Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of provisions related to the valuation of taxable service provided by construction service providers under the Finance Act, 1994.

Initially, service tax was calculated on the value equivalent to 33% of the 'gross amount charged' from any person by such commercial concern for providing taxable service. This included only the service charge.

Amendments were made to include the value of goods and materials supplied by the service provider for providing such service.

The Revenue contended that the value of materials supplied by the service recipient (free of charge) should also be included while calculating the 'gross value' for the purpose of levying service tax.

Issues:

Whether the value of materials provided by the service recipient free of charge should be included in the calculation of the 'gross amount charged' for service tax purposes.

Held:

The court held that the value of goods/materials provided by the service recipient free of charge should not be included in the calculation of the 'gross amount charged' for service tax.

Explanation 3 to sub-section (1) of Section 67 clarifies that the gross amount charged for the taxable service shall include the amount received towards the taxable service. Since no amount is charged for materials supplied by the service recipient, it should not be included.

The court emphasized that the value of goods/materials supplied free of charge has no bearing on the value of services provided by the service provider and should not be added to the contract value.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the value of goods/materials supplied free of charge by the service recipient should not be included in the calculation of service tax.

Facts:

The appellant, Mahant Lalita Sharanji, was the Mahant of Shri Mukunddevacharya Peeth in Vrindavan.

During consolidation proceedings, he was allotted land along with others, including Deoki Devi, by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

Subsequently, an appeal filed by another party, Bansi Ballabh, led to changes in the allotments, adversely affecting the appellant's holdings.

Despite not being a party to the appeal, the appellant's holdings were altered.

Issues:

Whether the appellant had the right to challenge the altered order despite not challenging the original order.

Whether the alteration of the order nullified the earlier order, giving the appellant a fresh cause of action.

Held:

The Court held that the appellant had a right to challenge the altered order since it significantly affected his holdings, despite not challenging the original order. The alteration virtually nullified the earlier order, giving the appellant a fresh cause of action.

The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own facts and noted that the purpose of consolidation laws is to prevent fragmentation of holdings and ensure one common holding. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Deputy Director, Consolidation's order was restored. Deoki Devi was directed to remove any construction at her own cost and hand over possession of the land to the appellant within 30 days.

Failure to comply would empower the appellant to seek assistance from the court to take possession, with Deoki Devi not entitled to compensation for the structure or damages.

Facts:

Lok Prahari, represented by its General Secretary S. N. Shukla, filed a writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 784 of 2015) concerning the disproportionate growth of assets among some members of Parliament and State legislatures. The petitioner sought various reliefs related to the disclosure of financial information by candidates contesting elections.

Issues:

Whether there existed a legal framework to disqualify legislators for undue accumulation of wealth.

Whether voters had a fundamental right to know relevant information about candidates.

Held:

The court granted the prayer for amending Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to require candidates and their associates to declare their sources of income. Such a requirement was deemed essential for ensuring transparency in the electoral process.

The court allowed the establishment of a permanent mechanism to inquire into the disproportionate increase in assets of legislators during their tenure. This mechanism would monitor the financial affairs of legislators and their associates, thereby ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

Non-disclosure of assets and sources of income by candidates and their associates was declared to constitute 'undue influence', a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Relief was granted regarding seeking information about contracts with the government by candidates, their spouses, and dependents, as such information was deemed relevant to potential disqualifications based on undue accumulation of assets.

The court allowed the amendment of Form 26 to provide additional information relevant to statutory disqualifications under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, thus enhancing transparency in the electoral process.

Facts:

The appellant, Rakesh Kumar, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a piece of land.

The suit was initially filed in the Delhi High Court but was later transferred to the District Courts.

Rakesh Kumar claimed that he had paid an advance amount for the land, but the sellers failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement, such as obtaining necessary certificates and permissions.

During the trial, it was found that Rakesh Kumar did not deposit the balance sale consideration as required for obtaining an injunction, which led to the defendants transferring the land to other parties.

Issues:

Whether Rakesh Kumar was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell the land.

The interpretation of clauses in the agreement regarding obtaining "no objection certificate" and "income tax clearance certificate".

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Judge's ruling, finding that Rakesh Kumar lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, thus he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

The Court also noted that the clause regarding obtaining "no objection certificate" and "income tax clearance certificate" in the agreement was vague and lacked clarity.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, thereby ruling against Rakesh Kumar's claim for specific performance of the agreement.

Facts:

The case concerned the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, in relation to relief of agricultural indebtedness and its interaction with State legislation.

Issues:

The validity of Section 21A in light of its potential encroachment on State legislation concerning relief of agricultural indebtedness,

The interpretation of constitutional entries relating to banking and relief of agricultural indebtedness.

Held:

The Court held that Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act is valid within the purview of Entry 45, List I. However, it must be applied cautiously in states with State Debt Relief Acts, where it may encroach upon relief of agricultural indebtedness.

Section 21A cannot override State Debt Relief Acts in cases of conflict, as Parliament cannot assert supremacy over State legislation where none exists under the Constitution.

