Facts:

Synthetic woolen rags were imported in containers, which were destuffed in the Cochin Port Trust premises for Customs examination. However, due to inadequate storage space, the destuffed cargo was not promptly cleared by the consignees. Consequently, the goods remained idle in the port premises for an extended period, leading the port trust to impose ground rent charges on the steamer agents/owners of the containers.

Issues:

The determination of liability for ground rent charges on containers unloaded at Cochin Port but not cleared by the consignees or importers.

Specifically, whether such charges could be imposed on the vessel/steamer agents beyond the 75-day period fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports.

Held:

In view of inconsistencies in previous judgments regarding liability for port charges, the matter was referred to a larger bench for resolution. The following issues needed clarification:

The interpretation of Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trust Act, considering the relevance of the title of goods and the point at which title passes to the consignee in determining liability.

Whether a consignor or steamer agent is relieved of responsibility to pay charges once the Bill of Lading is endorsed or a delivery order is issued.

The extent to which a steamer agent can be held liable for storage charges/demurrage for uncleared goods if a delivery order hasn't been issued.

Determining the principles for the port trust to recover its dues from either the steamer agent or the consignee.

Examining any statutory or contractual obligations for the port trust to de-stuff containers and return them to shipping agents.

Facts:

The respondents, M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., provided various services and received payments for both the services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred during service provision. The service tax was paid only on the amounts received for the services rendered, excluding the reimbursed expenses.

Issues:

Whether Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which includes reimbursable expenses in the valuation of taxable services for service tax purposes, is in accordance with the provisions of sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Whether the value of free supplies of diesel and explosives could be included in the assessment of service tax for the service of 'Site Formation and Clearance Service'.

Held:

The Court held that Rule 5 of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, extends to reimbursable expenses, which are reimbursed by clients, in the valuation of taxable services. However, this inclusion goes beyond the mandate of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, pertains to the value of taxable services, which are actually rendered, for the purpose of calculating service tax. The Court emphasized that service tax is levied only on the consideration paid for providing taxable services. Therefore, any amount not calculated for providing taxable services cannot be included in the valuation for service tax purposes.

The Court noted that the Legislature amended the Finance Act, 1994, in 2015 to include reimbursable expenses in the valuation of taxable services, indicating that such expenses were not originally intended to be included.

Regarding the issue of free supplies of diesel and explosives for the service of 'Site Formation and Clearance Service', the Court held that such supplies cannot be treated as part of the consideration for rendering services and should not be included in the assessment of service tax.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and disposed of the transferred writs in accordance with the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2014 and other connected matters.

Facts: The appellant, Bharati Reddy, was elected to the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. A writ petition was filed before the High Court alleging that Reddy played fraud on the government by submitting a false affidavit for the issuance of an Income and Caste Certificate.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto directing Reddy to vacate the office of Adhyaksha.

Whether the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy was valid.

Whether the discrepancies in Reddy's affidavits warranted her disqualification from holding the office.

Held:

The post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat is a public office for which a writ of quo warranto can be issued if the incumbent is ineligible or incurs disqualification (Para 13).

The High Court erred in issuing the writ of quo warranto without first determining the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy. The certificate's validity was to be determined by the Caste Verification Committee (Para 22).

Discrepancies in Reddy's affidavits and the expedited issuance of the certificate did not automatically invalidate it. The Caste Verification Committee was tasked with investigating these matters (Para 20-21).

The High Court's decision to leave the question of the certificate's validity to the Caste Verification Committee was correct. The Committee should expedite its inquiry (Para 37).

Decision: The decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside. The Caste Verification Committee was directed to expedite its inquiry into the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy and conclude the same preferably within a stipulated period (Para 38).

Facts:

The appellant, Jagdish, was injured in a motor accident on November 24, 2011, resulting in severe injuries.

The accident occurred when Jagdish, riding a motorcycle, was hit by a dumper, causing 90% permanent disability.

Issues:

The appellant sought an enhancement of compensation on several grounds, including loss of future prospects, computation of disability, and increase in monthly income.

Held:

The Court determined that the appellant's claimed monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- was reasonable and allowed it for computation.

Considering the severity of disability, the Court held that the disability was 100% and increased the compensation accordingly.

The total compensation awarded to the appellant was Rs. 25,38,308/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

The Court directed the amount to be deposited before the Tribunal within a specified period.

The appeal was allowed, and no order was made regarding costs.

FACTS:

The respondent-assessee, engaged in executing civil works contracts, sought guidance on the rate of tax applicable for the execution of civil works contracts under the KVAT Act. The AAR initially held that, since there was no specific entry providing for the rate of tax on works contracts up to March 31, 2006, tax on goods used in the execution of works contracts should be levied in accordance with the rate of tax applicable to the sale of goods under the KVAT Act 2003.

ISSUES:

Interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) and (b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Applicability of the uniform rate of tax to goods involved in works contracts before April 1, 2006.

HELD:

Section 4 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, imposes a liability to pay taxes and prescribes the rate of tax. The specific rates of tax for goods falling within the Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules were outlined in Section 4(1)(a). "Other goods" attracted a rate of 12.5% under Section 4(1)(b).

