Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – IPC Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 – Appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings – Supreme Court held that with serious factual disputes of civil nature and pending civil suits, pursuing criminal proceedings is an abuse of process – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 8-9].

Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Supreme Court emphasizes that when civil suits are pending to resolve the same factual disputes, concurrent criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process – Criminal complaint filed long after the alleged incident seen as suspect – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-9].

Jurisdiction – Civil vs. Criminal – Civil court to decide issues on their merits without being influenced by criminal proceedings or Supreme Court’s observations in this context – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent duplicative and potentially prejudicial litigation [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 708 of 2012 quashed – Civil court to decide pending suits independently [Para 10].

Facts:

The appellant-assessee had credits amounting to Rs. 2,26,000/- in declared income, which were added by the Assessing Officer based on the balance sheet and books of account.

The appellant's explanations and evidence regarding purchases from unregistered dealers were not provided during the assessment.

In penalty proceedings, the appellant produced affidavits of 13 unregistered dealers, with 12 of them being examined by the Officer and their statements not revealing any infirmities.

Issues:

• Whether the credits of Rs. 2,26,000/- added to the appellant's declared income were justified based on the evidence provided during the assessment?
• Whether the evidence produced in penalty proceedings by the appellant supports the genuineness of purchases from unregistered dealers?

Held:

The assessment order assumed the transactions as bogus due to the lack of evidence or explanation provided by the appellant during assessment.

In penalty proceedings, the appellant produced affidavits and statements of unregistered dealers, which were accepted by the CIT(A).

The appellate authority found that there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, based on the evidence provided in penalty proceedings.

The addition of Rs. 2,26,000/- towards cash credit from unregistered dealers for the assessment year 1998-99 was set aside.

The rest of the assessment order remained undisturbed.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 2,26,000/- towards cash credit from unregistered dealers was set aside. The rest of the assessment order was upheld.

Unfair Trade Practice – Section 2(1)(r)(3)(a) – National Commission's finding that prize money for the HSHS contest was paid from increased SMS charges and that this fact was not disclosed – Supreme Court held that there was no cogent evidence to support the conclusion that the prize money was funded by SMS revenue – The conclusion was based on conjecture and uncorroborated newspaper reports – Appellants had no revenue-sharing agreement and complied with TRAI regulations regarding SMS charges for value-added services [Paras 9-14].

Jurisdiction – National Commission's Jurisdiction – Brief contention that the complaint should have been referred to the TDSAT under the TRAI Act – Not adjudicated as it was not seriously pressed by the parties – Question of law regarding maintainability of complaints by consumer organizations against telecom service providers before consumer fora remains open [Para 16].

Punitive Damages – Award of punitive damages by National Commission – Set aside due to lack of specific prayer for such damages in the complaint and absence of proof of actual loss to consumers [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of the National Commission set aside – No unfair trade practice was found to be committed by the appellants [Para 17].

Customs Duty – Exemption and Withdrawal – Appellant imported chemical under an advance licence scheme allowing duty-free import – Exemption withdrawn by Notification No. 183/1993, later clarified by Notification No. 105/1994 allowing exemption for imports under advance licences issued before the amendment – Appellant's consignment cleared without duty initially, but later subjected to duty via a show-cause notice – Supreme Court held that the denial of exemption despite the clarificatory notification was unsustainable, as the consignment met the terms of the exemption [Paras 3-8].

State's Responsibility – Notification Awareness – State's duty to be aware of and apply its own notifications – Court emphasized that the State cannot rely on lack of awareness or failure to produce documents to deny relief – The State must act fairly and assist the court in the dispensation of justice [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant entitled to duty exemption as per the clarificatory notification [Para 11].

Contempt of Court – Notifications for Consequential Seniority – Contempt petitions filed challenging the issuance of notifications providing for consequential seniority in promotions to SC/ST members without quantifiable data – Supreme Court held no contempt as notifications were issued exercising powers vested in authorities – Substantive challenges to notifications and committee report to be resolved by High Court [Paras 1-19].

Quantifiable Data Requirement – Supreme Court reaffirmed the need for quantifiable data on backwardness and representation inadequacy before granting consequential seniority in promotions to SC/ST members – High Court to assess validity of notifications in light of committee findings and relevant judgments [Paras 14-19].

Judicial Review – Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Contempt petitions dismissed – Issuance of notifications not found willful or contumacious – Substantive challenges to be addressed in appropriate jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Contempt petitions dismissed – High Court requested to expedite the disposal of related writ petitions challenging the issuance of notifications and committee recommendations [Para 19].

Legal Representatives – Determination of Legal Representatives – Appellant claimed to be the legal representative based on a Will – Executing Court found appellant as the competent legal representative to execute the decree – High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, erred by acting as the first court of appeal and interfering with the Executing Court's findings on execution of the Will – Supreme Court restored the Executing Court’s order [Paras 1-15].

Jurisdiction of Executing Court – The Executing Court’s jurisdiction under Order 22 Rule 5 is summary in nature and is limited to representation for the purpose of the specific proceedings – Findings of the Executing Court do not operate as res judicata for other claims or rights to the property [Paras 7-13].

High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court can only interfere with orders of subordinate courts if there is a jurisdictional error – Different views on the same facts do not justify revisional interference – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing evidence and substituting its view for that of the Executing Court [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Executing Court's order restored [Para 15].

Corporate Insolvency – Enhancement of Fund Inflow – Appellant contested NCLAT’s directive to increase the upfront payment to match liquidation value – Supreme Court held that NCLAT should not have interfered with the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) which approved the resolution plan – Upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order approving the plan with the initial fund inflow [Paras 1-28].

Withdrawal from Resolution Process – Applicability of Section 12-A – Court clarified that Section 12-A, which allows withdrawal from CIRP, does not apply to successful Resolution Applicants – MSL cannot withdraw after having raised funds upon mortgaging the assets of the corporate debtor [Paras 29-30].

Possession of Assets – Directions to Resolution Professional – Allegations of failure to hand over assets to MSL – Supreme Court directed the Resolution Professional to take possession of the assets and hand them over to MSL within four weeks with assistance from police and administrative authorities [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCLAT order set aside – Adjudicating Authority's order affirmed – MSL to remit an additional sum to operational creditors – Directions for possession of assets issued [Paras 31-34].

Sales Tax – Applicability on Bonded Warehouses – Appellants argued that sales of imported goods stored in bonded warehouses and sold to foreign-bound ships should not be subject to sales tax as they are in the course of import – Supreme Court held that such sales, occurring after goods are unloaded and kept in bonded warehouses on West Bengal's landmass, are not in the course of import or export and are therefore subject to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act [Paras 1-26].

Crossing Customs Frontiers – Definition and Interpretation – Court clarified that goods kept in bonded warehouses are considered to have crossed the customs frontiers of India, thus not exempt from sales tax – Emphasized strict interpretation of taxation statutes, noting that bonded warehouses do not fall within "customs station" as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Customs Act, 1962 [Paras 14-15, 21-25].

Case Analysis – Court rejected appellants' reliance on Indian Tourist Development Corporation case, distinguishing it based on the specific facts involving duty-free shops at airports, which are within customs station areas – Appellants' argument that goods were sold in the course of import was dismissed, affirming that the sales were complete upon appropriation within bonded warehouses [Paras 16-17, 19-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Sales of goods stored in bonded warehouses in West Bengal and sold to foreign-bound ships are subject to state sales tax [Para 27].

Land Settlement – Pre-Partition Tenants – Appellants claimed themselves as pre-partition tenants on land in Village Poppalguda, Ranga Reddy District – Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petitions in accordance with law, as the High Court had earlier allowed writ petitions filed by the State without considering the claims of pre-partition tenants – Other appellants given liberty to seek redressal in appropriate forums [Paras 1-8].

Central Government Land Transfer – Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., which held that transfer of land to the State Government does not take it out of the compensation pool, but should be used for the settlement of displaced persons first before other purposes [Para 4].

Decision – Order of the High Court dated February 12, 2016, set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration – Appellants allowed to seek redressal in appropriate legal forums [Para 8].