Taxation – Rebate of Duty – Limitation Period – Appellant filed claims for rebate of duty paid on exported goods beyond the period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act – Supreme Court held that the limitation period of one year under Section 11B is applicable to rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules – The parent statute’s provisions cannot be overridden by subordinate legislation – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-15].

Rebate Claims – Procedural Requirements – Merely because Rule 18 and the relevant notification do not mention Section 11B does not mean the limitation period is inapplicable – The statutory provisions of Section 11B are applicable to rebate claims, and applications must be made within the stipulated one-year period from the relevant date [Paras 9-12].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Earlier Judgments – The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings cited by the appellant, noting that the earlier decisions involved different contexts and provisions – Emphasis placed on maintaining the integrity of the statutory framework [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the rebate claims were time-barred as they were filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act [Paras 14-15].

Constitutional Law – Transfer of Criminal Trial – Petitioners, being the daughter and wife of the deceased, sought transfer of trial and further investigation from Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad or New Delhi – Supreme Court held that the petitioners’ apprehensions of a biased trial and investigation due to the influence of state authorities and threats to key witnesses were reasonable – Fundamental right to fair trial under Article 21 upheld – Transfer of trial to CBI Special Court Hyderabad ordered to ensure justice is seen to be done [Paras 1-15].

Fair Trial – Witness Protection – Significant threats to witnesses and attempts to influence key testimonies noted – Witnesses granted protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of fair and independent investigation free from external pressures [Paras 6-10, 13-15].

Judicial Fairness – Article 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done – Ensuring public confidence in the judicial system by transferring the trial to a neutral venue [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Trial transferred to CBI Special Court Hyderabad – CBI directed to complete the further investigation on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence independently and unbiasedly [Paras 14-15].

Environmental Law – Felling of Trees – Aarey Forest – Permission sought for the felling of trees in Aarey Forest for the construction of a metro car depot – The Supreme Court permitted Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) to apply to the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees needed for the shunting segment of the car depot project – Court emphasized the need for a balance between environmental concerns and public infrastructure projects, highlighting sustainable development [Paras 20-23].

Metro Project – Public Interest – The project involves significant public investment – Court noted that 95% of the project work had been completed and emphasized that substantial dislocation would occur if the project were halted – Court allowed the felling of additional trees necessary for the project, subject to the Tree Authority’s approval and compliance with environmental safeguards [Paras 21-23].

Government Decisions – Change in Stance – The State Government initially decided to relocate the car depot from Aarey to Kanjurmarg but later reverted to the original plan – Court acknowledged the Union Government’s concerns about operational and maintenance challenges at the alternative site – Court upheld the State Government’s revised decision to proceed with the Aarey site [Paras 9-11, 13-14].

Decision – IAs disposed of – MMRCL permitted to move the Tree Authority for permission to fell 84 trees – Tree Authority directed to make an independent decision, considering environmental conditions – Batch of petitions scheduled for final hearing on February 7, 2023 [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Defamation – Second Complaint – Appellant filed a second complaint identical to the first, alleging defamation by the respondents through media reports. The first complaint was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court reiterated that a second complaint on the same facts is not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances or new facts that were not available during the first complaint [Paras 1-20].

Section 499 IPC – Fourth Exception – The first complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the allegations fell under the fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, which pertains to expressing opinions in good faith. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the dismissal was based on a proper judicial assessment and could not be revisited through a second complaint [Paras 11-17].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Complaints – The High Court's decision to quash the second complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was upheld, emphasizing that revisiting the same facts through multiple complaints is an abuse of the judicial process [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, maintaining that the second complaint was not maintainable and the initial judicial assessment was valid. Liberty was granted to the appellant to seek appropriate remedies if new facts emerge in the future [Paras 20-21].

Pension Scheme – Applicability and Retrospective Implementation – Appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against High Court's decision to grant revised pay structure and pensionary benefits to employees of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) as per a new pension scheme brought into force from January 1, 1996 – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting the legislative and regulatory framework under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, which empowers the Board to frame Regulations for service conditions of its employees – The Court emphasized that statutory regulations framed by the Board under Section 95(1)(f) have the force of law and cannot be overridden by executive orders unless rules are framed by the State Government under Section 94(1)(nn) [Paras 25-30, 34].

Service Conditions – Regulatory Framework – The Supreme Court clarified that the appointment and service conditions of the Board's employees are not functions of the Board but are governed by the regulatory framework established under the Adhiniyam, 1965 – The Court distinguished between the power of the Board to appoint officers and servants and the power to determine their service conditions, which is vested in the Board subject to any rules framed by the State Government under Section 94(1)(nn) [Paras 25-30, 34].