The relief of agricultural indebtedness encompasses more than money lending, requiring a broad interpretation beyond the scope of Entry 30, List II. Harmonization between Entries 45 and 30 is necessary.

The doctrine of pith and substance dictates that legislation should be viewed holistically to determine its primary entry in List I or List II, allowing for reconciliation of incidental encroachments.

The paramountcy principle under Article 246 should be applied as a last resort, with priority given to harmonizing conflicting legislative fields.

Precedent should be judiciously applied, with careful consideration given to the reasoning behind judgments and the participation of all parties in the legal process.

Facts:

The State of Himachal Pradesh sought permission for silviculture felling in certain forest areas up to an elevation of 1500 metres above Mean Sea Level (MSL).

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) made recommendations regarding silviculture felling in the state.

The Court had previously issued directions banning felling of trees in forests, except for specific purposes and under certain conditions.

Issues:

Whether silviculture felling should be permitted in Himachal Pradesh forests.

What conditions should be imposed to ensure responsible forest management and regeneration.

Held:

The Court acknowledged the necessity for silviculture felling but emphasized the need for careful monitoring.

It permitted silviculture felling on an experimental basis with strict conditions and monitoring.

Conditions included the involvement of forest department or state forest corporation, videography of the felling process, retention of mother trees, reforestation efforts, protection from grazing, and regular reporting to the Court.

A two-member committee was appointed to oversee the process, headed by a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and including a professor of Silviculture.

The Principal Chief Conservator was tasked with ensuring compliance with the Court's orders.

The Court ordered periodic reporting from the committee and directed the State to provide necessary facilities.

The remuneration for committee members would be determined later.

Facts:

The appellant, a State Government Undertaking, applied for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, claiming exemption for charitable purposes.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) granted the registration certificate but later issued a show cause notice for cancellation.

The CIT subsequently canceled the certificate, leading to legal proceedings including a rectification application and appeals.

Issues:

Whether the CIT had the express power to cancel a registration certificate under Section 12A.

Whether the grant of the certificate was quasi-judicial in nature.

Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act applied to the cancellation of the certificate.

The impact of an amendment to Section 12AA conferring explicit power on the CIT to cancel certificates.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that until the amendment to Section 12AA came into effect, the CIT did not have express power to cancel a registration certificate under Section 12A. The grant of the certificate was deemed quasi-judicial, and the CIT could only cancel it if expressly empowered to do so. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act did not apply as it pertained to executive or legislative orders, whereas the CIT's order under Section 12A was quasi-judicial. The amendment to Section 12AA, effective from October 1, 2004, gave the CIT explicit power to cancel registration certificates, but this was not retrospective.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the ITAT's decision. It affirmed that the CIT had no authority to cancel the registration certificate until the explicit power was conferred by the amendment to Section 12AA.

Facts:

The appellant, Ex. Lt. Col. R.K. Rai, had taken voluntary retirement from the Regiment of Artillery due to a disability aggravated by military service.

He applied for disability pension, which was rejected by the Armed Forces Tribunal based on Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that he was entitled to disability pension based on subsequent judgments and a government order issued in May 2017.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to disability pension despite taking voluntary retirement before January 1, 2006.

Whether the claim for "AGI Disability" was properly presented and considered.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to disability pension under the government order dated May 19, 2017, which extended benefits to pre-2006 retirees meeting specific conditions. The Court noted that the appellant's disability, assessed at 30% and aggravated by military service, fulfilled the requirements outlined in the order. Therefore, the authorities were directed to process the appellant's disability pension claim accordingly.

Regarding the claim for "AGI Disability," the Court observed that it was not pressed before the Tribunal or in the review petition. Therefore, the Court did not consider it in the appeals, but the appellant was granted liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal if the claim had been pressed but not considered.

The civil appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal's orders were set aside, directing the respondents to process the appellant's disability pension claim as per the government order and the Court's observations.

Facts:

The appellants, managers of private aided schools, were permitted by the court to close down their schools.

Subsequently, the State Government decided to take over these schools, a decision that was approved by the State Legislature.

The appellants challenged the notifications issued for the takeover, citing various legal grounds.

Issues:

Whether the State's decision to take over the schools was valid considering the timing of the closure and the takeover.

Whether the takeover process was legally sound and consistent with constitutional provisions.

Whether there was any conflict between the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and other relevant laws, particularly the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Held:

The Court held that the State's decision to take over the schools was valid, even if the closure occurred before the official notification, as the decision was made when the schools were still operational. The closure of the schools did not invalidate the State's decision.

The Court upheld the State's decision, stating that it was in the public interest and aligned with the objectives of education-related constitutional provisions and laws.

The Court clarified that there was no conflict between the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Both Acts operated in different fields, and the State's power to take over schools under Section 15 of the 1958 Act was distinct and separate.

The compensation for the takeover was deemed compliant with Article 300A of the Constitution, as it was based on the market value of the property as per Section 15(2) of the Kerala Education Act, 1958.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the validity of the State's decision to take over the schools under Section 15 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958.