Service Matter - Promotion of Assistant Engineers - Qualifying degree or diploma holder - Time period of service prior to acquisition of degree - Distinction between diploma holder and degree holder - Whether to be counted - Interpretation of service rules - Seniority - Practice of the department – Held - there is no distinction between the time period served before or after the acquisition of the degree so long as the degree is acquired and is the basis for consideration of the promotion - The time period spent in the service as Junior Engineer was at variance dependent on whether the person had a qualifying Degree or a qualifying Diploma - Past practice being of significance - Principle of seniority from the date of appointment - Rules do not stipulate from which date the time period of regular service has to be counted - View taken in D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 225 held to be applicable law - Appeals dismissed.

Bail Application - Rejection of bail - Appellant, along with others, accused of offenses under the GCTOC Act and IPC - Allegations of intimidation, threats, and extortion - Prima facie material indicating regular participation in crime - Bail application dismissed by High Court - Appeal filed seeking bail - Court declining bail considering alleged role of appellant, existence of other cases, and statements of witnesses - Exercise of judicial discretion - Need for sound discretion guided by law - Detailed examination of evidence and merits not required at this stage - Bail application rejected. [Para 8-13]

Applicability of GCTOC Act - Not addressed - Appeal filed solely for seeking bail during trial - Court refraining from going into legal aspect of applicability of GCTOC Act at present stage. [Para 8]

Parity in granting bail - Not automatically granted based on similarity of circumstances - Role of accused, position in relation to incident and victims, and individual considerations of utmost importance - Merely showing similarity of weapon possession insufficient to establish case for bail based on parity. [Para 12]

Examination of protected witnesses - Request by respondent-state to consider bail application after their examination - Court granting six months' time for recording statements of protected witnesses - Appellant allowed to renew bail application after their examination. [Para 14-15]

Background: The present appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court and ITAT in a tax dispute between the appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) and the respondent (Kunal Constructions) relating to the nature of a certain transaction in the assessment year 2010-11.

Issue: Whether the transaction in question was a sale of capital assets or a sale of stock in trade?

Held: The Supreme Court held that the ITAT had failed to consider the relevant aspects/relevant factors while considering the transaction in question as stock in trade and had not considered the relevant aspects which were required to be considered by the ITAT. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court and to take into consideration the relevant factors while considering the transaction as stock in trade or as sale of capital assets or business transaction.(Para No. 7 & 8)

Ratio: Merely on the basis of recording of inventory in the books of accounts, the transaction in question would not become stock in trade. In order to examine whether a particular transaction is sale of capital assets or business expense, multiple factors like frequency of trade and volume of trade, nature of transaction over the years etc., are required to be examined.

Decision: The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the ITAT were quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted back to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits, while taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court and to take an appropriate decision on whether the transaction in question is the sale of capital assets or sale of stock in trade and other aspects referred hereinabove.

Sale deed - Nature of transaction - Burden of proof - Admissibility of parol evidence - Inter-se dispute between co-defendants - Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - Validity of sale deed executed by defendant against co-defendant - Sale deed registered and executed by defendant not in dispute - Presumption of genuineness - Extent of property described in sale deed - Inconsistency in defendant's stand - Extraneous evidence not necessary in the presence of clear recitals in the registered document - Finding on the voidness of sale deed under Fragmentation Act unsustainable - Second defendant cannot raise counter-claim against co-defendant - Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act - Sale deed classifiable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 17 of the Registration Act - Sale deed covering immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- - Extraneous evidence admissible only when recitals in the document are indecisive and ambiguous - Second defendant's oral evidence cannot override registered sale deed - High Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree of dismissal of the suit of the trial court.

Registration and admission of execution of the sale deed carried a presumption of genuineness - burden of proof was on the second defendant to prove that the transaction did not reflect the true nature of the transaction - in the absence of anything on record establishing the annulment of the sale deed in question, and with nothing reflecting a contra intention not to pass the title and ownership, it was not necessary to enter into extrinsic evidence relating to the sale transaction.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 31 - High Court's duty in Second Appeal - should not interfere with the findings of fact unless there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence or the findings of the lower courts are vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence, misreading of evidence or if such findings are based on inadmissible evidence - High Court had erred in setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree of dismissal of the suit of the trial court. Appeal Allowed. (Para Numbers: 33-36)

Land acquisition - Deemed lapse of acquisition - Challenge by subsequent purchaser - Locus standi - Compensation not paid/tendered - Appeal against High Court's declaration of deemed lapse of acquisition - Applicability of earlier decision in Manav Dharma Trust case - Held, subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and pray for deemed lapse of acquisition - Decision in Manav Dharma Trust case not good law - Relying on Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips cases, it is observed that subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition - High Court's judgment unsustainable - Appeal allowed.

Criminal trial - Circumstantial evidence - Duty of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Heavy burden on prosecution in case of circumstantial evidence - Chain of circumstances must point to only one conclusion which is that accused is guilty - Each piece of evidence in chain must stand on firm grounds - Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt in present case. [Para 15]

Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Importance and limitations of last seen evidence - Close proximity of time between accused being last seen with deceased and discovery of body or time of death strengthens last seen evidence - Long gap between last seen and death weakens last seen evidence - Prosecution must establish that during this gap no other person had access to deceased. [Para 12, Para 14]

Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Discovery of evidence - Burden of proof on prosecution - Prosecution must establish complete chain of evidence pointing to guilt of accused - Discovery of items not sufficient to fix guilt if not linked to accused or deceased - Prosecution failed to meet burden of proof in present case. [Para 14]

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Exception to general rule that burden of proof lies on prosecution - Section 106 applicable only when other facts have been established by prosecution - In present case, where last seen evidence is weak, Section 106 does not come into play. Appeal Allowed. [Para 13]

Beyond Reasonable Doubt - prosecution failed  to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - evidence of last seen, only leads up to a point and no further - failed  to make a complete chain- discovery of ‘Parna’ and watch of the deceased - not sufficient to fix guilt on the appellant - case based on the circumstantial evidence - burden on the prosecution - circumstances collected by the prosecution must complete the chain -  point to only one conclusion which is that it is the accused who had committed the crime, and none else - orders of the trial court and the High Court set aside. Appeal Allowed. (Para No. 15 & 16)  

Quashing of Government Orders establishing Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu - High Court's decision to set aside the orders - Lack of guidelines for selecting land grabbing cases - Potential for abuse and misuse of power - Suggestions for enacting legislation with clear definitions - Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision. (Para 1-8) Formation of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu through Government Orders - Quashing of orders by High Court - Absence of guidelines for selecting cases - Potential for abuse of power by police officers - Suggestions for legislation similar to Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Supreme Court supports High Court's decision. (Para 2.1-2.4)

No specific legislation in Tamil Nadu regarding land grabbing cases - Definition of "land grabbing" and "land grabber" not provided in the government orders - Comparison with other state legislation - High Court's decision justified - Supreme Court allows state government to enact legislation with clear definitions and guidelines - Dismissal of Civil Appeals. (Para 4-7) Dismissal of Criminal Appeal involving transfer of case from Special Court to regular court. (Para 8) 

Classification of goods - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Pan masala and gutkha - Whether pan masala with tobacco comes under Chapter 24 or Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Whether pan masala and gutkha are "declared goods" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Held, pan masala and gutkha are classifiable under Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not under Chapter 24 - Prior to 2001, pan masala and gutkha were not "declared goods" under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Subsequent changes made introducing sub-heading 2404.40 in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 do not affect or change the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Resultantly, gutkha and pan masala are not covered under sub-heading 2404.40 so far as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is concerned.

General Rules of Interpretation - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Role of interpretive rules - Rule 3(a) - Heading which provides the most accurate description has to be followed - Pan masala and gutkha fell within Chapter 21 before 2001 regardless of whether they contained tobacco - Goods classifiable under Chapter 24 were more general and did not include pan masala.

Local or sales tax levies - Pan masala and chewing tobacco - Different treatment - Pan masala and gutkha were covered by local or sales tax levies till 2001 - Pan masala without tobacco went out of the reach of state sales tax for the first time in 2001 due to the introduction of ADE.

"Pan masala" and "chewing tobacco" - Not interchangeable or synonymous expressions - Pioneer Land & Urban Infrastructure v. Union of India followed - Entry 2404 refers to chewing tobacco "including preparations commonly known as 'Khara Masala', 'Kimam', 'Dokta', 'Zarda', 'Sukha' and 'Surti'" - Gudaku and snuff are dealt with under a separate heading - Pan masala and gutkha were included in Chapter 21 all along.

Rate of tax - Restrictions under Section 15 CST Act - Neither gutkha nor pan masala were "declared goods" under Section 14 of the CST Act - The subsequent changes made introducing 2404.40 in the CET Act do not affect or change the CST Act - Gutkha and pan masala are not covered under sub-heading 2404.40 so far as CST Act is concerned - Arguments of the assessees that the rate of local tax cannot exceed the limit under the CST Act are rejected as unmerited.

Appeal Allowed.

Statutory Interpretation - Fiscal Legislation - Plain meaning of words - Legislative intent - Classification of talcum powder as a cosmetic product - Scope of interpretation. (Para 48)

Legislative Intent - Talcum powder containing medication - Classification as cosmetics - Proportion of medication - Irrelevance - Clear legislative intent to treat all talcum powders with medication as cosmetics - Interpretive scope limited to medicated talcum powders. (Para 48)

Strict Interpretation of Taxing Statutes - Liability to tax - Strict letter of the law - Inference or analogy cannot impose tax if not covered within the provisions of the taxing statute - Substance of the matter not relevant - Clear legislative intent governs. (Para 48)

Explanation in Statutes - Harmonization with main provision - Explanation to be read in conjunction with the main provision - Expanding the meaning of terms - Wider interpretation - Inclusion of all containers in the definition of "packing" - Secondary packing included within the terms of the Explanation. (Para 51, 52)

Amendments to Taxation Entry - Inclusion of talcum powder, whether medicated or not, in the specific entry for cosmetics - No ambiguity in the plain meaning of the taxation head - Legislative intent to be given effect - Justification for the findings of the High Courts. Appeals Dismissed. (Para 50, 53)