Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions challenging reopening under Section 148 without giving reasons – Supreme Court emphasizes that courts must provide reasoned orders detailing facts, issues, submissions, applicable legal principles, and reasons for conclusions – [Paras 1-4].

Duty to Give Reasons – High Court's failure to address grounds raised in writ petitions – Supreme Court stresses the necessity of reasoned orders to prevent prejudice to parties and to ensure they understand the basis for decisions – [Paras 2.1-2.4].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court remands cases to High Court for fresh decision on merits with proper reasoning – Appeals allowed, High Court's orders set aside – [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders passed by the High Court set aside – Matters remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law – [Para 5].

Income Tax – Re-opening of Assessment – High Court quashes notice for re-opening assessment due to lack of tangible material – Supreme Court finds that objective material existed justifying re-opening based on search proceedings, seized documents, and statements under Section 132(4) – Assessment originally accepted under Section 143(1) without scrutiny, thus not shielding from re-assessment – [Paras 1-34].

Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) – Limited Immunity – Supreme Court clarifies that immunity under Section 192 of the Finance Act, 2016 is limited to declarant and specific proceedings, not extending blanket protection – Re-opening based on material seized from search of third parties corroborated with assessee’s data, not solely on IDS declaration – [Paras 30-34].

Duty to Provide Reasoned Orders – High Court's dismissal of writ petitions without reasoned orders criticized – Courts must detail facts, issues, submissions, legal principles, and reasons to ensure transparency and fairness – Case remanded to High Court for fresh consideration with proper reasoning – [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's orders set aside – Cases remanded to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law – [Para 5].

Excise Revenue – Interest on Arrears – Respondent granted license for retail sale of country liquor – Surrendered license and disputed balance fee – High Court stayed recovery of license fee – Respondent eventually paid balance without interest – Supreme Court held that interim stay does not quash the demand, but merely suspends it – Once proceedings are dismissed, interim orders end and interest on unpaid amounts must be paid – [Paras 1-27].

Restitution Principle – Stay Order Impact – Interim stay orders do not extinguish underlying obligations – Dismissal of main proceedings revives suspended liabilities – Interest on arrears of excise revenue to be paid from due date, as per statutory provisions – [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Respondent liable to pay interest on arrears of excise revenue for the period covered by the interim stay – Liberty granted to respondent to apply under one-time settlement scheme for concessions on interest dues – [Paras 26-27].

Environmental Law – Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance – Supreme Court holds that ex post facto EC should not ordinarily be granted and certainly not for the asking – However, rigid application of procedural requirements without considering the consequences of shutting down operational units contributing to the economy and providing livelihoods is impractical – Court emphasizes the need for a balanced approach – Units found complying with environmental norms can be granted ex post facto EC in exceptional cases – [Paras 54-67].

Economic and Social Impact – Court recognizes the significant economic and social impact of closing down manufacturing units employing a large workforce – Stresses the need for authorities to consider these factors while ensuring compliance with environmental regulations – Penal measures like heavy fines and environmental restoration costs suggested for deviant industries – [Paras 56-63].

Decision – Appeals allowed – NGT order set aside – Respondents directed to decide on the applications for EC within one month – Pending decision, operation of the units shall not be interfered with – [Paras 67-70].

Securities Law – Scope of Appeal – SEBI Act, 1992 – Section 15Z – Supreme Court's jurisdiction confined to questions of law arising from decisions of the Tribunal – Court will exercise jurisdiction only on erroneous construction of statutory provisions or general legal principles – Not every interpretation qualifies as a question of law – Tribunal’s findings based on factual inferences not interfered with unless they raise substantial questions of law – [Paras 12-21].

Advertisements – Misleading and Defrauding Investors – SEBI’s allegations of misleading advertisements by the company reversed by Tribunal – Tribunal found announcements related to normal business activities supported by evidence – Supreme Court affirms Tribunal's fact-based conclusions, finding no substantial question of law – [Paras 22-26].

Market Manipulation – Share Price and Accounts – Tribunal concluded SEBI’s allegations of share price manipulation and inflated profits lacked evidence – Tribunal’s inferences based on material on record do not give rise to questions of law – Supreme Court upholds Tribunal's findings – [Paras 27-29].

