The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India and upheld the acquisition of land in Etawa, Uttar Pradesh for a project. The complaint of the land losers was that the award of compensation for the acquisition was not given within the prescribed one year from the declaration. The Supreme Court ruled that though there was delay in the award, the acquisition itself did not lapse according to the provisions of the Railways Act. However, the court further said that the delay will entitle the land losers to get additional compensation at a rate not less than 5 per cent of the value of the award for each month of delay.
Whether ‘royalty’ determined under Sections 9/15(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Act 67 of 1957, as amended) is in the nature of tax?
Binod Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Others- In the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that the basic allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former Ministers, including a former Chief Minister of the State. The money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented amounts. However, there is no clear allegation so far about its laundering in the sense mentioned above, but there is an allegation of its investment in property, shares etc. not only in India but also abroad.
The second respondent (referred to as the `Developer’) entered into a development agreement with the owners of certain lands at Bachupally village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for constructing independent houses and multistoried Apartment buildings with common facilities in a layout known as `Hill County township’. The landowners as the first party, the developer as the second party and the first respondent who wanted to acquire an apartment therein as the third party entered into an agreement for sale dated 16.10.2006 under which the land-owners agreed to sell an undivided share equivalent to 87 sq.yds. out of a total extent of 16.95 acres to the first respondent and the developer agreed to construct a residential apartment measuring 1889 sq.ft. for the first respondent. The total consideration for the undivided share in the land, apartment and car parking space was agreed as Rs.55,89,368. The agreement contemplating the entire price being paid in installments, that is 10% on booking, 85% in seven instalments upto 15.3.2008 and 5% at the time of delivery. Clause (14) of the said agreement dated 16.10.2006 provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration.
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s Makkad Plastic Agencies- The assessment of the assessee-respondent for the Assessment Year 2001-02 was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 29(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 [for short “the Act of 1994”] holding that the tax on “thermo ware” and “vacuum ware”, which were the articles sold by the assessee-respondent during the relevant assessment year, should be levied Sales Tax at 10 per cent instead of 8 per cent, treating them as separate articles from plastic goods/products. Consequently, the liability of difference of tax at 2 per cent along with surcharge, interest and penalty was also levied.
SC rejects claim of firms using HSD in captive units- The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a batch of appeals by various companies claiming credit of duty paid on high speed diesel oil used in their captive electricity generating plants. The Rajasthan high court had earlier rejected their contention in the case, Sangam Spinners Ltd vs Union of India. Their argument was that they had acquired accrued and vested right and it could not be taken away retrospectively by an Act of Parliament, in this case, the Finance Act, 2000. Since the companies were unable to pass on the burden to the customers, they would have to bear the entire burden themselves, and that too retrospectively, and therefore such a provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution (equality). The revenue authorities, on the other hand, contended that the 2000 Act was not a validating Act, but explanatory in nature in order to clarify and put in proper perspective the legal position as some tribunals had misinterpreted departmental notifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the subsequent changes made by Parliament were clarificatory and the companies were not entitled to the credit of duty.
This question came up for discussion in the above mentioned case before their Lordships, and it was held that non-payment of costs, does not entail the dismissal of the suit. Order XVII rule (1) of the CPC provides that the court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule (2) of this order provides that in every such case the court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit and shall make such order as to cost occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deem fit.
Tenders or public auction best way to sell state properties- The Supreme Court (SC) has declared “inviting tenders from the public or holding public auction is the best way for disposal of properties belonging to the state.” In this case, Kerala Finance Corp vs Vincent Paul, the borrower failed to repay the loan and the state finance corporation tried to dispose of the mortgaged property. But the process was entangled in civil suits. The SC ssaid the corporation has not framed rules or guidelines for sale of properties owned by them. Therefore the court itself framed rules to be followed by the corporation till it formed its own guidelines.
Withdrawn tax exemption cannot be reclaimed- An industry which has been granted tax exemption to set up unit in a backward region cannot claim the benefit even after it was withdrawn by the state, the SC stated in the case, State of Haryana vs Mahabir Vegetable Oils Ltd. In this case, the firm set up a solvent extraction plant and enjoyed the sales tax benefit till 1996. That year, the firm was put in the negative list as it was found to be a polluting industry. The benefit was withdrawn since then. This was challenged by the firm in the Punjab and Haryana high court. It allowed its petition and ruled that once the firm invested funds on the promise of tax benefit, the government could not withdraw the exemption mid-way. Reversing this view, the SC emphasised that there was no vested interest in the firm to get the benefit for all times. The government can change the rules in public interest. In this case, the decision to put the firm in the negative list was on account of the unit’s polluting nature, the SC said, allowing the appeal of the state government.
Compensation received under Non-Competition Agreement became taxable as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to loss of source of business; that payment was received under the negative covenant and therefore the receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs by the assessee from Ranbaxy was in the nature of capital receipt. In fact, in order to put an end to the litigation, Parliament stepped in to specifically tax such receipts under non-competition agreement with effect from 1.4.2003.
