The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IX]

CRZ Notification CRZ Notification 2011: Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port area; Supreme Court affirms quashing of post-facto clearance. K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2023 SC 808 : (2023) 5 SCC 440 Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 2011 - Storage facility for edible oil not allowed outside port areas- the word 'within' used for CRZ-I and 'in' used for CRZ-II in the CRZ Notification of 2011 cannot be interpreted to include what is outside the port areas-The maker of the notification has not even contemplated the activities in question in a 'port area'. We must here elucidate and observe that if the contention is to be upheld that a storage tank can be permitted outside the port limits, it will introduce chaos. The question would arise as to up to what distance from the port area it would be considered as the 'in the port area'. The 2011 Notification cannot receive an interpretation which would leave matters of moment to be afflicted with the vice of uncertainty. This is apart from the importance of avoiding an interpretation which seemingly allows free play in the joints to the Administrator but, atthe same time, vest an arbitrary power in him. (Para 58) K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 77 : AIR 2023 SC 808 : (2023) 5 SCC 440 Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu) Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu); Section 3 - Late payment of rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant. The 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437 AIR 2023 SC 3534 : (2023) 6 SCR 831 Customs Customs Duty - Undervaluation must be proved by evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports; else benefit of doubt goes to the importer. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Ganpati Overseas, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864 The Customs Act does not create a statutory first charge overriding charge in favour of secured creditor under S. 529A of Companies Act. Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683 Supreme Court upholds withdrawal of Customs notification granting concession on import of printing machinery, on the ground of indigenous angle. Union of India v. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 430 : AIR 2023 SC 2343 Customs Act 1962 : Supreme Court delivers split verdict on jurisdiction of settlement commission in relation to goods under Section 123. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399 Customs Act, 1962 Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in respect to the issue whether jurisdiction of Settlement Commission under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies. While considering the conflicting judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court the bench expressed divergent views. Supporting the law laid down by the Bombay High Court, Justice Krishna Murari opined that in cases of seizures of smuggled goods within the customs areas, Section 123 of the Customs Act would not be applicable and the accused can make application to Settlement Commission under Section 127B. Justice Sanjay Karol opined that the bar in Section 127B precludes filing an application for settlement in relation to goods to which Section 123 applies [for example gold and watches are specified under S.123]. The Division Bench asked the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate order. Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 399 Customs Act, 1962 - The Supreme Court has upheld the withdrawal of customs notification which granted customs duty concession to “Rotary Printing Machine” of 'single width two plate variety', on the ground of indigenous angle, i.e., availability of the equipment in India. The same cannot be characterized as an irrelevant factor for withdrawing tax concession. The grant of exemption to a class of goods, which are similar to those manufactured within the country, is likely to adversely impact such manufacturers or producers. Thus, the same is a germane and relevant factor for withdrawal of such exemption. The executive has an exclusive domain in fiscal and economic matters, including determining the relevant factors for granting, refusing or amending exemptions. ...

The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-IX]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags