Rectification of GST Returns – Mechanism and Restrictions – Appellant challenges the High Court's decision allowing the rectification of Form GSTR-3B for past periods – Supreme Court emphasizes that the law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3 but in a specified manner – Once Form GSTR-3B is submitted, any changes thereto may have a cascading effect, and thus unilateral rectification by the assessee is not permissible [Paras 1-50].

Impact of Auto-Populated Records – Changes from Pre-GST Period – Court notes that the GST regime introduced auto-populated records and entries, a different dispensation from the pre-GST period which did not have such provisions – Allowing changes contrary to the statutory mandate would lead to chaotic situations and collapse of the tax administration of Union, States, and Union Territories [Paras 39-50].

Procedural Safeguards – Judicial Accountability – Supreme Court criticizes the High Court's decision for not adhering to the statutory provisions – Holds that the stipulations in the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 are consistent with the provisions of the CGST Act and the Rules framed thereunder – No necessity of reading down paragraph 4 of the Circular as done by the High Court [Paras 50-52].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed – No order as to costs – Applications disposed of [Para 52].

Senior Advocate Designation – Withdrawal of Privilege – Petitioner challenges the withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation by the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the decision was disproportionate and failed to consider his long-standing service and contributions – Supreme Court notes the petitioner’s history of transgressions and balances the need for maintaining decorum with giving one final chance for redemption [Paras 1-13].

Contempt of Court – Repeated Misconduct – Petitioner made serious allegations against the judiciary and circulated them publicly, leading to contempt proceedings and withdrawal of his Senior Advocate designation – Supreme Court observes that the petitioner’s actions showed a pattern of misbehavior, but still grants a conditional restoration of designation for a limited period to test his conduct [Paras 2-10].

Restoration of Designation – Conditional Grant – Court decides to temporarily restore the petitioner’s Senior Advocate designation for two years starting from January 1, 2022 – During this period, the Gujarat High Court will monitor his conduct and has the discretion to withdraw the designation permanently if any misconduct is observed – Emphasizes that the petitioner’s future conduct will determine the final decision on his designation [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Temporary restoration of Senior Advocate designation for two years from January 1, 2022 – Gujarat High Court to monitor and decide on permanent restoration based on petitioner’s conduct – No costs awarded [Para 13].

Waqf Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Suit for Permanent Injunction – High Court’s decision that civil courts can entertain suits for permanent injunction even if they pertain to waqf properties challenged – Supreme Court holds that as per Section 85, any dispute related to waqf properties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunals – High Court’s ruling set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-24].

Section 83 of Waqf Act – Tribunal’s Authority – It is well established that Section 83(1) mandates Waqf Tribunals to determine any disputes, questions, or matters related to waqf properties – Civil courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain such matters – Clarifies scope of Tribunal’s authority and exclusivity [Paras 25-30].

Precedent and Statutory Interpretation – Examination of historical legislative amendments and prior case law affirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Noted that any decision regarding waqf property disputes must be directed to the Waqf Tribunal – Emphasis on consistent statutory interpretation to avoid jurisdictional conflict [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Judgment of High Court reversed – Suit for permanent injunction to be tried by Waqf Tribunal – Civil court’s jurisdiction barred in matters involving waqf properties as per Section 85 of the Waqf Act [Para 36].

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Termination of Daily Wagers – Appellants employed on daily wage basis terminated without compliance with Section 25F – Industrial Tribunal declared termination void and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages – High Court set aside the Award, holding appointments were irregular and not entitled to protection under Section 25F – Supreme Court held termination of workmen, despite irregular appointments, is retrenchment under Section 2(oo) and requires compliance with Section 25F – Reinstatement not automatic; reasonable compensation awarded [Paras 1-32, 36-42].

Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act – Conditions Precedent to Retrenchment – Mandatory compliance required for workmen in continuous service for over 240 days – Non-observance renders termination void – Relief not automatically reinstatement but can be monetary compensation based on case facts [Paras 22-25, 30-31, 33-34].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Considering nature of service and duration, Supreme Court awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as lump sum compensation to each appellant instead of reinstatement with back wages – Compensation deemed just and reasonable given the circumstances [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Award of Industrial Tribunal modified to grant lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to each appellant within three months [Para 44].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Arbitrary Policies – High Court held the State's "First Come First Serve" basis for granting licences for group housing colonies violated Article 14 – Supreme Court affirmed, stating such policies must be rational, fair, and transparent – Cancellation of licences upheld as practice was not codified and lacked a legal foundation [Paras 30-40].

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Policy Flaws – The policy did not comply with statutory requirements and was not publicly disclosed – State must ensure non-discriminatory methods for licence allotment, adhering to principles of fairness and transparency in governance [Paras 31-34].

Principle of First Come First Serve – Unfair and Non-Transparent – Supreme Court found the method inherently flawed due to its potential for misuse and lack of rational basis – Practice invalidated as it did not ensure equal opportunity for all applicants – Rejected notion that long-standing practice validated policy [Paras 36-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – State to consider all pending and future applications for licences under the 2017 policy, ensuring fairness and transparency [Paras 44-46].

