Income Tax Law – Revision of Returns – Limitation – Appellant filed revised returns multiple times for the assessment year 1989-90, the last of which was submitted on 29th October 1991 – Assessing Officer refused to consider the return, citing Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, which barred the revised return due to the lapse of the one-year time limit – Appeals were filed but the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the revised return could not be entertained as it was barred by limitation – Held: Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return [Paras 1-3].

Appellate Powers of Tribunal – Section 254 of the IT Act – Appellant contended that the Tribunal could consider claims omitted from the original return during assessment proceedings – Reliance placed on Wipro Finance Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax – However, Tribunal did not invoke its powers under Section 254 and instead remanded the case to the Assessing Officer, who had no authority to consider the time-barred return – High Court upheld the decision, finding no fault in the Tribunal's approach [Paras 5-7].

Judgment: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision affirmed – Revised return filed after the time limit could not be considered by the Assessing Officer – Tribunal erred in remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, as it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim [Paras 9-11].

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Section 21(c) NDPS Act – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody since April 2023 in connection with the seizure of Codeine Phosphate syrup. Despite the filing of the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, the trial was not set to commence until January 2025. The Supreme Court granted bail, considering the prolonged pre-trial detention and the uncertainty surrounding the trial’s conclusion – Held: The appellant to be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – Right to Liberty – The Court noted that the appellant had been incarcerated for over a year and five months, with the trial yet to begin. The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention, without concrete progress in trial proceedings, impinges on the appellant’s right to liberty.

Conditions for Bail – Ensuring Compliance – The Court directed the appellant to cooperate with the trial proceedings and not misuse the liberty granted by bail. Any violation of the conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Detention – PMLA Case – Bail Granted – The appellant had been in custody for over two years, facing charges under the PMLA based on an FIR that initially alleged non-scheduled offenses. With the addition of Section 384 IPC, the Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court, considering the prolonged detention and the lack of a scheduled offense at the time of filing the complaint, granted bail – Held: Continuation of custody would violate the appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India [Paras 6-10].

Scheduled Offense Requirement under PMLA – FIR Analysis – The Court observed that the initial FIR registered under IPC Sections 186, 204, 353, and 120-B did not contain scheduled offenses. Even after the addition of Section 384 IPC, the charge-sheet failed to establish the commission of a scheduled offense, and therefore, the appellant’s detention under PMLA was unjustified [Paras 5-7].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Right to Liberty and Prolonged Custody – The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial, especially when no scheduled offense was established at the time of filing the PMLA complaint, infringed upon the appellant's right to personal liberty under Article 21 [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Bail granted to the appellant with conditions to be determined by the Special Court.

Constitutional Law – Validity of Legislation – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Challenge to the repeal of Khalsa University established under the 2016 Act – Appellant argued the repeal act was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution – Respondent State of Punjab justified repeal, citing protection of the heritage character of Khalsa College – Held: The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was discriminatory and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable classification – The Act failed to prove an intelligible differentia for singling out Khalsa University – Appeal allowed, the repeal Act struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored [Paras 1, 24, 56-66].

Legislation – Single Entity Law – Discrimination – The Khalsa University was singled out for repeal while 16 other private universities established under the 2010 policy continued to operate – Appellants contended that there was no justification for the discriminatory treatment – Court found that the State had not provided material to support its classification and no compelling or emergent situation justified such an action – Held: Repeal Act violated Article 14 as it was discriminatory against the Khalsa University without reasonable basis [Paras 56-59].

Arbitrariness – Manifest Arbitrariness – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was enacted to protect the heritage status of Khalsa College, but the University had no direct impact on Khalsa College’s heritage – Appellants provided a specific undertaking to not affect Khalsa College – Court found the basis for the repeal Act was non-existent and thus manifestly arbitrary – Held: The repeal Act was enacted irrationally without adequate determining principle, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 64-65].

Decision: The appeal is allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed – The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 is struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored – No costs imposed [Paras 66].

