Tax Law – Constitutional Validity – Article 304(a) – Discriminatory Tax Exemption – Notification issued by State of Rajasthan under Section 8(3) of VAT Act exempting tax on sale of asbestos cement sheets and bricks containing 25% fly ash or more manufactured within the State – Appellants, who manufactured similar goods outside Rajasthan, challenged the notification as being discriminatory under Article 304(a) – Held: The notification was discriminatory since it exempted only goods manufactured within Rajasthan, with no justification or policy basis for such protectionist treatment – Discrimination not saved under principles laid down in Video Electronics and fails to satisfy test of non-hostile differentiation under Jindal Stainless – Quashed as violative of Article 304(a) [Paras 3.1, 12.17–12.19]

Freedom of Trade and Commerce – Article 301 – Interstate Trade – Court reaffirms that while tax is not per se a restriction under Article 301, any tax that discriminates between imported goods and locally manufactured goods violates Article 304(a) – Impugned notification created fiscal barrier by extending benefit only to manufacturers within Rajasthan without rational nexus or legitimate state interest – Not protected under Part XIII of Constitution [Paras 10.1–10.12, 12.14–12.18]

Judicial Review – Requirement of Reasoned Notification – Court reiterates that administrative or statutory orders must stand or fall on reasons stated in the order itself – Reasons for granting exemption not stated in impugned notification – Reliance on affidavit or external materials by State impermissible – Notification bereft of rational justification fails test of reasonableness under constitutional scrutiny [Paras 12.13–12.16]

Differentiation vs. Discrimination – Constitutional Interpretation – State failed to show that exemption was part of a targeted industrial policy or for a specific class or limited duration – Extension of benefit over 16 years (2000–2016) without concrete basis disqualifies it from protection under limited exception in Video Electronics – Blanket exemptions to all manufacturers within the State, regardless of whether fly ash was sourced locally, found to be protectionist [Paras 12.3–12.7, 12.17.1]

Remedy – Refund of Deposited Amounts – Direction issued to ascertain whether differential tax amount deposited with the Court was passed on to customers – If not, appellants entitled to refund with 6% interest [Para 12.20]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned Notification dated 09.03.2007 quashed – Held to be violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution – Matter posted for directions on refund issue.

Arbitration – Enforcement of Arbitral Award – Claim for Compound Interest – Arbitral Tribunal awarded Rs. 15.5 crores with 21% p.a. interest from date of advance till repayment – Respondent filed execution seeking compound interest under Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Executing Court rejected claim for compound interest and closed execution on payment of Rs. 44.42 crores by appellant – High Court reversed, remanded for reconsideration – Held: Arbitral tribunal awarded composite simple interest in terms of contract (MoU) till repayment – No post-award interest or compound interest awarded – No power to modify award at execution stage – High Court erred in remanding matter – Appeal allowed [Paras 6, 7, 11, 22, 29–34]

Interest – Interpretation of Section 31(7)(a) and (b), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Clause (a) subject to party agreement; clause (b) applies only if award is silent – Arbitral tribunal followed MoU specifying 21% interest from date of advance till repayment – Hence, Section 31(7)(b) inapplicable – Respondent’s claim for compound interest contrary to terms of award – Execution court cannot expand scope of award – Reliance on Hyder Consulting misplaced – Law clarified in Morgan Securities and Delhi Airport Metro cases [Paras 17–20, 24–26, 30]

Contractual Terms – Party Autonomy – MoU dated 09.04.2014 explicitly provided for 21% simple interest from date of disbursement till repayment on termination – Tribunal enforced this clause – Tribunal's discretion under Section 31(7)(a) excluded once parties agreed on interest terms – Tribunal awarded interest till date of repayment – No scope for additional or compound interest [Paras 21, 22, 28–31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court dated 22.04.2024 set aside – Order of Executing Court dated 02.11.2023 restored – Respondent not entitled to compound interest or further amounts beyond Rs. 44.42 crores already paid [Paras 32–34].

Advocates Act – Disciplinary Proceedings – Reference under Section 35 – Bar Council referred complaint to Disciplinary Committee by cryptic order without recording reasons – Held: Such order invalid – Recording of reasons to believe misconduct is sine qua non – Reference order must show application of mind – Cryptic referral cannot be sustained [Paras 35-39].

Professional Misconduct – Scope – No advocate-client relationship between complainant and respondent-advocate – Respondent merely identified plaintiff in Consent Terms that remain valid – Held: Identification of party in Consent Terms does not constitute misconduct – Complaints against opposite party’s lawyer are impermissible – Professional relationship ordinarily a precondition for disciplinary jurisdiction [Paras 29-34].

Consent Terms – Consent decree recorded by High Court continues to operate and has not been set aside – Allegations of fraud, impersonation, or suppression cannot be tested in disciplinary proceedings against advocate – Remedy lies in challenging the decree, not disciplinary action [Paras 30-33].

