance
'Should not have waited for 13 years': Supreme Court dismisses specific performance suit filed in 1999 for sale agreement of 1986. Hazari Lal v. Ramesh Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 994
Limitation for specific performance Suit runs from the date when the plaintiff had notice of refusal when no date is fixed for performance. Sabbir v. Anjuman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933
Specific Performance of re-conveyance deed can't be sought when plaintiff denies defendant's title in property. Madhavan v. Kanakavally, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1030
Specific Performance Suit - When no time is fixed for performance, limitation runs from the period when plaintiff had notice of refusal. A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 : AIR 2023 SC 4375
Specific Relief Act - Action to cancel an instrument under Section 31 is not action in rem. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369 : AIR 2023 SC 2185
Party can't claim time is essence of contract when specific performance of terms not done. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327 : (2023) 3 SCR 802
Section 28 Specific Relief Act - Time to deposit balance sale consideration cannot be extended as a matter of course. P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151 : AIR 2023 SC 1224
Supreme Court bench delivers split verdict in civil appeal from specific performance suit. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31
Adverse inference cannot be drawn against a plaintiff merely because he did not produce his bank passbook. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : AIR 2023 SC 282 : (2023) 4 SCC 239
Specific Relief Act, 1963
Specific Relief Act 1963 - In sale of immovable property there is no presumption that time is the essence of the contract, however, the court may infer performance in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the surrounding circumstances. (Para 32) Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327 : (2023) 3 SCR 802
Specific Relief Act 1963 - When specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence does not arise - Time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfillment of obligations of another party. Gaddipati Divija v. Pathuri Samrajyam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327 : (2023) 3 SCR 802
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 31 - Action instituted under Section 31 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem. Asian Avenues Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Syed Shoukat Hussain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 369 : AIR 2023 SC 2185
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell -Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna delivers a split verdict on whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific relief. C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 31
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 16 - Unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the defendant or, the Court orders him to do so, no adverse inference can be drawn. Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : AIR 2023 SC 282 : (2023) 4 SCC 239
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 28 - The Court cannot as a matter of course, allow extension of time for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree - The Court has to see all the attendant circumstances including if the vendee has conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale-the power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and the Court has to pass an order as the justice may require. (Para 7) P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 151 : AIR 2023 SC 1224
Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017
Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 - the purpose of the Act was to extinguish the liabilities of the SBNs which have ceased to be legal tender with effect from 09.11.2016 - Section 4 is a complete code in itself - Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to provide grace period - under Section 4(2), RBI is required to satisfy whether a person seeking to take benefit of grace period is entitled after satisfying that the reasons for the delay are genuine - Section 4(2) cannot be read independently - if the Central Government finds that there exists any class of persons to whom benefit under Section 4 is to be extended it has the discretion to do so - RBI does not have independent power under Section 4(2) to accept the demonetised notes beyond the period specified in the notification. [Para 299, 302 - 303] Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCR 1
Stamps Act, 1899
Stamps Act, 1899; Proviso to Section 27 - Registration Authorities are empowered under the proviso to Section 27 of the Indian Stamps Act, as inserted by the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act, 1988, to inspect the property, which is the subject matter of the instrument, make necessary enquiries and satisfy itself that the provisions of Section 27, which requires that all facts affecting the levy of Stamp Duty are fully and truly set forth in instrument, are complied with. Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa v. Dankuni Steels Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : (2023) 8 SCR 1098
Stay
Supreme Court doubts 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment on automatic stay vacation; refers to 5-judge Bench. High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1027
State Policy
Change of Govt. stand after change in power - The Courts are not concerned with the stand taken by the State at the relevant time and now. Suffice it to say that at the relevant time when the State police agency took a particular stand, accused No. 13 was in power and sitting Minister - The endeavor of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only. (Para 13) Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136 : (2023) 5 SCC 802
Succession
Hindu Succession Act - To decide shares of heirs, first step is to ascertain share of deceased in coparcenary property on date of death. Derha v. Vishal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : AIR 2023 SC 4180
Hindu Succession Act - Possession of property necessary for woman to claim rights under section 14. M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720 : AIR 2023 SC 4074
Succession Act, 1925
Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 and 68 - Principles to prove validity and execution of will – explained. (Para 10) Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809
Succession Act, 1925; Section 63 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 68 and 71 – A Will cannot be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered. (Para 9) Dhani Ram v. Shiv Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862
Supreme Court
Chamber Judge refers appeal against Registrar's refusal to accept petition to court as matter involves interpretation of order. Sushil Kumar Yadav v. Deepak Kumar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 954
'Sorry state of affairs': Supreme Court criticises registry for shifting blame on court masters for not complying with order. Harphool @ Kala v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 775
'SCBA cannot assert right over the entire land allotted to SC': Supreme Court refuses to consider association's plea on judicial side. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 236
'Only CJI can assign cases': Supreme Court bench unhappy with another bench assigning a case to it. Rajendra Kumar Shrivas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 181 : (2023) 5 SCC 364 : (2023) 2 SCR 219
Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021; Section 2(1)(zg) - Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022; Rule 7 and 14(a) - Insisting that donor egg cannot be used for gestational surrogacy is prima facie against surrogacy rules. Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872
Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XII Rule 3 - Applications filed on the pretext of 'clarification / addition' while evading the recourse of review, ought not to be entertained and should be discouraged - Any alternation or addition to a judgment pronounced by Court can be made only to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising out of an accidental slip or omission - The power of Supreme Court under the Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules is limited and can only be exercised sparingly with due caution while confining itself within the parameters as described only to correct clerical/arithmetical mistakes or otherwise to rectify the accidental slip or omission. (Para 10-12) Ketan Kantilal Seth v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 599
Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII Rule 1 - The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed against the Constitution Bench judgment which upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Society for the Rights of Backward Communities v. Janhit Abhiyan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 441
Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Order XLVII Rule 3 - Disposal of review petitions by circulation without any oral arguments - The decision of this Court in P N Eswara Iyer v Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 does not warrant any reconsideration - The challenge to the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 lacks substance. P.T. Mohan v. Registrar Supreme Court of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 379
Surrogacy
Insisting that donor egg cannot be used for gestational surrogacy is prima facie against surrogacy rules. Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 872
Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa)
Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (Orissa); Section 15(b) - There is huge delay on the part of the respondents to avail of their appropriate remedy. Record of rights was finalised in 1962. As admitted in the writ petition, objections were filed by the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest before that. Remedy, after publication of the final record of rights, was revision under Section 15(b) of the 1958 Act, to be filed within one year. No remedy was availed of. Nearly three decades after finalisation of record of rights, application was filed before the Settlement Officer, which was not maintainable after final record of rights is published. When no relief was granted by the Settlement Officer, the respondents kept quiet for 13 years before filing a civil suit in the year 2003. It was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2007. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present appeal. The aforesaid facts show that the writ petition to claim relief was filed after 46 years of finalisation of record of rights, which was highly belated. Hence, the respondents were not entitled to any relief. (Para 34) State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 527
Synopsis
'Avoid bulky synopsis' : Supreme Court expresses disappointment at 60 page synopsis filed against 6 page hc order. Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709
Tax
Definition of 'manufacture' u/s 2(e)(1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act does not include blending and packaging tea. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. v. Mishra Tea Blending and Packing Industries, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1076
