Administrative Law – Disciplinary Action – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer found guilty of traveling without ticket on three occasions – Appellant claimed that magistrates were not required to buy tickets for train travel – Appellant caught without ticket on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997, and 5.12.1997 – Misconduct charges established against the appellant – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging the disciplinary action – Supreme Court upheld the compulsory retirement as proportionate to the misconduct. [Paras 2-30]

Judicial Conduct – Standards of Propriety – Held – Judicial officers are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct – Appellant's behavior in traveling without tickets and subsequent misconduct towards Railway staff deemed unbecoming of a judicial officer – Punishment of compulsory retirement considered appropriate and not disproportionate. [Para 29]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and the disciplinary authority, finding the charges of misconduct proved and the penalty of compulsory retirement justified. [Para 31]

Taxation - Service Tax Liability - Airports Authority of India Act and Finance Act - Appellant authorized by AAI to collect airport admission ticket charges - Whether appellant liable to pay service tax on such collections - High Court directed verification if AAI had paid the service tax - Appellant to pay service tax if AAI had not paid - Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision - Appellant deemed liable under statutory definition as authorized service provider - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Taxable Service - Definition and Liability - Finance Act, 1994 - Analysis of Clause 105(zzm) of Section 65 - Held - Appellant steps into the shoes of AAI for services provided based on authorization - Liability to pay service tax affirmed - No merit in contention that AAI alone was responsible for service tax. [Para 8]

Decision - Service Tax Liability Affirmed - Court dismisses the appeal - Holds appellant liable for service tax as per statutory provisions - Emphasizes appellant's role as authorized person under AAI's licence agreement. [Para 8]

Service Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees – Civil Appeals against High Court's direction to regularize services and provide parity in pay for employees in government and aided hostels – Supreme Court reaffirms principles that regularization requires appointments through regular recruitment against sanctioned posts – High Court’s directions found to be inconsistent with constitutional principles and precedents – Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside. [Paras 1-13]

Service Law - Parity in Pay – Analysis – Temporary employees, including part-time cooks and chowkidars, in government hostels not entitled to parity in pay with regular employees – Such claims invalid without legal right under contract or statute – Parity principle under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution not applicable to temporary, irregular appointments. [Para 8]

Service Law - Aided Hostels – Analysis – Employees of aided hostels not deemed government employees – Reliefs of regularization and parity in pay against government cannot be sustained – Aided hostels run by private organizations, government's role limited to grants for student welfare. [Para 10]

Decision:

Regularization and Parity in Pay Denied – Appeals allowed. High Court orders set aside. Respondents’ writ petitions dismissed. [Para 13]

Taxation Law - Refund of Excess Tax Paid – Civil Appeal – KGST Act – CST Act – Article 265, 286 of the Constitution – Tax refund claim by non-dealer – Supreme Court dismisses appeal for refund by non-dealer on the basis of clear statutory provisions limiting refunds to dealers only – No proactive stance taken despite overpayment to avoid breach of statutory interpretation principles.

Taxation Law – Refund Claim Under KGST Act – Interpretation of Statutes – Section 44 of the KGST Act stipulates that only dealers are entitled to claim a refund for excess tax paid – Appellant, not being a dealer, is not entitled to a refund despite overpayment – Appeal dismissed based on unambiguous statutory language – Equity considerations and proactive interpretations deemed inapplicable in this context.

Exemption Under CST Act – Section 5(3) CST Act – Penultimate Sale – Export Transactions – Requirement of Agreement or Evidence – Claim for exemption under CST Act for penultimate sales denied in absence of agreement or evidence at the time of auction sale – Clear evidence of linkage to export necessary for exemption under Section 5(3) – Claim for refund also dismissed as no tax demand was made on appellant.

Decision:

Refund of Tax Paid to Seller – Appeal Dismissed – Court upholds findings of lower authorities that Section 44 of the KGST Act restricts refunds to dealers only – Despite recognizing overpayment, refund to non-dealer cannot be sanctioned due to clear statutory mandate – No interference warranted with factual findings of lower authorities.

