9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18600 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 4332 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 5329 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 4993 of 2006 With Civil Appeal No. 8273 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 8274 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 3869 of 2014 With Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No. 14685 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 6784 of 2014 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 376 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 10082 of 2016 With Civil Appeal No. 886 of 2017 With Civil Appeal No. 4588 of 2017 With Civil Appeal No. 205 of 2017 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5728-5729 of 2018 With Civil Appeal Nos. 4722-4724 of 1999 With Civil Appeal No. 5333 of 2002 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5335-5336 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 5599 of 2006 With Civil Appeal No. 5649 of 2006 With Civil Appeal No. 378 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 665 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 2007 With T.P. (Civil) No. 481 of 2007 With T.P. (Civil) No. 906 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No. 3400 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Kumar Ajit Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. H. D. Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Achal Singh Bule, Adv. Mr. Rishi Matoliya, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, Adv. Mr. R.k. Raghavan, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR Ms. Mansi Mehta, Adv. Mrs. Sheela Goel, AOR Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv. Mr. Shibu Devasia Olickal, Adv. Ms. Swathi H Prasad, Adv. Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv., A.A.G. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Mrs. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal A Rana, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv. M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, AOR Dr Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Gaurav Juneja, Adv. Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Monika Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Aakash Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev K . Kapoor, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Saushriya Havelia A, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Arjoo Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sarathraj B, Adv. Ms. Nilofar Khan, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Dr. Charu Mathur, Adv. Mr. B.s. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, Adv. Ms. Yashika Bum, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Chand, Adv. Mr. Harsha Vinoy, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Mr. Jatin Nagar, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Ms. Meetu Goswami, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Goswami, Adv. Ms. Dipti Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajbala, Adv. Mr. Aakash Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shambhvi Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Shweta Jaishankar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Katyan, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Mr. Deepak Verma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. R.P. Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, AOR Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Sonia Ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Ms. Pareena Swarup, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. K.p. Singh, Adv. Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv. Mr. Nityanand Mahato, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR Mr. Nithin Chowdary Pavuluri, Adv. Ms. Poornima Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Bln Shivani, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputam, Adv. Mr. Akshaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Radhika Misra, Adv. Mr. Sunit Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Vasu Vats, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. M Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Kumar Visalaksh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Udit Jain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vikas, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala,, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. M.s. Ananth, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Saraswat, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR M/S. Trilegal Advocates On Record, AOR Mr. Rajat Mittal, AOR Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Ms. Adyasha Nanda, Adv. Mr. Mahesh A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chedule have been stayed in terms of the law laid down in India Cement (supra). The affected parties (which include public sector undertakings) have factored in the state levies which were valid and applicable at the relevant point of time and passed them on to the end consumers. If State legislatures are allowed to renew the tax demands, end consumers will ultimately bear the burden; b. After the decision in India Cement (supra), the levies collected by the States were protected because of validation legislation enacted by Parliament. If a ruling creates or renews a liability for the assesses, there is no protection against retrospective demands; c. Since 2015, entities bidding for mineral concessions have submitted their financial bids on the basis of the legal position in India Cement (supra). If MADA (supra) is given retrospective effect, it will rewrite commercial bargains underpinning the mineral auctions. This Court ordinarily does not disturb past or concluded transactions in tax matters; d. The doctrine of prospective overruling is well-established in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. MADA (supra) should be given prospective effect because it lays down new constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the existence of a statute or judicial decision as an "operative fact" having "consequences which cannot justly be ignored" or "erased by a new judicial declaration." [Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 US 371 (1940)] Therefore, it was held that the effect of a subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in light of various aspects. [Chicot County Drainage Dist (supra)]. 