Supreme Court Judgments 2022
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2022-11-02 17:33:56
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2022-11-02 17:33:56
by: Admin 2022-06-15 18:50:14
by: Admin 2022-06-15 17:09:55
by: Admin 2022-04-28 20:02:29
by: Admin 2022-04-28 19:00:07
by: Admin 2022-04-28 14:03:30
Supreme Court Judgments 2022
Mohan Breweries & Distilleries V/s Commercial Tax officer, Madras
Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs Pamela Mehta & Ors
Parminder Kaur V/s State of Punjab
Central Bank of India V/s M/S Maruti Acetylene Co. Ltd.
Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. And Anr. V/s Union of India
Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar
Dr. M. Kocher V/s Ispita Seal
Smt. Seema Kumar V/s Ashwin Kumar
Leo Francis Xaviour V/s The Principal, Karunya Institute
Nazir Mohamed V/s J. Kamala and Ors.
Addissery Raghavan V/s Cheruvalath Krishnadasan
Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay V/s Chief Controlling Revenue
K. Sivaram V/s P. Satishkmar
Basir Ahmed Sisodia V/s The Income Tax Officer
Manish V/s Nidhi Kakkar
Surendra Kumar Bhilawe V/s The New India Assurance Company
D. Velusamy V/s D. Patchaimmal
Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Mukesh Poonamchand Shah
Neelam Gupta Vs Mahipal Sharan Gupta
Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade V/s Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade
G. Raj Mallaih and Anr. V/s State of Andhra Pradesh
Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd. V/s Suresh Production
Chief Administrator of Huda &Anr. v/s Shakuntala Devi
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise v/s Ks Infraspace LLP
National Legal Service Authority v/s Union of India and Others
Roxann Sharma V/s Arun Sharma
Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur V/s State Bank of India &Anr.
M/s M.M.T.C Ltd. & Anr v/s M/s Medchl Chemical & Pharma P
Shailendra Swarup V/s Enforcement Directorate, The Deputy
SunitaTokas v/s New India Insurance Ltd.
Triloki Nath Singh V/s Anirudh Singh
Milmet Oftho & Ors. V/s Allergan Inc.
Director of Income Tax II (International Taxation) V/s M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
M/s ExL Careers V/s Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd V/s Babulal Lade & Ors.
State of Himachal Pradesh V/s A parent of a student of a Medical College & Ors.
Rathnamma & Ors. V/s Sujathamma & Ors.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal V/s Manjit Kaur
Ficus Pax Pvt. Ltd. V/s Union of Indian & Ors.
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Chandra Sekhar
Judgment: Indian Bank V/s Abs Marine Product Pvt. Ltd.
Kailas & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra
Sukhedu Das Vs Rita Mukherjee
National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works
Mahalakshmi V/s Bala Venkatram (d) through LR & Anr.
Kajal V/s Jagdish Chand
Shyamal Kumar V/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Megha Khandelwal V/s Rajat Khandelwal and Ors.
Md. Eqbal & Anrs. V/s State of Jharkhand
A. Jayachandra V/s Aneelkaur
Union of India V/s N. K. Shrivasta
Satvinder Singh V/s State of Bihar
Shreya Singhal V/s Union of India
Shaleen Kabra V/s Shiwani Kabra
Vasant Kumar V/s Vijaykumari
United Commercial Bank & Anr. V/s Deepak Debbarma & others
Vinay Kumar Mittal & Others V/s Deewan Housing Financial Corporation Limited
Mohammed Siddique Vs National Insurance Company Ltd
Top 2019 judgements by Supreme Court
Facts of the Case
The above appeals have been filed by the appellant before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the order passed by the Honorable High Court of Madras dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant in excise tax revision matter.
The appellant is the manufacturer of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), the manufacturer was manufacturing the liquor/spirits pursuing to the license provided to it by the Tamil Nadu Indian Made Foreign Spirits (Manufacturer) Rules, 1981. In the state of Tamil Nadu, the production/manufacturing, supply, transport and sale is governed by the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. By the explanation provided by section 17-C of the Act Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., a company wholly owned by the State Government had the privilege for sale of IMFL for the whole of that state. As due to various amendments in the Act vis section 18-B of the Act, Rule 22 of the Manufacturer rule, and Rule 15 of the Wholesale Rule were made retrospectively available from 23rd May 1981 it was contended by the appellant in their writ petition. The appellant said that there was no liability to pay sales tax on excise as there was no collection of any such amount by the appellant adding to this contention the appellant also said that there was no statutory or contractual authority under which appellant could have collected such amount. The amount mentioned in the matter was said that it does not form the part of sales or of any consideration to the appellant.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as per the rule 22 of the manufacture rules, the manufacturer of the IMFL was not supposed to pay excise duty on the liquor manufactured by them, the imposition of the excise duty to be paid was on the other party, who was involved in removing the Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the manufacturing unit, i.e. TASMAC also the manufacturer of the liquor by the same rule was no liable to recover the amount of excise duty from the party. The amount calculated on the excise duty was not entered in the turnover amount of the manufacturer, and so no tax liability accrued pursuing to such duty. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant filed an interpretation with citing the judgment made in this behalf by the court. The learned counsel mentioned the assistance from the explanation provided in 1A under section 2® of the Sales Tax Act and said an equitable estoppel has arisen against the respondent state which prevented the state authority to recover the sales tax from the manufacturer on the element of the excise duty.
Issues of the Case
Judgment
The Honourable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honourable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that observation mentioned that the citation mentioned by the learned counsel can be maintained and will be considered in a way that has been interpreted, it says that the judgment provided by this court in the matter of excise duty states the collection of tax generated as excise is directly related to the manufacturing activity, but for the reason of the convenience the collection of the excise can be deferred to any later stage where the authority finds it convenient. As due to expansive business activity in the country to dissect various tax heads and coordinate working between them in the paramount interest and keeping the interest of the business sector any such expediency or reason of convenience will be preferred over mere clerical deference.
The Andhra Pradesh rules clearly state that any tax under the head of the excise will be directly detracted from the manufacturing or production activity and will exclusively the duty of the manufacturer or producer to pay such amount or liability. Though pursuing to any contract or agreement entered by the parties that specify the payment of the excise duty by any third person will be a mere meeting of the obligation, and nothing more will be extracted from such payment. The Honorable Court further explaining the term states that the excise duty will not be applicable to any person who is acting according to any agreement for the transportation or logistic help for IMFL, even if it does pay such liability that will be according to agreement mutually entered to which rule 22 does not say anything. Further rule 22 just states the direction of collecting such amount and nothing more. A manufacturer is liable to pay such tax from the sales price received to it from the purchaser, so the excise as calculated by the act has to be deposited by the manufacturer in the treasury. The court explaining the correct view of section 2(r) states that any amount received by the manufacturer will not be included in turnover.
The court is of the opinion that there cannot exist any contention wherein the arguments should be presumed by the court in accordance of the law there will always be a space for interpretation as it decides the matter there can be clear that sales tax authority has failed to admit the argument relating to the estoppels also there can be no reason found that the court will rely on the isolated meaning of Rule 22 and while such rule made its entry into arguments there cannot exist any presumption to it. Further, the court deciding the matter rightly find it impossible set aside any order and dismiss the appeal without any cost to such appeal. Any other appeals relevant to the matter above stands dismissed accordingly.
Comment
Share