Central Excise - Duty on Captive Consumption - Manufacture for Internal Use – Appeal against order demanding duty on plant and machinery, including testing equipment, manufactured for internal use by appellant – Appellant claimed activities were for research and development and not manufacturing – Supreme Court found that equipment was indeed manufactured and was saleable and marketable, confirming the duty demand. [Paras 1-13]

Research and Development vs. Manufacture - Captive Consumption – Held: Mere assembly for research and development, if resulting in saleable and marketable goods, amounts to manufacture – As the appellant admitted in balance sheet and director's report that testing equipment was developed to avoid imports, it was considered manufacturing. [Para 10]

Extended Period of Limitation - Suppression of Facts - Non-disclosure of manufacturing activity to the department justified the invocation of the extended period of limitation for duty demand. [Para 12]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Duty demand confirmed. [Para 13]

Administrative Law – Disciplinary Action – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer found guilty of traveling without ticket on three occasions – Appellant claimed that magistrates were not required to buy tickets for train travel – Appellant caught without ticket on 21.2.1997, 13.5.1997, and 5.12.1997 – Misconduct charges established against the appellant – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging the disciplinary action – Supreme Court upheld the compulsory retirement as proportionate to the misconduct. [Paras 2-30]

Judicial Conduct – Standards of Propriety – Held – Judicial officers are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct – Appellant's behavior in traveling without tickets and subsequent misconduct towards Railway staff deemed unbecoming of a judicial officer – Punishment of compulsory retirement considered appropriate and not disproportionate. [Para 29]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and the disciplinary authority, finding the charges of misconduct proved and the penalty of compulsory retirement justified. [Para 31]

Taxation - Service Tax Liability - Airports Authority of India Act and Finance Act - Appellant authorized by AAI to collect airport admission ticket charges - Whether appellant liable to pay service tax on such collections - High Court directed verification if AAI had paid the service tax - Appellant to pay service tax if AAI had not paid - Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision - Appellant deemed liable under statutory definition as authorized service provider - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Taxable Service - Definition and Liability - Finance Act, 1994 - Analysis of Clause 105(zzm) of Section 65 - Held - Appellant steps into the shoes of AAI for services provided based on authorization - Liability to pay service tax affirmed - No merit in contention that AAI alone was responsible for service tax. [Para 8]

Decision - Service Tax Liability Affirmed - Court dismisses the appeal - Holds appellant liable for service tax as per statutory provisions - Emphasizes appellant's role as authorized person under AAI's licence agreement. [Para 8]

Service Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees – Civil Appeals against High Court's direction to regularize services and provide parity in pay for employees in government and aided hostels – Supreme Court reaffirms principles that regularization requires appointments through regular recruitment against sanctioned posts – High Court’s directions found to be inconsistent with constitutional principles and precedents – Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside. [Paras 1-13]

Service Law - Parity in Pay – Analysis – Temporary employees, including part-time cooks and chowkidars, in government hostels not entitled to parity in pay with regular employees – Such claims invalid without legal right under contract or statute – Parity principle under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution not applicable to temporary, irregular appointments. [Para 8]

Service Law - Aided Hostels – Analysis – Employees of aided hostels not deemed government employees – Reliefs of regularization and parity in pay against government cannot be sustained – Aided hostels run by private organizations, government's role limited to grants for student welfare. [Para 10]

Decision:

Regularization and Parity in Pay Denied – Appeals allowed. High Court orders set aside. Respondents’ writ petitions dismissed. [Para 13]

Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Suit - Maintainability of Application to Withdraw Withdrawal Application – Civil appeal against High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's application to withdraw his earlier application for withdrawal of the suit – High Court held that once an application for withdrawal of the suit is filed, the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn without any order on the withdrawal application – Supreme Court disagreed – Held that Section 151 CPC, which provides inherent powers to the court, should be interpreted broadly to facilitate justice – There is no express prohibition on filing an application to withdraw an earlier withdrawal application – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Suit to proceed and be decided on merits expeditiously. [Paras 1-10]

Procedure in Civil Law – Interpretation of Section 151 CPC – Held – Section 151 CPC should be interpreted to mean that every procedure that furthers justice is permissible unless expressly prohibited – Courts are not to act on the principle that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted by the Code, but rather the opposite – Principle reinforced by Justice Mahmood in Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey and affirmed by the Full Bench in Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim Sen and Others. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Application to Withdraw Withdrawal Application Maintainable – Supreme Court held that the application to withdraw the earlier withdrawal application was maintainable – The suit is to proceed and be decided on merits – Appeal allowed. [Para 8-10]