It would be far-fetched to assume that Section 4(1)(b) intended to prescribe a uniform rate of tax for goods incorporated in a works contract before April 1, 2006. The KVAT Act did not provide a uniform rate of tax before April 1, 2006, on goods involved in the execution of works contracts. The amendment introducing Section 4(1)(c) in 2006 mandated a uniform rate of tax on goods involved in works contracts as provided in the Sixth Schedule.

The interpretation of the provisions of the Act before April 1, 2006, is consistent with the plain meaning of the words used by the legislature. Section 4(1)(b) did not provide a uniform rate of tax for goods involved in works contracts.

The dispute arose from proceedings before the AAR seeking guidance on the applicable rate of tax until March 31, 2006. The decision clarifies the issue of interpretation, emphasizing that issues of a factual nature will be adjudicated in the course of assessment proceedings.

The State legislature could provide uniform rates of tax on goods involved in works contracts, and the Karnataka legislature did so with effect from April 1, 2006.

Facts:

The case concerned an auction sale of a property which was confirmed in favor of the respondents. The appellants contested this auction sale through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. However, the High Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to set aside the auction sale suo motu under Section 177 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The High Court also noted its inability to direct the Deputy Commissioner to exercise this discretion. Subsequently, a revision petition regarding an application filed by the appellants to invoke the Deputy Commissioner's discretion to set aside the auction sale became the subject of another writ petition.

The High Court rejected the tenability of this application under Section 177, a decision that was upheld in writ appeal. Following these legal proceedings, the appellants filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of the property.

This suit was dismissed by both the trial court and the High Court on the grounds of the principles of res judicata.

Issues:

Whether the principle of res judicata applied to the appellants' suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of the property, considering the previous adjudication of the matter in the writ petition and subsequent proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming that the entire issue regarding the confirmation of the auction sale had already been adjudicated upon between the same parties concerning the same land and cause of action.

Therefore, the appellants were rightly non-suited due to the application of the principles of res judicata. The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is based on the maxim "Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa" (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause).

The Court concluded that the trial court and the High Court correctly applied this principle, leading to the dismissal of the appellants' suit for declaration of ownership and possession.

Facts: The appellant, Bharati Reddy, was elected to the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat. A writ petition was filed before the High Court alleging that Reddy played fraud on the government by submitting a false affidavit for the issuance of an Income and Caste Certificate.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto directing Reddy to vacate the office of Adhyaksha.

Whether the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy was valid.

Whether the discrepancies in Reddy's affidavits warranted her disqualification from holding the office.

Held:

The post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat is a public office for which a writ of quo warranto can be issued if the incumbent is ineligible or incurs disqualification (Para 13).

The High Court erred in issuing the writ of quo warranto without first determining the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy. The certificate's validity was to be determined by the Caste Verification Committee (Para 22).

Discrepancies in Reddy's affidavits and the expedited issuance of the certificate did not automatically invalidate it. The Caste Verification Committee was tasked with investigating these matters (Para 20-21).

The High Court's decision to leave the question of the certificate's validity to the Caste Verification Committee was correct. The Committee should expedite its inquiry (Para 37).

Decision: The decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside. The Caste Verification Committee was directed to expedite its inquiry into the validity of the Income and Caste Certificate issued to Reddy and conclude the same preferably within a stipulated period (Para 38).

Referred Cases in the Judgment:

Decided on : 06-03-2018

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226

Counsel for Appearing Parties

H. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate, for the Appellants; S-Legal Associates, for the Respondents

Facts:

The appellant, Dwarike Prasad, acted as a guarantor for a loan granted to another individual, secured by an equitable mortgage on certain immovable property. The appellant failed to repay the loan, leading to the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by the bank. These proceedings culminated in the sale of the mortgaged property through auction.

Issues:

Whether the appellant had the right to redeem the mortgaged property after the sale?

Whether the appellant complied with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act?

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the appellant's plea for redemption rights. The Court emphasized the importance of compliance with Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant failed to fulfill the requirements of the provision by not tendering the full amount due along with costs and expenses before the date fixed for sale or transfer. Consequently, the right to redemption stood extinguished upon the execution of the registered sale deed, as per the principles laid down in Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar.

However, the Court acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to a refund of the amount deposited by him during the proceedings. It directed the bank to refund the deposited amount with interest at 9% per annum within 8 weeks.

Facts:

The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Initially awarded Rs. 22,85,322/- by the Tribunal, the amount was reduced to Rs. 12,00,000/- by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and computations to determine the appropriate compensation.

Issues:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and subsequently reduced by the High Court was appropriate.

Whether the claimant's disability was temporary or permanent, affecting the quantum of compensation.

Held:

The Court found discrepancies in the Tribunal's computation of the claimant's income and identified errors in considering the disability as permanent. Consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was deemed excessive. The Court recalculated the compensation, awarding Rs. 5 lakhs for loss of income, Rs. 2 lakhs for trauma, pain, and suffering, and retaining Rs. 2,09,622/- for medical expenses, totaling Rs. 9,10,000/-. Interest at 9% per annum was also awarded from the date of filing the petition. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.