Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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