Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: Aug 16 – Aug 19, 2022
Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: Aug 16 – Aug 19, 2022
- Provision of HSN Code and Liability to pay GST In Tender Process
1) It Is Responsibility Of Bidder To Provide Correct HSN Code And Corresponding GST Rate While Submitting Offer – The Court adjudicated upon the issues of whether it would be the Union of India or the bidders who would provide with Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN Code) applicable over a product for determining the GST rate and whether it would be the supplier or the purchaser of goods or services who is liable to pay the GST in a tender process.
The Bench observed that it is the responsibility of the bidder to provide the correct HSN Code and the corresponding GST rate applicable over the product while submitting the offer.
The Court also noted that under the reverse charge mechanism, the bidders as the suppliers of the goods and services will be liable to pay the GST as per the applicable rates and not the purchasers i.e., the Union of India in the case.
Cause Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Bharat Forge Ltd. & Another
Date of Judgment – August 16, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
- How to examine contradictory dying declarations
2) Conflicting Dying Declarations - Supreme Court Explains How To Examine Multiple Dying Declarations – The Court while explaining the examination of conflicting dying declarations, has held that Court must scrutinize facts of the individual cases very carefully if there are conflicting multiple dying declarations.
The Court further held that the Courts below should examine whether such declaration was recorded at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration.
The Court pointed out that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for recording conviction and no corroboration is required if it is found reliable and trustworthy.
Cause Title – Makhan v. The State of Haryana
Date of Judgment – August 16, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice PS Narasimha
- Whether pre-litigation mediation under Commercial Courts Mandatory
3) Commercial Courts Act - Mediation U/s. 12A Mandatory, Suit Filed In Violation Must Be Treated Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – In an important Judgment, the Court adjudicated upon the issue of whether pre-litigation mediation provided under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act (the Act) is mandatory in nature.
The Bench observed that Section 12A of the Act is mandatory and any suit instituted in violation of the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Cause Title – M/s. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment – August 17, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
- Imposing cost on Centre for callous approach in canceling coal block allocation
4) Coal Mining Lease – Private Party Made To Suffer Because Of Callous Approach, SC Imposes One Lakh Cost On Centre – The Court imposed one lakh cost on the Centre for its callous, careless and casual approach that had led to the cancellation of a coal block that was validly granted to a private party in Madhya Pradesh in the year 1997.
The Court noted that the Petitioner which had got the mining lease through valid procedures, had to suffer loss and ignominy as its allocation was quashed.
Cause Title – B.L.A Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Another
Date of Judgment – August 17, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, & Justice Hima Kohli
- Service – Whether 2016 UGC Regulations are applicable retrospectively
5) Declaratory/Clarificatory Amendment Usually Meant To Operate From Antecedent Date Or Cover Antecedent Events – The Court observed when an enactment or an amendment is declaratory, or clarificatory, seeking to clarify what was always intended, such amendment is usually meant to operate from an antecedent date, or to cover antecedent events.
The Court also held that the appointment of the Appellant in the first appeal was protected by the University Grants Commission Regulations (UGCR) 2000 that exempted candidates who had acquired M. Phil or submitted their Ph.D. thesis by December 1993 from taking the NET.
The Bench also held that the 2016 UGCR applied retrospectively.
Cause Title – University of Kerala and Ors. etc. v. Merlin J.N. and Anr. etc.
Date of Judgment – August 17, 2022
Coram – Justice UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
- Punjab & Haryana directed to resolve problem of overflooding of River Ghaggar
6) SC Directs States Of Punjab/Haryana To Take Steps Suggested By CWPRS Pune To Resolve Problem Of Overflooding Of River Ghaggar - To resolve the problem of overflooding of river ghaggar basin, the Supreme Court directed the States of Punjab and Haryana to act and take corrective measures recommended by the Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune.
In 2019, the Chairman of the Central Water Commission was directed to conduct a meeting to find a solution to the problem of flood experienced by agriculturists from 25 villages due to overflowing of river Ghaggar.
It was decided in the said meeting that a Mathematical Model Study (MMS) should be conducted by CWPRS, Pune, regarding mitigation of flood problems for the entire Ghaggar basin in consultation with the respective State Governments.
The Supreme Court had asked CWPRS, Pune to complete the study and place a report before the Court.
Cause Title – Nagar Panchayat Moonak and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Date of Order – August 17, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
- Property Dispute - Whether a substantial question of law required to be framed in second appeal in Haryana
7) No Substantial Question Of Law Required To Be Framed In State Of Haryana In Second Appeal – The Court observed that there is no requirement of framing a substantial question of law in the second appeal in the State of Haryana, since Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is applicable to the State and not Section 100 CPC.
The Bench also held that the formulation of a substantial question of law was not necessary, yet Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 requires that only such decisions are to be considered in the second appeal which are contrary to law, or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the Courts below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law.
Cause Title – Satyender & Ors. v. Saroj & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 17, 2022
Coram – Justice of UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
- Under which HC's jurisdiction does the appeal against ITAT lie?
8) Appeals Against Decision Of ITAT Shall Lie Only Before HC Within Whose Jurisdiction AO Is Situated – The Court considered the question concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the judgments of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals as the benches of the ITAT are constituted in such a way as to exercise jurisdiction in more than one state.
The Court observed, "In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assess`ment year(s)."
Cause Title – PR Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh v. M/s. ABC Papers Limited
Date of Judgment – August 18, 2022
Coram – Justice U. U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice P. S. Narasimha
- Can arbitration clause in lease deed be rendered functionless upon non-renewal of lease by lessor
9) Arbitration Clause In Lease Deed Cannot Be Rendered Functionless By Refusal Of Lessor To Renew Lease: The Court held that the arbitration clause in the lease deed cannot be rendered functionless if the lessor refuses to renew the lease. The Court has observed that the dispute arising out of non-renewal of the lease is arbitrable.
The Court emphasized that all disputes between the parties to the lease with regard to renewal and/or non-renewal, the period of renewal and the quantum of rent would have to be decided by the Arbitrator.
Cause Title – Brij Raj Oberoi v. The Secretary, Tourism and Civil Aviation Department & Anr.
Date of Judgment – August 18, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
- Repeating overruled arguments for reopening conclusions in a previous judgment
10) Party Cannot Be Permitted To Repeat Old/Overruled Arguments For Reopening Conclusions Arrived At In Judgment - The Supreme Court has observed that a party cannot repeat old and overruled arguments in a review petition.
The Court further expressed that a judgment can be reviewed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that needs to be detected through reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record.
Cause Title – S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. Narayana Reddy and Others
Date of Judgment – August 18, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli
