Benami - Mere fact that object of statute is to eradicate a grave social evil, same by itself is not decisive of question as if element of guilty mind is excluded from ingredients of offence: SC

Black Money - If value of alleged undisclosed investments received by assessee in India is already subjected to Income tax, then taxing same amount under Black Money Act, 2015 will tantamount to double taxation: ITAT

Service - Since respondent has already superannuated from service and inquiry proceedings were concluded against respondent, SLP need not be entertained: SC

GST - No infirmity in HC imposing cost on department by observing that Petitioner should not have been dragged into an unnecessary litigation since valid documents accompanied the goods: SC

CX - A person cannot be vexed twice - Once there is a subsequent judgment overruling an earlier judgment, the earlier judgment cannot be reopened or reviewed on the basis of a subsequent judgment: SC

GST - Since respondents do not have any objection to the presence of Advocate at the time of recording of the petitioner's statement, provided that he is at a visible distance but not at an audible distance, petition allowed: HC

2023-TIOL-108-SC-GST

Addl. Commissioner Vs Sleevco Traders  

GST - High Court while holding that once the valid document i.e. e-way bill and tax invoice, builty was accompanying with the goods, therefore, the authorities ought not to have dragged the petitioner in an unnecessary litigation, imposed cost of Rs.5000 on the respondent Revenue to be deposited within three months - Revenue is in appeal before the Supreme Court.

Held:  Delay condoned - Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which is correctly appreciated - Special leave petition filed by Revenue is dismissed: Supreme Court

- Petition dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-107-SC-CX

CCGST & CE Vs Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd

CX - What is sought to be contended by ASG is that if a judgment is overruled by this Court by a subsequent judgment, then the overruled judgment will have to be reopened and, on reopening, the said judgment will have to be brought in line with the subsequent judgment which had overruled it - This is not permissible in law for two reasons: firstly, there has to be finality in litigation and that is in the interest of State - Secondly, a person cannot be vexed twice - There must be an end to litigation otherwise the rights of persons would be in an endless confusion and fluid and justice would suffer - That is why the explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 which is a wholesome provision has been inserted to the Code of Civil Procedure - It states that once there is a subsequent judgment overruling an earlier judgment on a point of law, the earlier judgment cannot be reopened or reviewed on the basis of a subsequent judgment - Subsequent decision of this Court overruling SRD Nutrients (P) Limited ( = 2017-TIOL-416-SC-CX ) in the case of M/s Unicorn Industries [ = 2019-TIOL-528-SC-CX-LB ] cannot have a bearing on past decisions which had attained finality although they had followed SRD Nutrients (P) Limited (supra), which was subsequently overruled in M/s Unicorn Industries (supra) - Otherwise a pandora's box would be opened and there would be no end to litigation, which is against public policy - What is sought to be done by the reference order dated 27.09.2021 is exactly this - Reference order was unnecessary - Special Leave Petitions are dismissed: Supreme Court

- Petitions dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-106-SC-SERVICE

CBDT Vs P D Kanunjna

Service Matter - The petitioner contested the vires an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upholding the issuance of a Charge Memo by the Ministry of Finance, Govt of India. The petitioner claimed that the order in question is erroneous in facts and that the Charge Memo was erroneously issued to him apropos his duties as DCIT. The rule governing issuance of Charge Memo to the Officers of Rank of Commissioner is spelt out in Office Order No. 205/2005, it states that "approval for issuing Charge Memo/sanction prosecution" lies with the Finance Minister - Apropos the authority to issue such Charge Memo, the respondent had so clarified through a RTI reply, that sanction was not granted by the Union Finance Minister. In the said reply, the respondent has admitted that Chairman, CBDT gave approval for initiating penalty proceedings against the petitioner. That being the position, the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is without due sanction, against the prescribed rules and would therefore be deemed as non est - The impugned order noted that the Minister of State for Finance (MoSF) is not subordinate to the Union Minister of Finance - High Court noted that petitioner is a Group-A officer in the rank of the Joint Commissioner, his Appointing and Disciplinary Authority is the President of India - Therefore, only the Finance Minister would have had the jurisdiction apropos issuance of any Charge Memo or other related proceedings against the said officer - An Officer or an Officer whose appointing authority is the President of India, would lie with the Finance Minister - Hence the Charge Memo was held unsustainable.

Held - During the course of hearing, the respondent has already superannuated from service - Besides this, the inquiry proceedings were concluded against the respondent vide inquiry report - Though, the Disciplinary Authority is yet to take a final decision on the said report but the fact remains that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent - Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, special leave petition is not entertained - However, the question of law as to whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the orders of the competent authority or not is kept open and shall be dealt with in an appropriate case.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-808-HC-MUM-GST

Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel Vs State of Maharashtra

GST - Petitioner prays that his statement be recorded in the presence of his Advocate i.e. at a visible but not audible distance, during his interrogation; that although the petitioner has prayed for permission for videography of interrogation, at the petitioner's cost, the petitioner is not pressing for the said relief.

Held: Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 state that the respondents do not have any objection to the presence of the petitioner's Advocate, at the time of recording of the petitioner's statement, provided that he is at a visible distance but not at an audible distance - Petitioner's prayer is accordingly allowed: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Petition allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-807-HC-ALL-GST

Sleevco Traders Vs Addl. Commissioner

GST -  Revenue has neither disputed the e-way bill generated by Maharastra party nor the goods in question were found different than mentioned in the e-way bill of the Maharastra party and the tax invoices issued by the petitioner - Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill was accompanying with the goods, the authorities ought to have released the vehicle - Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill and tax invoice, builty was accompanying with the goods, therefore, the authorities ought not to have dragged the petitioner in an unnecessary litigation -W rit petition is allowed   with cost of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) payable to the petitioner - Cost to be deposited within three months - The impugned order is set aside - Petition allowed: High Court  [para 12, 15, 16]

- Petition allowed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT