Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, October 18 To October 24, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Distinction Between Tax And Fee Has Been Substantially Removed, Says Supreme CourtCase Title: Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam and Ors v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation & Anr. Citation: LL 2021 SC 583The Supreme Court observed that the distinction between a tax and fee has been substantially removed.The practical and even constitutional, distinction between a tax and fee has been weathered down, the bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud observed while rejecting the challenge against Constitutional validity of Sections 52(a), 55(b)(i) and 56(b) of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act.The court added that the distinction that while a tax is a compulsory exaction, a fee constitutes a voluntary payment for services rendered does not hold good.2. High Court Under Article 226 Cannot Permit Party To Modify Its Offer Without Hearing Other Parties: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vaibhavi Enterprise v. Nobel Cera Coat Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6289 Of 2021) and Tanish Cerachem Private Limited v. Nobel Cera Coat Limited (Civil Appeal No.6290 Of 2021)Citation : LL 2021 SC 585 The Supreme Court has observed that High Court under Article 226 could not permit a party to modify its offer without hearing other parties.The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna in the present matter was considering a special leave petition assailing Gujarat High Court's judgement in which the High Court had directed ONGC to finalize the contract with an applicant on the condition that it would lift the gas within 65 days from the date of allotment instead of 75 days as offered by it earlier.3. Limitation Period For Appeal Under Section 61 IBC Starts Running From Date Of Pronouncement; Delay In Uploading Won't Exclude Limitation : Supreme CourtCase name: V Nagarajan vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd Citation: LL 2021 SC 581The Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation for filing of appeal against an order as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will start running as soon as the same is pronounced, and that it is not dependent on the date when the order is uploaded.So, a party who failed to file an application for the certified copy of the order immediately cannot raise a plea to extend the period of limitation on the ground of delay in uploading the order.The Court held that period awaiting the receipt of a free certified copy does not extend the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC for a party who has not applied for the same.4. Nomenclature Of Tax Does Not Determine Its Nature Of Levy Or True Character : Supreme CourtCase Title: Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam and Ors v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation & Anr. | Civil Appeal No 6107 of 2021Citation : LL 2021 SC 583The Supreme Court held that the nomenclature ascribed to a tax does not determine the nature of the levy or its true and essential character.Holding so, the Court observed that the tax labelled as "water tax" or "sewerage tax" under the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act is in substance a tax on land and buildings situated with the area of the Jal Sansthan authority. The Court also noted that as per the statutory provisions, the tax labelled as "water tax" was not dependent on the actual consumption of water and was based on the provision for water supply given by the authority.5. Selected IAS Candidates Have No Right To Be Allocated To Cadre Of Their Choice Or To Home State: Supreme CourtCase name: Union of India vs. A. Shainamol, IAS Citation: LL 2021 SC 584The Supreme Court observed that selected IAS candidates have no right to be allocated to a cadre of their choice or to home state. The allocation of cadre is not a matter of right and the State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.The court also observed that consultation under Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 in respect of allocation of cadre is not required to be done with the State from which the candidate belongs. The mandate of Rule 5(1) of the Cadre Rules is satisfied when consultation is made with the State to which allocation is made.6. UAPA- State Police Has Duty To Continue Investigation Of Schedule Offence Till NIA Actually Takes It Over: Supreme CourtCase name: Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai vs State of Maharashtra Citation: LL 2021 SC 576The Supreme Court observed that the State police has a duty to continue with the investigation of a schedule offence till the National Investigating Agency actually takes it over.Between the issuance of a direction and the actual taking up of the investigation by the NIA, there should be no hiatus in the investigation to the detriment of the interests of national security involved in the enactment of the legislation, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed.The court added that mere renumbering of the case filed by the NIA did not take away the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, October 18 To October 24, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags