Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment

22Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment

The Supreme Court held that payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act does not absolve the proper officer from passing a reasoned order under Section 129(3). Such an order is mandatory to safeguard the taxpayer’s right to appeal and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and due process under Article 265 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a Karnataka-based dealer, consigned 17,850 kg of dry arceanut to a Delhi-based company. During transit, the goods were transhipped, and seven bags went missing. The vehicle was subsequently detained by the Uttar Pradesh Mobile Squad in Jhansi. A notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, alleging discrepancies including the shortfall in quantity and questioning the existe...

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...

Supreme Court Verdict on Cross-Border Taxation: Hyatt’s India Operations Fall Under PE, Income Taxable

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict on Cross-Border Taxation: Hyatt’s India Operations Fall Under PE, Income Taxable

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Delhi High Court's ruling that Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd. had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Court emphasized that a fixed place of business PE exists if the enterprise has a right to use and control a physical location for its business activities, regardless of exclusive possession. The appellant's extensive control over hotel operations under the Strategic Oversight Services Agreement (SOSA) satisfied the "disposal test" and established a PE. Consequently, the income derived from these activities was deemed taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the tax liability. Facts Of The Case: Hyatt Internation...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It ruled that mere allegations of caste-based malice were insufficient without concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that prosecution under the Act requires proof of intent linked to the victim's caste, preventing misuse for personal vendettas. Legal infirmities in the complaint and lack of prima facie case justified the quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the appellant, Konde Nageshwar Rao, alleged that Respondent No. 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), manipulated the allotment of plots reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) beneficiaries to upper-caste ind...

Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds

The Supreme Court ruled that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible if based on grounds available during the first petition, as it effectively amounts to a review barred under Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, preventing abuse of legal process through successive petitions. The judgment reaffirmed that change in circumstances or new grounds must be demonstrated for entertaining subsequent quashing petitions, ensuring judicial discipline and preventing harassment via repetitive litigation. The High Court's order allowing a second petition was set aside, restoring the criminal complaint for trial. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute between the appellant, M.C. Ravikumar, and the respon...

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...

Supreme Court Slams Fraudulent Litigation, Nullifies Compensation Order in Land Dispute

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Fraudulent Litigation, Nullifies Compensation Order in Land Dispute

The Supreme Court held that judicial orders obtained through fraud are null and void, as "fraud unravels everything." It emphasized that suppression of material facts vitiates proceedings, regardless of the court's hierarchy. The doctrine of merger does not apply to fraudulent judgments. The Court recalled its earlier order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication, affirming that fraud is an exception to finality in litigation. Procedural technicalities cannot shield fraudulent litigants from judicial scrutiny. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute over land ownership and compensation between Vishnu Vardhan, Reddy Veeranna, and T. Sudhakar. The trio jointly purchased land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 1997, which was later acquired by NOIDA in 200...

Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case

18Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, overturning their conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies. The Court emphasized the need for cautious scrutiny of related witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and highlighted improbabilities in their accounts, including the unrealistic timeline of events. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The judgments of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside, underscoring the principle that doubts in prosecution cases must benefit the accused. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu, a habitual drunkard with a criminal record, including detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The prosecution alleged that on 14.04.20...

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to Protect Student’s Hard-Earned Postgraduate Degree

The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant’s admission and subsequent degree in M.Sc. Environmental Management should not be invalidated despite initial eligibility ambiguities. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court held that the university’s delayed and unclear addendums caused confusion, and denying the degree after completion would cause irreparable injustice. The withdrawal of the degree was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Sakshi Chauhan, who applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business) program at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry in 2020 based on its prospectus. She held a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree from Eternal University, a UGC-recognized private institution. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ...

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...