Criminal Law – Caste-Based Discrimination in Prisons – Caste-Based Allocation of Prison Labour – Violation of Constitutional Rights – The petitioner, Sukanya Shantha, sought to challenge caste-based discrimination in prison manuals and their provisions, which prescribed labour and prison duties based on caste identity – Supreme Court held that several provisions of prison manuals in different states were unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution – The impugned provisions were found to perpetuate caste-based labour divisions, thereby reinforcing historical patterns of discrimination against marginalized castes and denotified tribes [Paras 171, 172, 196].

Prison Manual Rules – Direct and Indirect Discrimination – Provisions such as requiring marginalized castes to perform menial tasks like cleaning and sweeping were found to directly discriminate against them – Phrases such as “suitable caste” and “accustomed to such duties” were held to indirectly perpetuate caste-based discrimination – The court held that such rules reinforced caste hierarchies and deprived prisoners of dignity and equal treatment in violation of constitutional principles [Paras 170, 173, 174, 177].

Constitutional Provisions – Classification and Discrimination – The Supreme Court reiterated that caste cannot be a valid principle of classification unless used to uplift marginalized communities – Caste-based classifications in prison manuals for labour, food preparation, and segregation of prisoners were declared unconstitutional, as they lacked rational nexus with prison reform and discipline and violated substantive equality under Article 14 [Paras 161-170].

Habitual Offender Provisions – Discrimination Against Denotified Tribes – The provisions in various prison manuals defining “habitual offenders,” especially targeting denotified tribes, were struck down – The Court emphasized that labeling members of certain communities as “habitual criminals” based on vague and broad definitions perpetuates systemic discrimination – States were urged to reconsider their habitual offender laws in line with constitutional mandates [Paras 213-219].

Forced Labour – Article 23 Violation – Imposing certain types of work, considered degrading, upon prisoners based solely on their caste was held to be forced labour under Article 23 – The court emphasized that assigning menial jobs to marginalized caste inmates without their consent constituted a form of coercion and violated their constitutional rights [Paras 189-195].

Judicial Directions – The Court directed all states and Union Territories to revise their prison manuals within three months to eliminate caste-based discrimination – The Union government was ordered to amend the Model Prison Manual, 2016, and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, to address caste-based discrimination – The court also mandated regular inspections by legal aid authorities to ensure compliance and prevent discriminatory practices inside prisons [Paras 231-232].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Provisions declared unconstitutional – Compliance reports to be filed within three months [Para 232].

Taxation Law – Power to Levy Tax – Quasi-Judicial Function – The power to levy tax is a sovereign function, but its exercise must conform to constitutional provisions like Article 265, which mandates that taxes can only be levied or collected by law – Article 265 distinguishes between “levy” and “collection,” where levy includes both imposition and assessment – Assessment is a crucial element in taxation, encompassing computation, imposition, and recovery of tax – Held, the assessment process is a quasi-judicial function requiring fairness and impartiality in determining tax liability [Paras 21-24].

Quasi-Judicial Function – Reassessment and Vested Rights – Once an assessment is made, it creates vested rights for the taxpayer – Reassessment, which vacates the original assessment and substitutes it with a fresh order, is a quasi-judicial act – The assessing officer's role is to prevent tax evasion but must ensure fairness and adherence to law, as outlined in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. – Held, any reassessment must be preceded by proper legal procedures, including obtaining necessary sanctions and giving notice to the taxpayer [Paras 25-27].

Jurisdiction – Time Limits for Reassessment – Under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, reassessment is subject to time limits – Notices issued beyond the prescribed time are invalid – The Supreme Court in S S Gadgil v. Lal & Co. affirmed that statutory time limits on reassessment are jurisdictional bars and cannot be waived – Any reassessment notice issued beyond these limits is without jurisdiction and void [Paras 28-29].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Strict Construction – Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their plain meaning – Courts cannot expand or assume legislative intent beyond the statute's language – In case of ambiguity, the interpretation favoring the taxpayer should be adopted – However, while the charging provisions are to be strictly interpreted, machinery provisions are construed to give effect to the legislative intent, ensuring the statute remains workable [Paras 33-37].