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – Section 25 – Recovery of Debts – Broad consensus between parties to resolve the matter – Appellants to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5 crores with DRT Jaipur – Respondent allowed to withdraw Rs. 5 crores along with pre-deposit of Rs. 1.53 crores and Rs. 25 lakhs with Recovery Officer – Withdrawal subject to final outcome of pending appeal – DRT directed to expedite final decision within eight weeks – Appeals disposed of on agreed terms [Paras 1-9].

Court Directions:

Appellants to deposit Rs. 5 crores within four weeks without prejudice to rights in pending appeal

Respondents permitted to withdraw Rs. 5 crores, Rs. 1.53 crores pre-deposit, and Rs. 25 lakhs

Withdrawal subject to ultimate outcome of Appeal No. 1/2020

DRT Jaipur to decide Appeal No. 1/2020 within eight weeks

Order of attachment of shares to continue until final disposal

Recovery proceedings stayed until Appeal No. 1/2020 decided

Appeal against pre-deposit order before DRAT stands disposed of [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal disposed of in terms of the consensus – Directions issued to DRT Jaipur for expeditious resolution [Paras 8-9].

Privacy – Right to Privacy – Allegations of unauthorized surveillance using Pegasus spyware – Supreme Court addresses concerns over privacy infringement and the potential chilling effect on freedom of speech and press – Emphasis on reasonable expectation of privacy and the necessity for restrictions to pass constitutional scrutiny [Paras 27-36].

Surveillance and National Security – Judicial Review – Surveillance must be justified on constitutional grounds – State’s interest in national security must be balanced with individual privacy rights – Necessity for statutory safeguards and adherence to constitutional procedures in surveillance activities [Paras 35-50].

Constitutional Obligations – Role of the State – State’s duty to protect citizens' fundamental rights – Court criticizes the Union of India for lack of detailed affidavit and transparency – Emphasizes that the State cannot withhold information under the guise of national security without proper justification [Paras 45-51].

Independent Investigation – Committee Formation – Supreme Court appoints an independent Technical Committee overseen by Justice R.V. Raveendran to investigate the allegations – Terms of reference include examining the use of Pegasus spyware, identifying affected individuals, and recommending measures for cyber security and privacy protection [Paras 55-63].

Decision – Writ petitions partially allowed – Appointment of Technical Committee – Directions issued for a thorough investigation and report – State directed to provide necessary support to the Committee [Paras 59-64].

Tenancy Act – Surrender of Tenancy – Mandatory Notice – Requirement of three months’ notice to the landlord and the Special Officer for a valid surrender – Surrender takes effect only after acceptance by the Special Officer, ensuring the surrender is voluntary and genuine – Failure to follow prescribed procedure invalidates the surrender – Findings of lower courts on surrender held untenable [Paras 36-37].

Right to Purchase – Cultivating Tenant’s Priority – Tenant’s right to purchase the land leased under Section 15 – Tribunal upheld appellant's claim based on the recorded compromise recognizing subsisting tenancy – Evidence of part payment towards purchase considered valid – Lower courts’ findings on non-subsistence of tenancy reversed [Paras 38-39].

Procedure for Eviction – Non-Payment of Rent – Necessity of specific pleadings on rent default – No evidence of demand for arrears by landlord – Tribunal's findings on tenant's right to purchase supported by evidence – Lower courts’ decisions set aside [Para 39].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Order of Tribunal restored – Right to purchase the property under Section 15 upheld – Appreciation recorded for the assistance of amicus curiae [Paras 40].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Permanent Disability – The appellant, aged 21, suffered 69% permanent disability due to a motor accident resulting in severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility – Tribunal awarded Rs. 574,320/- which was enhanced to Rs. 1,431,752/- by the High Court – Supreme Court held that the compensation awarded by the High Court did not reflect the full impact of the disability on the appellant's earning capacity and quality of life [Paras 1-10].

Assessment of Disability – Functional Disability – Supreme Court observed that the 69% physical disability translated to 100% functional disability in terms of loss of earning capacity – Compensation should reflect the true impact on the claimant’s life and ability to earn a livelihood – Enhanced compensation awarded considering the requirement for full-time assistance and recurring medical expenses [Paras 12-16].

Just Compensation – Realistic Recompense – Emphasis on providing compensation that restores dignity and accounts for ground realities – Importance of recognizing the non-quantifiable impacts on the claimant’s life such as loss of self-dignity and becoming a burden on others – Adequate compensation to ameliorate the claimant’s suffering and aid in negotiating life's unforeseeable twists [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,767,800/- with additional sums awarded under specific heads: expenses for bystander, future medical expenses, compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power, and loss of earning – Directions issued for payment within six weeks with adjustments for any amounts already paid [Paras 18, 20].