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]

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Registered Owner – Civil Appeal regarding determination of liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act – Accident involving a truck resulting in fatalities – Truck sold to Salig Ram but still registered in the name of Jitender Gupta – Accident occurred during the validity of an insurance policy issued in the name of the original owner (Jitender Gupta) by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Held that the recorded owner in RTO records remains liable despite sale – Liability of compensation extends to the insurer of the vehicle in the name of the recorded owner - Appeal allowed directing insurer to pay the determined compensation. [Paras 1-18]

Definition of Owner - Motor Vehicles Act – Held – As per Section 2(30) of the Act, the owner is the person in whose name the vehicle is registered – Ownership in civil law does not affect liability under the Act if the name remains in RTO records – Registered owner remains liable to third parties. [Paras 11-14]

Insurance Policy Coverage – Validity – Held – Insurance policy taken in the name of Jitender Gupta (recorded owner) valid for compensation claims – Policy covers third-party risks regardless of actual possession by Salig Ram (transferee). [Paras 14-15]

Liability to Pay Compensation – Held – Compensation equally realizable from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Directed to pay full compensation to claimants within two months – Similar directive for compensation to heirs of another deceased victim. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Criminal appeals against the High Court order upholding the convictions under Sections 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act – Appellants challenged the voluntariness and reliability of their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and High Court – Evidence established the recovery of narcotic substances and the appellants' involvement – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Possession and Knowledge – Analysis – Held – The recovery of narcotic substances from the truck and the residence of the appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel was established beyond a reasonable doubt – Arguments regarding lack of exclusive possession and awareness of the contraband by appellant Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary were rejected – Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were deemed credible and voluntary. [Paras 9-12]

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Held – Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond a shadow of doubt – The standard is of a high degree of probability, not absolute certainty – The courts below correctly applied this standard, and no reasonable doubt existed to warrant overturning the convictions. [Paras 13-14]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court – The evidence on record was sufficient to support the convictions – Appeals by the appellants failed, maintaining the sentences imposed. [Para 15]

Hindu Law - Adoption - Consent of Wife - Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 mandates that a male Hindu cannot adopt a son except with the consent of his wife, unless she has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared of unsound mind. Mere presence of the wife at adoption ceremonies without active participation does not imply consent. Held, the concurrent finding that Dhapubai consented to the adoption was perverse and based on unfounded assumptions. Adoption invalidated due to lack of wife's consent. [Paras 1-34]

Hindu Law - Gift Deeds and Will - Validity - In light of the invalid adoption, challenges to the gift deeds dated 29.11.1944 and 22.10.1966, and the will dated 27.10.1975 executed by Gopalji in favor of Dhapubai, as well as the sale deed dated 19.1.1973 executed by Dhapubai in favor of Sunderbai, were revisited. Findings of the lower courts on these documents set aside. [Paras 1-35]

Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference by Supreme Court - Interference with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts is warranted when findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, concurrent findings were held to be based on conjectures and assumptions, justifying interference. [Paras 23-34]

Decision - Adoption by Gopalji of Ghisalal without valid consent of Dhapubai set aside. Suit for declaration, partition, and possession by Ghisalal dismissed. Judgments and decrees of trial court, lower appellate court, and High Court set aside. [Paras 34-35]