Bar Council’s Role – Requirement of Prima Facie Satisfaction – State Bar Council must apply its mind to complaint and record reasons before referring matter to Disciplinary Committee – Reaffirmed principle in Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat, 1980 Supp SCC 318 [Paras 36-37].

Role of Advocate in Affidavit – Advocate merely identifying/attesting signatures of deponent in affidavit does not make him responsible for truth of contents – Complaint based on such allegation held frivolous, absurd, and malicious [Paras 50-53].

Abuse of Process – Complaints by adversaries in litigation found to be mala fide and vexatious – Entertaining such complaints amounts to misuse of disciplinary jurisdiction – Malicious prosecution of advocates deprecated [Paras 23, 33, 53-55].

Decision – Complaint No. 27 of 2023 against Rajiv Narula and all proceedings before BCMG quashed – Writ petition closed – Cost of Rs.50,000 imposed on BCMG payable to respondent-advocate [Paras 40-42] – In connected matters, complaints against Ms. Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri also quashed – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Cost of Rs.50,000 each imposed on complainant and BCMG payable to respondent-advocate [Paras 55-57].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing – Bhajan Lal applied – Civil loan/cheque dispute dressed up as cheating/forgery – Multiple retaliatory FIRs – Proceedings quashed – Parties relegated to civil remedies.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing – Bhajan Lal principles – Civil dispute given criminal colour – Proceedings Quashed – Allegations pertain to a loan/cheque dispute; multiple FIRs in quick succession after appellant initiated lawful proceedings; ingredients of cheating/forgery not prima facie made out – Held, case falls within Bhajan Lal categories (1) and (7); continuation of prosecution would be abuse of process – FIR No. 47/2003 and chargesheet dated 16.04.2003 quashed [Paras 12-16, 20-22].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and self-restraint – High Court must prevent abuse yet avoid “mini-trials” – The settled law reiterates that inherent powers are wide but controlled by self-imposed restraints; court examines whether FIR/material disclose ingredients of offence; no sufficiency-of-evidence weighing at 482 stage – Exception for unimpeachable defence material of sterling quality – Principles restated [Para 11–11.5].

Criminal vs Civil – Commercial/contractual disputes – Criminal law not debt-recovery tool – Money/contractual disagreements cannot be criminalised absent foundational mens rea; tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal cases deprecated – Followed: Indian Oil v. NEPC; Inder Mohan Goswami; Ganga Dhar Kalita; Shailesh Kumar Singh – Guidance applied to present facts [Paras 17-19].

Malice / Counterblast – Multiple FIRs in one week; prior NI Act complaints and earlier FIR by appellant – High Court noted hurried filing of chargesheets during pending transfer writ – Circumstances fortify inference of mala fides; present FIR a retaliatory counterblast – Supports Bhajan Lal category (7) [Paras 5-7, 13-15].

Cheating/forgery – Ingredients not prima facie disclosed – Even accepting allegations entirely, the dispute is civil (loan of ₹2,00,000; agreement to sell; cheque dishonour) – No material showing initial fraudulent intent; no case to proceed for IPC 420/467/468 at threshold [Paras 13, 20].

High Court error – Failure to apply Bhajan Lal; directing matters to proceed despite civil nature – Supreme Court intervenes to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 21-22].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Allahabad High Court judgment dated 22.10.2019 set aside – FIR No. 47/2003 (05.02.2003) and chargesheet dated 16.04.2003 quashed – Parties at liberty to pursue civil remedies [Para 22-23].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Review Jurisdiction – Re-computation of cut-off marks – Impermissible – High Court had dismissed writ petition on 07.05.2024 holding respondents ineligible for Civil Judge (Entry Level) recruitment as they had not secured cut-off marks in preliminary exam – In review, High Court recalled its order and directed re-computation of cut-off marks excluding ineligible candidates and holding of fresh main exam – Held: Review jurisdiction cannot be used to substitute earlier view or re-adjudicate contentions already decided – Such directions could only be issued in appellate jurisdiction, not review – Order set aside [Paras 11-13].

Cut-off Marks – Apprehension of reduction – Excluding ineligible candidates – High Court in original writ held that even exclusion of ineligible candidates would not enable respondents to cross cut-off – Review based on same apprehension unsustainable [Paras 12-13].

Physically Impaired Candidates – Conduct of second main exam – No parity – Separate second exam held only for physically impaired candidates under judicial directions – Could not be relied upon to justify a third main exam for others – Review order unsustainable [Para 13].

Recruitment Process – Continuity – Affidavit filed by Registrar (I&L), MP High Court confirmed that no ineligible candidate would be called for interview – Respondents’ apprehension baseless – Appeal allowed – Recruitment to proceed as per advertisement dated 17.11.2023 [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 set aside – Review Petition dismissed – Appeal allowed – Recruitment process to be concluded expeditiously – No order as to costs [Para 15].