Income Tax Act - To compute deduction under S. 80-IA, market value of electricity is the rate at which the state board supplies power. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1048
Gain from foreign exchange fluctuations can't be claimed as deduction under Section 80 HHC Income Tax Act. Shah Originals v. Commissioner of Income Tax-24, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
UP VAT Act - Definition of “goods” under Section 2(m) and 13(1)(f) includes taxable as well as exempted goods. Modi Naturals Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 976
UP VAT Act - Assessee entitled to claim full input tax credit on exempted goods produced as by-products or waste products during manufacturing of taxable goods. Modi Naturals Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 976
State amendments made to VAT Acts after GST came into effect are invalid. State of Telangana v. Tirumala Constructions, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Double taxation avoidance agreement cannot be enforced unless notified by the Centre under Section 90 Income Tax Act. Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. Nestle, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911
Services provided to IIT & NIT exempt from service tax: Supreme Court holds after interpreting 'or' & semicolon in exemption notification. Customs Central Excise and Service Tax v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 885
S.153C Income Tax Act - Preceding 6 years period as regards 3rd party to be calculated from date when documents are assigned to concerned AO. Commissioner of Income Tax 14 v. Jasjit Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 878
Material disclosed to the income tax settlement commission needn't be something which wasn't discovered by the assessing officer. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 822 : AIR 2023 SC 4743
Dividend income from an Indian entity's establishment in Oman having 'permanent establishment' status under DTAA not taxable in india. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 802 : (2023) 10 SCC 9
Cooperative society not doing banking business but providing credit facilities to members eligible for Sec 80P deduction under Income Tax Act. Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 786
No bar in assessee seeking restoration of appeal after being unsuccessful in availing amnesty scheme. P.M. Paul v. State Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 774
Service Tax - Assessee cannot be penalised based on show-cause notice mentioning erroneous category of service. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II v. 3I Infotech Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 675 : AIR 2023 SC 3915
Supreme Court recalls Judgment holding that no indirect taxes can be levied on duty free shops at airports. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Mumbai East v. Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 673
Interest income earned on deposits by clubs in banks which are corporate members taxable; principle of mutuality not applicable. Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660
Income tax settlement commission's purpose is to give assessee a chance to disclose undisclosed income to seek immunity. Shree Nilkanth Developers v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 648
The Supreme Court directs Centre to reconsider the reward paid to person who informed about tax evasion by news agency ANI media pvt ltd. Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 581
Special effects & 3d conversion services are not 'video-tape production' services under S. 65(120) of Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner of Service Tax-IV v. Prime Focus Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561
Person summoned under Section 69 CGST act cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.; only remedy is under Article 226. State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552
Income Tax Act - Completed / unabated assessments cannot be reopened by ao if no incriminating material is found during search. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs King Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 532 : (2024) 2 SCC 465
Taxation Classification - Specific provision will prevail over general provision in a statute : Supreme Court in 'Maize Starch' case. Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 499
No service tax applicable on user development fee collected from passengers by Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad international airports. Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 457 : AIR 2023 SC 3039 : (2023) 9 SCC 294
Thief can't be assessed as 'owner' of stolen property under Section 69A Income Tax Act. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451
Income Tax Act - Carrier of Goods not an 'Owner'; Bitumen not a 'valuable article' under S. 69A. D.N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 451
Credit note issued by automobile manufacturer to dealer, in consideration of replacement of defective part, attracts Sales Tax. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (SPL), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 443
Can tax exemption be claimed based on doctrine of legitimate expectation? The Supreme Court delivers a split verdict. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 428 : (2023) 8 SCR 828
Prickly heat powder is not a 'medicine' for the purpose of sales tax in Kerala & Tamil Nadu. Heinz India Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 411 : AIR 2023 SC 2536
In 'Works Contract', assessee liable to pay service tax on service element & sales tax on goods transferred. CC and CE and ST, Noida v. Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 393 : (2023) 7 SCC 259 : (2023) 7 SCR 977
