CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-215-SC-VAT

MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH INDIA PVT LTD Vs UoI: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 - Sections 2(24), 6 & 30(1)

The assessee, Monsanto India, is a joint venture company of Monsanto Investment India Private Limited (MIIPL) and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. The Monsanto India develops and commercializes insect-resistant hybrid cottonseeds using a proprietary "Bollgard technology", one that is licensed to Monsanto India by Monsanto USA through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (MHPL). This technology is further sub-licensed by Monsanto India to various seed companies on a non-exclusive and nontransferable basis to use, test, produce and sell genetically modified hybrid cotton planting seeds. The assessee had filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging various provisions of the Maharashtra VAT Act. The principal question of dispute was whether the agreements whereby 'Monsanto technology' is granted by the assessee to the seed companies amounts to mere 'permissive use' and, therefore, a service u/s 65(B)(44) of Finance Act, 1994, or whether it is a "deemed sale" in the nature of "transfer of right to use goods" under clause (b)(iv) of the Explanation to Section 2(24) of the MVAT Act. The High Court ruled against the assessee and found the agreements to be in the nature of "deemed sale" under the MVAT Act.

Supreme Court ordered issuance of notice to the Union of India and stayed the recovery of sales tax. The matter to be listed immediately after completion of pleadings.

 

2016-TIOL-214-SC-IT

CIT Vs KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: November 11, 2016)

Income tax - Sections 11(5) & 31(1)(d)

Keywords - entire income & withdrawal of exemption

The Revenue preferred the present SLP aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, whereby it was held that the exemption cannot be withdrawn for the entire income, for violation of the provision of Sections 11(5) r/w/s 31(1)(d) of I-T Act.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that,

Whether a SLP deserves to be granted to the Petitioner, in absence of any legal & valid ground for interference in the order of High Court - NO: SC

++ after hearing the submissions of the counsels and perusing the relevant material on record, it seems that there is no legal and valid ground for interference in the order of the High Court. Hence, this court answers the issue in favour of assessee.

Revenue's petition dismissed

2016-TIOL-213-SC-CUS

VEDANTA LTD Vs CC: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Cus - Refund Petitioner had paid customs duty for export of goods in advance however, export goods were allegedly short shipped and petitioner applied for refund of excess customs duty paid. High Court had dismissed the appeal on the ground that goods were not provisionally assessed and that refund claim was filed after 6 months i.e beyond the time prescribed appeal to Supreme Court. Held: Provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act would clearly not apply to the present case on its plain language - Respondent should refund the excess customs duty paid within a period of four weeks. SLP disposed of: Supreme Court [para 4, 5]

Petition disposed of