The Supreme Court was recently hearing an appeal from the High Court’s order on who is required to pay import duty. A person imported Porsche car and sold it in India.
The Apex Court said the customs authorities do not have any recourse to the resale buyer as it was the importer who was liable for paying import duty. If the authorities have let go the original importer without recovering the full import duty from him and it is unable to recover it from him, it has only itself to blame. It simply cannot ask the second-hand buyer to make good its loss.
Case 2: Export subsidy given to one manufacturer can’t be denied to another
In Sunfresh Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd versus State of Maharashtra & another matter, the Bombay High Court while disposing of a writ petition came down heavily on authorities for arbitrarily denying export subsidies to the petitioner even while giving the same to another manufacturer similarly placed. Thus ₹75 lakh was asked to be paid forthwith as denial amounted to violation of article 14.
The case was related to a State Government rule dated 31 July 2018 to clear the existing stock of milk powder within the State and restart the manufacturing of milk powder, where it introduced a subsidy scheme for milk powder manufacturers at a certain rate.
The petitioner submitted that the State Government inspected and calculated its stock of milk powder and claimed to be entitled to ₹75 lakh. However his subsidy was not granted. In the meantime, the same subsidy was granted to another manufacturer on the basis of his own writ petition. The Court then passed the order upholding the writ petition. Normally there should have been no need for the second writ petition given the legal principle of stare decisis or legal precedent. In India, neither the authorities nor the citizens follow legal precedents which is why court dockets are overflowing and bursting at their seams.
Case 3: Telecom lines catering to defence not liable to service tax
In Telecommunications Consultants India Limited versus UOI & Others matter, the Delhi High Court exempted the appellant (TCIL), a public sector company, from payment of service tax on the ground that the services were in connection with making available telecom services for exclusive use of the armed forces.
Even if it was a private sector company, the decision would have been the same as the purpose was catering to defence forces of India.
Case 4: Head of school cannot wash his hands off in students abuse cases
While refusing to set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against a school headmaster, the Madras High Court in a recent case emphasised that the Headmaster — the head of the school — is the guardian of the entire school and was expected to report any instances under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Accordingly, the proceedings against him in a case linked to a student abuse incident were ordered to be taken forward and not quashed. The buck stops with the head of the institution.
Case 5: Excess payment to retired employees not recoverable
In State of West Bengal versus Sri Kali Sadhan Bhattacharjee & Others, the Kolkata High Court said if a retired employee was paid in excess due to the laxity or otherwise of the employer, such excess payment cannot be recovered from him.
He would have been liable had he been directly responsible for such excess payment due to fraud perpetrated or misstatement made by him. That is why full and final settlement to a retiring employee must be made after double checking the calculations preferably by two different persons keeping in my mind the principle of internal check — one employee’s work must be checked by another employee.
—The author, S. Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert who comments on important court rulings and judgments to explain their impact on the common man. The views expressed are his own.
Read the previous Legal Digest columns here
(Edited by : Unnikrishnan)
First Published: Dec 11, 2024 10:56 AM IST