Harmonious Construction – Conflict between Provisions – In case of conflict between provisions of the same or different statutes, courts must adopt a harmonious construction to reconcile both provisions – A non-obstante clause can give overriding effect to a particular provision but must be limited to the extent intended by the legislature – Implied repeal is applied only when two statutes are irreconcilable, and the later law is presumed to repeal the earlier by implication [Paras 39-44].

Reassessment under New and Old Regime – Section 149 of the Income Tax Act – The new regime reduced the time limit for issuing reassessment notices from four to three years, and extended the time limit to ten years for cases where income escaping assessment exceeds INR 50 lakhs – The Court held that notices issued after 1 April 2021 under the old regime are deemed to be issued under the new regime, and any reassessment notice exceeding the new regime's limits must be dropped [Paras 45-53].

Effect of TOLA (Taxation and Other Laws Act) – TOLA was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to relax time limits for compliance with statutory obligations – The Supreme Court held that TOLA extends the time for issuing reassessment notices under Section 148 till 30 June 2021 – Therefore, any notices issued before this extended time are valid, but notices issued beyond the surviving period are time-barred and invalid [Paras 54-67].

Sanction for Reassessment – Requirement under Section 151 – The Court emphasized that obtaining prior sanction from the specified authority is a mandatory precondition for issuing reassessment notices – The requirement under the new regime stipulates higher authority for approvals, ensuring procedural fairness – Any notice issued without this sanction is void and without jurisdiction [Paras 73-76].

Conclusion – The reassessment notices issued under the old regime between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 are deemed as notices under the new regime – Any reassessment notice exceeding the prescribed time limits, as extended by TOLA, is invalid and must be set aside – Appeals allowed for the Revenue, and reassessment notices must be issued within surviving time limits where applicable [Paras 114-118].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Partial Acquittal – Two separate criminal appeals were heard together – Appellants accused of killing two victims, Brij Bihari Prasad, a legislator, and his bodyguard, at IGIMS hospital, Patna – Trial court had convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC – High Court acquitted several accused, finding inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly with respect to key witnesses and the timing of the FIR – Supreme Court upheld the conviction of two appellants, Mantu Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla, while acquitting others on the basis of insufficient evidence and benefit of the doubt – Held: Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC restored against Mantu Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Shukla [Paras 43-44].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Hostility – Key prosecution witnesses included Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25), and Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) – Paras Nath's testimony was crucial, but High Court had disbelieved it on account of contradictions and his relationship to one of the deceased – The Supreme Court, however, held that the inconsistencies were not significant enough to dismiss his entire testimony – Several other witnesses, including Amarendra Kumar Sinha, turned hostile but their core testimonies were deemed credible in parts – Held: Indian law does not follow the doctrine of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything), and reliable portions of testimony should be accepted [Paras 16, 22].

Circumstantial Evidence – Non-Recovery of Vehicles and Weapons – Eyewitnesses had identified the vehicles used by the assailants but the vehicles and weapons, including the carbine of the deceased bodyguard, were not recovered – Prosecution's failure to recover the weapons was deemed insufficient to undermine the credibility of the eyewitnesses, as the facts and circumstances of the case strongly supported their testimonies – Held: Non-recovery of weapons does not necessarily negate guilt in light of strong corroborative evidence [Paras 27-29].

Conspiracy Charge – Insufficient Evidence – Prosecution alleged a criminal conspiracy involving several of the accused, including Suraj Bhan Singh and Ram Niranjan Chaudhary, based on a purported jail meeting – However, the main witnesses to the conspiracy turned hostile and there was no corroborative evidence – Phone records and testimony related to a post-incident celebration were also found insufficient to substantiate the conspiracy charge – Held: Acquittal of the accused on conspiracy charges upheld due to lack of substantive evidence [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Convictions restored for Mantu Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Shukla under Sections 302 and 307 IPC – Life imprisonment affirmed – Acquittal of others upheld due to insufficient evidence and benefit of the doubt [Paras 43-44].

Taxation Law - Input Tax Credit – Section 17(5)(c) & (d) CGST Act – Exclusion of Input Tax Credit (ITC) – The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the CGST Act which restricts ITC on goods and services used for the construction of immovable property – The respondents contended that such exclusion is arbitrary, particularly when GST is charged on renting or leasing out the property, and sought to avail ITC for the construction of a shopping mall – High Court held Section 17(5)(d) must be read down, allowing ITC where the constructed property is used for leasing or renting purposes – Held: Interpretation of “plant or machinery” in Section 17(5)(d) is distinct from “plant and machinery” as per the explanation – Further, the question of whether a mall or other buildings can be classified as a “plant” depends on the functionality test – Appeal partly allowed, and matter remanded to High Court to determine if the mall qualifies as a "plant" [Paras 1-5, 42-45, 53-56, 66].

Constitutional Validity – Tax Legislation – Classification Under Section 17(5) – The appellants argued that clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by arbitrarily excluding ITC for construction of immovable property – Held: In taxation matters, the legislature enjoys wide latitude, and exclusions under Section 17(5) are rational to ensure that the State’s power over land and buildings under List II is not encroached upon – The classification of immovable property for exclusion from ITC is reasonable and serves the object of the statute – Therefore, clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) are constitutionally valid and do not infringe fundamental rights [Paras 57-60].

Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Meaning of “Plant or Machinery” – Section 17(5)(d) uses the phrase “plant or machinery,” while other sections refer to “plant and machinery” – The court held that the legislature’s use of “or” in Section 17(5)(d) is intentional and not a drafting error – The term “plant” must be understood in its commercial sense, and buildings, including malls and warehouses, can be treated as plants if they fulfill the functionality test, i.e., if they are essential for carrying out the business of renting or leasing – Each case must be decided on its facts to determine if a building qualifies as a “plant” [Paras 42-53].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – The High Court judgment reading down Section 17(5)(d) is set aside – The matter is remanded to the High Court for determining whether the mall qualifies as a “plant” for the purposes of availing ITC under Section 17(5)(d) – Constitutional validity of Section 17(5)(c) and (d) upheld – Petitioners in other writ petitions are free to initiate appropriate proceedings to determine if their constructions qualify as “plant” [Paras 65-68].

Constitutional Law – Validity of Legislation – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Challenge to the repeal of Khalsa University established under the 2016 Act – Appellant argued the repeal act was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution – Respondent State of Punjab justified repeal, citing protection of the heritage character of Khalsa College – Held: The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was discriminatory and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable classification – The Act failed to prove an intelligible differentia for singling out Khalsa University – Appeal allowed, the repeal Act struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored [Paras 1, 24, 56-66].

Legislation – Single Entity Law – Discrimination – The Khalsa University was singled out for repeal while 16 other private universities established under the 2010 policy continued to operate – Appellants contended that there was no justification for the discriminatory treatment – Court found that the State had not provided material to support its classification and no compelling or emergent situation justified such an action – Held: Repeal Act violated Article 14 as it was discriminatory against the Khalsa University without reasonable basis [Paras 56-59].

Arbitrariness – Manifest Arbitrariness – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was enacted to protect the heritage status of Khalsa College, but the University had no direct impact on Khalsa College’s heritage – Appellants provided a specific undertaking to not affect Khalsa College – Court found the basis for the repeal Act was non-existent and thus manifestly arbitrary – Held: The repeal Act was enacted irrationally without adequate determining principle, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 64-65].

Decision: The appeal is allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed – The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 is struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored – No costs imposed [Paras 66].