Supreme Court upheld the judgement of High Court and held that in case of execution of a works contract through a sub-contractor, the sub-contractor was liable to pay tax under the VAT Act and therefore the payment made by the main contractor to the sub-contractor was not liable to be included in the taxable consideration of the main contractor as this would lead to double taxation.
The Court reiterated that mere drafting labels cannot convert a settlement clause into an arbitration agreement. Since Clause 8.28 only contemplated conciliation and allowed recourse to courts, it failed to reflect intent for binding adjudication by an independent arbitrator.
The Supreme Court held that an appellate decree passed in favour of deceased appellants is a nullity. As no legal heirs were substituted, the appeal automatically abated, and the original trial court decree revived and became executable.
The Supreme Court admitted a PIL seeking nationwide prohibition of online gambling and betting and the application of strict regulatory measures. The Court requested assistance from the Revenue’s panel counsel before proceeding with directions on taxation, blocking, and data protection reliefs.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal, affirming an SEZ Unit’s right to claim a refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 89 for exports made under LUT. The question of law regarding who can claim the refund remains open.
The Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of a councillor for suppressing her Section 138 NI Act conviction in her nomination affidavit. The Court ruled that concealment of criminal records violates voters’ right to informed choice and voids election results.
The Supreme Court set aside lower court decrees, holding that an unregistered “Palupatti” (family partition memo) is admissible for the collateral purpose of proving severance of joint family status and separate possession. This ruling confirms that a family arrangement, when corroborated by conduct and revenue records, validates the disruption of joint ownership.
The Supreme Court stayed an AP High Court judgment that set aside GST assessment orders and notices lacking the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN).
The Supreme Court considered an inquiry report finding a UP police officer prima facie guilty of wilfully defying the court’s protective order against coercive measures.
SC held that private stage carriage operators cannot be granted permits on inter-State routes overlapping notified intra-State routes, reaffirming that State transport schemes under Chapter VI of Motor Vehicles Act override inter-State agreements.