Revised Pay Structure – Notional Application – The revised pay structure approved by the State Government in 2010 was applicable on a notional basis from January 1, 2006, but actual benefits were granted from January 14, 2010 – The Supreme Court upheld this approach, noting that the actual financial burden would be borne from the date of the Government's approval while ensuring that pension calculations reflect the notional pay revisions [Paras 40].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – State Government and Board directed to implement the new pension scheme and revised pay structure as per the established regulatory framework – No recovery proceedings against employees who have already received arrears [Paras 25-30, 34, 40-41].

Service Law – Regularization – Contractual Basis – The High Court ordered regularization of the respondent who had served as a driver on a contractual basis for over ten years – Supreme Court held that mere continuation in service does not entitle an employee to regularization, especially when the initial appointment was contractual and without a selection process – The policy decision to outsource services through a contractor was upheld – Appeal allowed [Paras 6.1-6.2].

Termination and Tender Process – The respondent's appointment was terminated following a completed tender process awarding the contract to an external agency – Supreme Court found the High Court erred in setting aside the termination order without a specific challenge to it – The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to policy decisions and contractual terms in public employment [Paras 6.1-6.2].

Judicial Precedents – The Court distinguished the present case from previous rulings on regularization, noting differences in facts and circumstances, such as the absence of a selection process and specific contractual terms limiting the respondent’s employment [Paras 6.3].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, including the order for regularization and the quashing of the termination – The writ petition by the respondent was dismissed – No cost orders [Paras 7].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Compensation – The appellants challenged the High Court's decision declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court noted that the High Court relied on the Pune Municipal Corporation case, which was later overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – The Constitution Bench clarified that compensation tendered but refused by landowners or those seeking higher compensation cannot claim lapse under Section 24(2) – The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount as per Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act [Paras 3.1-4].

Legal Interpretation – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The word "or" in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation is to be read as "nor" or "and" – Deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act – The Court emphasized that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of acquisition proceedings [Paras 365-366 of Indore Development Authority case].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed – The matter regarding encroachments on the land is to be addressed by the appropriate court – No cost orders [Paras 4].

Land Acquisition – Market Value and Development Charges – The appeals pertain to the acquisition of land for the rehabilitation of displaced persons from villages submerged due to the Sardar Sarovar Dam – The Reference Court and High Court assessed the market value based on exemplars of smaller plots and applied deductions for development charges – Supreme Court held that market value determination should consider all relevant facts and principles, and deductions should reflect the specific circumstances and development needs of the land – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh determination of compensation [Paras 22-37].

Market Value – Exemplars and Comparables – The Court emphasized using comparable sales of land in the vicinity and adjustments for positive and negative factors to determine the market value – The High Court's reliance on the market value determined in a separate case without establishing similarity between the lands was deemed erroneous [Paras 22-28].

Development Charges – Deduction Principles – The Court reiterated that deductions for development charges depend on the specific circumstances of the land, including the extent of existing infrastructure and the necessity for additional development – A blanket application of deductions without analyzing the evidence is inappropriate [Paras 29-37].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of compensation and development charges in accordance with established principles and evidence on record – The High Court was directed to reassess the market value and appropriate deductions for development afresh [Paras 38-39].

Income Tax – Capital Gains – Revaluation of Assets – The respondent, a partnership firm, revalued its assets and credited the revalued amount to the partners' capital accounts – The Assessing Officer (AO) considered this a transfer of capital assets and made additions towards short-term capital gains under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act – Supreme Court held that the revalued amount credited to the partners' accounts constitutes a transfer and falls within the scope of "otherwise" as mentioned in Section 45(4) – The Court emphasized that the revaluation and subsequent credit to the capital accounts effectively distribute the assets' value among partners, attracting capital gains tax [Paras 1-7].

Section 45(4) Interpretation – The Court noted that the insertion of Section 45(4) by the Finance Act, 1987, aimed to plug loopholes that allowed firms to avoid capital gains tax through revaluation and distribution of assets – The term "otherwise" in Section 45(4) includes revaluation scenarios, ensuring that such transactions are subject to capital gains tax [Paras 7.2-7.5].

Judicial Precedents – Differentiation – The Court distinguished the current case from earlier precedents, specifically the case of Hind Construction Ltd., by highlighting the amendment and specific inclusion of "otherwise" in Section 45(4) post the Finance Act, 1987 – The Bombay High Court's interpretation in A.N. Naik Associates, which supported the Revenue's position, was affirmed [Paras 7.6-7.7].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and ITAT that had favored the assessee – The AO's order making additions for short-term capital gains under Section 45(4) was restored – No cost orders [Paras 8].