Section 16-B of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is not ultra vires any provision of law: Supreme Court reiterates. State of Himachal Pradesh v. A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 366
Loss on confiscation of smuggled items by DRI officials cannot be claimed as 'business loss' under Income Tax Act. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur v. Prakash Chand Lunia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 348 : (2024) 1 SCC 204
Income Tax Act - Assessing Officer can't make additions to completed assessments in absence of incriminating materials. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 346 : (2024) 2 SCC 433
Transfer Pricing - High Courts not precluded from scrutinising ITAT's determination of Arm's Length Price. SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328
Penalty leviable under S. 45 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 is statutory and mandatory; commissioner/ao has no discretion. State of Gujarat v. Saw Pipes Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : AIR 2023 SC 2113 : (2023) 6 SCR 479
Mortein spray, harpic & lizol cleaner- not classifiable as 'insecticide' under KVAT; Dettol a 'Medicament'. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 306 : (2023) 4 SCR 63
S. 80-IB of Income Tax Act - Assessee not entitled to deduction under on profit derived from DEPB and duty drawback schemes. Saraf Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 299
Same activity can be taxed as 'goods' & 'services': Supreme Court upholds levy of service tax on “engineering design & drawings”. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax v. Suzlon Energy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 298 : (2023) 4 SCR 324
Income Tax Act - For a company to be a "resident" in India, domicile or registration irrelevant; test is where de facto control lies. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 291
Mere delay in remittance of TDS doesn't attract penalty under S. 271C Income Tax Act. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 285 : (2023) 8 SCC 24
Section 263 Income Tax Act - Erroneous order of assessing officer causing prejudice to revenue is revisable by CIT. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Paville Projects Pvt Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 282 : AIR 2023 SC 1950
Issuance of corporate guarantee on behalf of group companies without consideration is not a taxable service. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise v. Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 281
Memorandum issued by the government to deduct 4% TDS is not ultra vires to Tripura Sales Tax Act. State of Tripura v. Chandan Deb, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 280 : (2023) 3 SCR 1134
2015 amendment to Section 153C of Income Tax Act will apply to searches conducted prior to the date of amendment. Income Tax Officer v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 274 : AIR 2023 SC 1922 : (2023) 2 SCR 756
Income Tax Act - Date of panchnama last drawn starting point of limitation for completing block assessment proceedings. Anil Minda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 246
Non-Service of assessment orders inconsequential if assesee had knowledge about them otherwise. Commercial Tax Officer v. Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 199 : (2023) 2 SCR 926
KVAT Act - Dealer claiming input tax credit must prove transaction beyond reasonable doubt. State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 187 : (2023) 2 SCR 647
The Supreme Court grants relief to ITAT member whose appointment was delayed for not filing income tax returns. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 178
'Charitable purpose' not limited to 'free medical relief': Supreme Court on Kerala Building Tax exemption; Overrules 2014 Judgment. Lisie Medical Institutes v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 118 : (2024) 1 SCC 200
Tax authorities should maintain discipline to follow decisions of higher authorities. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer Cum Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 : AIR 2023 SC 781
'Premature for High Court to opine on tax evasion': Supreme Court sets aside HC order which quashed notice under Section 130 CGST Act. State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 56
Income Tax Act - For block assessment, normals procedure not applicable; Interest can be levied without sec 158bc notice. K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 54 : AIR 2023 SC 431 : (2023) 4 SCC 274 : (2023) 1 SCR 689
Exclusion of 'Old Indian Settlers' from definition of Sikkimese in Section 10(26AAA) Income Tax Act unconstitutional. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 28 : (2023) 5 SCC 717
Levy of additional special road taxes not a penalty, but regulatory: Supreme Court upholds Section 3A(3) HPMVT Act. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 27 : AIR 2023 SC 390
Goods manufactured on “diversification” must be “different”, “distinct” & “separate” in nature to claim exemption u/sec 4-A (5) UP Trade Tax Act. AMD Industries Ltd; v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : AIR 2023 SC 362 : (2023) 4 SCC 231 : (2023) 1 SCR 1035
Income Tax Act - Writ Petition can be entertained to examine if conditions to issue Section 148 notice are satisfied. Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 16
Non-banking finance & leasing companies not liable to pay interest tax on instalments paid under hire purchase agreement. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : AIR 2023 SC 239 : (2023) 1 SCR 317