Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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