Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court upholds the imposition of pre-import condition under Advance Authorization scheme in landmark GST judgment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023, In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of the pre-import condition imposed under the Advance Authorization scheme in the context of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta delivered the verdict, affirming that the introduction of the pre-import condition is a legitimate exercise of legislative choice and does not amount to arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

The case pertained to the challenge against the imposition of the pre-import condition, which requires exporters to pay duties and fulfill certain conditions for importing inputs under the Advance Authorization scheme. The petitioners contended that such a condition was arbitrary and violated their rights. However, the Supreme Court, after a detailed examination of the issue, dismissed their arguments.

The court emphasized that in matters of economic regulation, judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgment, and interference is warranted only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide. It further held that the inconvenience caused to exporters due to the requirement of paying taxes and fulfilling conditions for importing inputs was a consequence of the transformative GST regime, which aimed at unifying the market and streamlining the taxation structure.

Addressing the issue of retrospective application of notifications, the court ruled that giving retrospective effect to a notification through interpretation would be impermissible under the law. Therefore, the notifications in question were not faulted for arbitrariness or classification as they were not retrospective in nature.

Regarding the refund of taxes, the court clarified that there is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund and that Parliament has the power to curtail the right to refund or exemption. The differential treatment of goods and services in terms of the refund of unutilized input tax credit was deemed permissible and not violative of the principles of equality.

In terms of relief, the court directed the Revenue to allow the respondents, who had been enjoying interim orders, to claim refunds or input credits. The respondents were instructed to approach the jurisdictional commissioner and submit their claims with supporting documentary evidence within six weeks from the date of the judgment. The claims will be examined on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the Revenue was directed to issue a circular providing a convenient procedure for the same.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS COSMO FILMS LIMITED

Latest Legal News