6. In Chevron Oil Company v. Huson 404 US 97 (1971), the US Supreme Court identified three separate factors to be considered while deciding the applicability of prospective overruling: (i) the decision to be applied prospectively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not foreshadowed; (ii) the court must weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard the operation of the rule; and (iii) whether the application of nonretroactivity avoids substantial inequitable results, injustice or hardsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing propositions about the applicability of the doctrine: a. It can be invoked only in matters arising under the Constitution; b. It can be applied only by this Court as it has the constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all the courts in India; and c. The scope of the retroactive operation of the law is left to the discretion of this Court to be moulded in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter before it. 10. After laying down the broad canvas, the learned Chief Justice concluded: "53. [...] What then is the effect of our conclusion on the instant case? Having regard to the history of the amendments, their impact on the social and economic affairs of our country and the chaotic situation that may be brought about by the sudden withdrawal at this stage of the amendments from the Constitution, we think that considerable judicial restraint is called for. We, therefore, declare that our decision will not affect the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, or other amendments made to the Constitution taking away or abridging the fundamental rights. We further declare that in future the Parliament will have no power to amend Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that non-furnishing of an enquiry report to a delinquent employee would amount to a violation of the rules of natural justice. The Court declared the law to be prospective, but gave relief to the employees before the Court. The correctness of Ramzan Khan (supra) came up before a Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v. B Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. The Constitution Bench upheld Ramzan Khan (supra). It was further held that the law laid down in Ramzan Khan (supra) cannot be applied retrospectively because: a. the legal position on furnishing the report of an enquiry officer to the delinquent employee was unsettled before Ramzan Khan (supra); b. the authorities had proceeded on the assumption that there was no requirement to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer; and c. reopening of all disciplinary proceedings before Ramzan Khan (supra) would result in grave prejudice to the administration which outweighed the benefit to the employees. Hence, it was held that no proceedings before the decision in Ramzan Khan (supra) should be challenged on the ground that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he competence of the Municipal Council to levy the tax. It also set aside the order of the High Court granting refunds to the assesses. 16. In Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2017) 12 SCC 1, a Bench of nine Judges of this Court held that a non-discriminatory tax does not per se constitute a restriction on the right to free trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301. This Court overruled long-standing precedents that held that taxes, except for compensatory taxes, offend Article 301. [Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232; Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406] In that case, the counsel specifically submitted that the judgment should be given a prospective effect. [Jindal Stainless Ltd. (supra) [897]]. However, the decision was given a retrospective effect. In her concurring opinion, Justice Banumathi dealt with the issue raised by the assesses about payment/refund of tax in case the validity of the legislation was upheld or otherwise. The learned Judge rejected the claim of the assesses for refund of taxes thus: "481. It is well settled that a claim of refund can be allowed only when the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red into commercial relations based on the prevailing legal position. In Bharat Aluminium (supra), this Court held: "197. The judgment in Bhatia International [(2002) 4 SCC 105] was rendered by this Court on 13-3-2002. Since then, the aforesaid judgment has been followed by all the High Courts as well as by this Court on numerous occasions. In fact, the judgment in Venture Global Engg. [(2008) 4 SCC 190] has been rendered on 10-1-2008 in terms of the ratio of the decision in Bhatia International [(2002) 4 SCC 105]. Thus, in order to do complete justice, we hereby order, that the law now declared by this Court shall apply prospectively, to all the arbitration agreements executed hereafter." 19. The decision in Bharat Aluminium (supra) was applied prospectively to arbitration agreements concluded after the date of judgment. However, the legal context in the present batch of matters is different. Article 265 of the Constitution prescribes that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The law must be valid in the sense that it must be within the legislative competence of the legislature and consistent with other provisions of the Constitution. [Mafatlal Indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ps against the assesses for recovery of any demands of tax pending the appeal. [Civil Appeal No. 874 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 3642 of 2011; Civil Appeal No. 10082 of 2016; Civil Appeal No. 4588 of 2017.] The payment or non-payment of the dues was thus made subject to the outcome of the appeals or petitions. It is a settled legal position that a beneficiary of an interim order of stay has to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid under the interim order in the event the outcome goes against the beneficiary. [State of Rajasthan v. J K Synthetics Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 518 [23]; State of U P v. Prem Chopra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1770 [24]]. 22. The total amount, that is the principal plus the interest, due by the assesses in the pending matters may be substantial in comparison to their total net worth. Steel Authority of India has stated on affidavit that retrospective application of MADA (supra) will lead to revival of cumulative demands to the tune of approximately Rupees three thousand crores from different States. The delay in the court proceedings should not be to the detriment of the assesses. [See K C Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 663 [339]]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