Service Tax – Export Cargo Handling – Liability – Airports Authority of India claimed exemption on handling of export cargo citing exclusion in definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23), Finance Act, 1994 – Held: Exclusion under “cargo handling service” does not extend to definition of “taxable service” under Section 65(105)(zzm) – Any service provided by Airports Authority in an airport is a taxable service – Export cargo handling covered – Service tax payable [Paras 9-20].

Charging Section – Section 66 – Broad scope – Section 66 read with Section 65(105)(zzm) covers all services by Airports Authority at airports – Statutory provision prevails over exclusion clause in cargo handling definition – Legislative intent is wide taxation [Paras 14-21].

Circulars – Not binding against statute – Departmental circulars relied upon by appellant cannot override express statutory provisions – CESTAT’s view upheld [Para 22].

Decision – CESTAT order confirming service tax on services relating to export cargo upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23-24].

Second SLP – Unconditional withdrawal without liberty – Barred – Appeals dismissed.

Civil Law - Maintainability - Second SLP after withdrawal – Unconditional withdrawal without liberty – Not maintainable – Court held that where a litigant withdraws a Special Leave Petition without seeking liberty to file afresh, a subsequent SLP against the same order is barred by principles of public policy flowing from Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC – Entertaining such SLP would defeat finality of judicial orders and permit bench-hunting – Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. applied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 19-23, 35-37].

Review Petition – Appeal against refusal of review – Bar under Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC – Rejection of review does not merge with original decree/order and cannot be separately appealed – Remedy lies only against the original order, not the order refusing review [Paras 23-24].

Doctrine of Merger – Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries distinguished – Non-speaking dismissal of SLP does not attract merger, but principle does not extend to allow repeated challenges when earlier SLP is withdrawn without liberty – Hence, second SLP impermissible [Paras 27-33].

Public Policy – Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – Court reiterated the need for finality of litigation – Entertaining successive SLPs after withdrawal would undermine judicial discipline and finality [Para 35].

Decision – Appeals held not maintainable – Both civil appeals dismissed – Liberty to appellant to pursue remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law [Paras 36-38].

Criminal Law – Rape – Quashing of FIR – Consent and promise of marriage – Complainant alleged that the appellant had physical relations with her on false promise of marriage – Appellant contended that the FIR was filed only after he initiated administrative complaints against the complainant for harassment, including suicide threats and workplace misconduct – Supreme Court observed that FIR was lodged four months after the alleged last incident and only after the complainant was served with a show cause notice at work – Held: Filing of FIR appears motivated by vengeance and as an afterthought – FIR and charge sheet quashed [Paras 4-7, 13-15].

Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS (Equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) – Court reiterated principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. on the scope of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process – Held: FIRs filed with malicious intent or to wreak personal vengeance warrant intervention under Section 528 BNSS – FIR in present case satisfies Bhajan Lal’s test of being manifestly attended with mala fides [Paras 12-14].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Delay in Filing – FIR filed months after incident and subsequent to administrative proceedings against complainant – Supreme Court inferred lack of bona fide intention – Emphasised need to look beyond pleadings in FIR in such cases – Appeal allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment refusing to quash FIR set aside – FIR and charge sheet against appellant quashed.

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Promotion with Retrospective Effect – Appeal Allowed – Appellant was denied retrospective promotion and consequential benefits despite departmental proceedings being quashed – Held: State violated direction in LPA judgment by not promoting appellant from date her junior was promoted – Relief granted including arrears and pension revision [Paras 2, 5, 9-11].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Improper Denial of Relief – Supreme Court held High Court erred in dismissing contempt petition – Once mandamus was issued for retrospective promotion and benefits, failure to comply warranted interference – Retirement of appellant not a bar to granting full relief [Paras 3, 9-10].

Delay and Sham Inquiry – Departmental Proceedings Initiated After 10 Years – Set Aside – Allegations found baseless and proceedings conducted in violation of natural justice – Punishment quashed – Reliance placed on Roop Singh Negi and Bani Singh cases [Paras 4-5].

Discrimination – Unequal Treatment Between Peers – Appellant’s junior promoted after relaxation – Appellant wrongfully denied same benefit due to annulled punishment – Held: Appellant entitled to identical promotion and benefits from same date as junior officer [Paras 6-9].

Consequential Relief – Pay, Arrears and Pension – Full Monetary Relief Granted – Supreme Court ordered fixation of pay, pension, and release of arrears within four months – Directed interest @7% if delay occurs beyond stipulated time – Officers responsible for delay may be made personally liable [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – State directed to grant retrospective promotion, fix pay and pension, pay all arrears – Compliance to be done within 4 months; failure will attract 7% interest and possible recovery from erring officials [Paras 11-12].