Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 11th-17th March 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Proactive Ship Management Private Limited. vs. The Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel Green Ocean 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 65

Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Sandeep Kumar Dikshit 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 66

Adani Wilmar Limited and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 67

PCIT vs ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 68

S.12 A Commercial Courts Act | Allowing Suit To Remain In Records On Contingency That Urgency May Arise Later, Patently Contradictory: Calcutta HC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 65

Case: Proactive Ship Management Private Limited. vs. The Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel Green Ocean. 

The Calcutta High Court has held that when pleading urgency under Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the suit to remain in records on a contingency of urgency which may arise at a later date, is patently contradictory.

A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:

The words used in section 12-A makes it clear that the contemplation of urgency begins and ends at the point of institution, i.e. material point of time when the contemplation must fructify into a proved and pleaded case for urgent interim relief. Hence allowing the suit to remain in the records despite an absence of urgency on the contingency that urgency may arise at a later point of time is patently contrary to the mandate of section 12-A.

Supplementary SCN Although Termed As Supplementary, Is Actually Independent SCN Even Though It Relates To Smuggling: Calcutta High Court'

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 66

Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Sandeep Kumar Dikshit

The Calcutta High Court has held that the supplementary show cause notice, although termed the supplementary, is actually an independent show cause notice even though it relates to the case of smuggling.

The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under Chapter (XIV) of the Act unless the owner of the goods is given a notice in writing with the prior approval of the officer of the Customs not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or impose a penalty. Clauses (b) and (c) would not be relevant for the purpose of this case; equally, the first proviso is also not relevant. The second proviso, which was inserted by Act 13 of 2018 with effect from March 29, 2018, states that notwithstanding the issue of notice under Section 124, the proper officer may issue a supplementary notice under such circumstances and in such manner as may be prescribed.

Adani Wilmar Eligible For Sanction Of Incentives Under West Bengal State Support For Industries Scheme, 2008 Post GST: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 67

Case Title: Adani Wilmar Limited and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others

The Calcutta High Court has held that Adani Wilmar is eligible for sanction of incentives under the West Bengal State Support for Industries Scheme, 2008, post GST.

The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has directed the respondent department to disburse the balance amount of the claim of Rs. 4070 lakhs under the West Bengal State Support for Industries Scheme, 2008, in favor of the petitioners at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date, subject to the petitioners complying with the other formalities as contemplated in the Scheme.

Tested Party Normally Should Be Least Complex Party To Controlled Transaction, Reiterates Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 68

Case: PCIT vs ITC INFOTECH INDIA LIMITED

The Calcutta High Court reiterated that the selection of the tested party is to further the object of the comparability analysis by making it less complex and requiring fewer adjustments.

The Division Bench comprising Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed that “the tested party normally should be the least complex party to the controlled transaction and there is no bar for selection of tested party either local or foreign party and neither the Act nor the guidelines on transfer pricing provides so”.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

'Mishti Doi, Aloo Posto Intextricable Parts Of Bengal's Culture As Are Public Rallies & Meetings': Calcutta High Court