Right to Cross-Examine – SEBI’s reliance on a letter from stockbroker contradicted company’s defense – Tribunal held principles of natural justice violated due to lack of cross-examination opportunity – Supreme Court acknowledges right to disclosure of material but notes this right is not absolute – Issue of cross-examination left open for future determination – Tribunal’s general observation on right to cross-examine set aside – [Paras 30-38].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Tribunal's decision upheld except for general observation on right to cross-examine – Parties to bear their own costs – [Paras 38-39].

Service Law – Regularization – Lecturer Post – Appellant appointed as Guest Lecturer in 'Karm Kand' – Teaching for nearly 16 years – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging Chancellor’s order rejecting appointment – Supreme Court finds no specific qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in 'Karm Kand' – Appellant holds a Master's degree in relevant subject as determined by the original Selection Committee – [Paras 1-17].

Qualifications and Subject Expertise – Academic Council's Role – Under Section 25(1)(c) of U.P. University Act, Academic Council advises on qualifications for teaching specific subjects – Academic Council’s recommendation supports appellant’s qualifications – High Court overlooked these critical details – [Paras 18-19].

Procedural Irregularities – Conflict Between Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor – Initial objections based on non-inclusion of subject experts in Selection Committee – High Court remanded matter to Chancellor to ascertain availability of experts – Chancellor’s subsequent expansion of objections was erroneous – Supreme Court corrects procedural missteps – [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Writ petition allowed – University directed to regularize appellant's services as Lecturer in 'Karm Kand' – No order as to costs – [Para 20].

MSME Act – Jurisdiction – Applicability – Agreement dated 24.08.2020 between appellant and respondent – Appellant registered as MSME on 28.08.2020 – Dispute arose post-registration – Agreement governed by laws prevailing at the time of execution – MSME Act not applicable as appellant was not MSME at the time of contract – Council lacks jurisdiction under Section 18 of MSME Act – [Paras 1-8].

Choice of Law – Contractual Terms – Agreement specifies governing law as prevailing laws of India at the time of execution – Registration of appellant as MSME post-execution does not confer MSME Council jurisdiction – [Paras 8.1-8.2].

Larger Legal Questions – Applicability of MSME Act to foreign buyers availing services in India and post-execution MSME registration kept open for future consideration – Reference to relevant judgments of Supreme Court – [Paras 8.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – MSME Council has no jurisdiction over disputes between appellant and respondent – No order as to costs – [Paras 8.3-9].

Service Law – Temporary Employment – Absorption and Regularisation – Respondents appointed on a fixed term for a specific project ("Post-Earthquake Redevelopment Programme") – High Court directed State to consider their regularisation after 17 years of service – Supreme Court finds respondents were appointed in a temporary unit and not on sanctioned posts in regular establishment – High Court's direction to create supernumerary posts for regularisation held unsustainable – [Paras 1-6].

Interim Orders – Continuation of Service – Respondents continued in service due to High Court's interim orders – Period of service under interim orders not to be considered for regularisation – High Court's consideration of continued service as basis for regularisation flawed – [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Precedent – Directions Not to Be Treated as Precedent – High Court's order to create supernumerary posts not to be treated as precedent – Supreme Court holds no such direction can be issued under Article 226 – [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order quashed – Order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition restored – No costs – [Paras 11-12].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Section 11(6) – Application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be made in any High Court irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction – Section 11(6) must be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) – High Court must have supervisory jurisdiction over a court which would have jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) – [Paras 27-28].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Development Agreement executed and registered in Bihar – Property situated in Muzaffarpur, Bihar – No part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11(6) – [Paras 20-21].

Seat of Arbitration – Agreement specifying Kolkata as the venue for arbitration sittings does not confer exclusive jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court – Venue of arbitration sittings distinct from the seat of arbitration – [Paras 33-46].

Previous Applications – Section 42 of the Arbitration Act – Once an application under Part I is made in a court, that court alone has jurisdiction over subsequent applications – Not applicable if initial application not made in a High Court – [Paras 29-32].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Orders of the Calcutta High Court appointing an arbitrator and dismissing the review application set aside – Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya appointed as Sole Arbitrator – Status quo regarding property to be maintained for 15 days to allow parties to seek interim relief from the Arbitrator – [Paras 49-51].