High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable.
"A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed.
"Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20.
The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order.
The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department.
It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm.
The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May.
It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks".
The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order.
"In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said.
"This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Imposing fixed timelines on Guvs, Prez would lead to 'constitutional disorder': Centre to SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a " constitutional disorder ", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has said. The note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. Live Events The positions of the governor and president are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said. Despite the proliferation of checks and balances, there are certain zones that remain exclusive to either of the three organs of the State and cannot be trenched upon by the others, the note says, adding that the high plenary positions of governors and the president fall within that zone. "The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature. Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, however, the assent itself is legislative in nature. "This blended and unique nature of assent clothes it with a constitutional character, whereby no judicially-manageable standards exist. Thus, despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel. The unique duality of assent, thus, deserves a uniquely-calibrated judicial approach," the note says. The top court has fixed a time schedule for hearing the Presidential Reference and proposed to start the hearing from August 19. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai has asked the Centre and states to file their written submissions. Asking the parties to strictly adhere to the timeline, the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, has said it will first hear the preliminary objections filed by states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, questioning the maintainability of the Presidential Reference, for an hour on August 19. The court has said the Centre and the states supporting the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, while those opposing it will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. The president's decision came in light of an April 8 verdict of the apex court that was delivered in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills that were questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict, for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. In a five-page reference, Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. The verdict had set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governors do not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the president withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 hours ago
- Business Standard
Assessee must comply with summons issued by tax authority: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an assessee must comply with a summons and furnish a response to a show cause notice when it is issued by the central or the state tax authority. "Assessee" under the Income Tax Act of 1961 refers to any individual or entity that holds the legal liability of tax payment or any other financial commitments as specified by the Act. Thus, laying down guidelines to prevent duplication of adjudication by central and state GST authorities, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that mere issuance of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have been initiated. "Where a summons or a show cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to comply by appearing and furnishing the requisite response, as the case may be. The top court said the respective tax authorities shall communicate with each other to verify the veracity of the assessee's claim after receipt of such intimation. "We say, so as this course of action would obviate needless duplication of proceedings and ensure optimal utilisation of the Department's time, effort, and resources, bearing in mind that action initiated by one authority enures to the benefit of all. "If the claim of the taxable person regarding the overlap of inquiries is found untenable, and the investigations of the two authorities pertain to different 'subject matters,' an intimation to this effect, along with the reasons and a specification of the distinct subject matters, shall be immediately conveyed in writing to the taxable person," the bench added. The apex court said the taxing authorities are well within their rights to conduct an inquiry or investigation until it is ascertained that both authorities are examining the identical liability. Any show cause notice issued in respect of a liability already covered by an existing show cause notice shall be quashed, it said. "However, if the Central or the State tax authority, as the case may be, finds that the matter being inquired into or investigated by it is already the subject of inquiry or investigation by another authority, both authorities shall decide inter se which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation. "In such a scenario, the other authority shall duly forward all material and information relating to its inquiry or investigation into the matter to the authority designated to carry the inquiry or investigation to its logical conclusion," the bench said in its August 14 judgement. The judgement came on a plea by Armour Security, a public limited company providing security services and registered with the Delhi GST authorities, involved in a dispute concerning tax demands and investigations. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court junks Pernod Ricard's plea against 'London Pride' whisky trademark
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected liquor major Pernod Ricard India 's plea to block the sale of " London Pride " whisky, saying the brand name and packaging were not deceptively similar to its own flagship labels, " Blenders Pride " and " Imperial Blue ." A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan upheld decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Indore Commercial Court which refused to grant the French-owned spirits company an interim injunction against Indore-based manufacturer Karanveer Singh Chhabra. The issue was whether Pernod Ricard India was entitled to an order restraining Chhabra from using the impugned trademark, get-up, and trade dress, including the packaging of 'LONDON PRIDE' on the ground that such use amounts to infringement its registered trademarks, such as " 'BLENDERS PRIDE', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'SEAGRAM'S". "It is a settled principle of trademark law that deceptive similarity does not necessitate exact imitation. What is material is the likelihood of confusion or association in the minds of consumers arising from an overall resemblance between the competing marks. The applicable standard is that of an average consumer with imperfect recollection," it said. Applying the settled legal standards, including the anti-dissection rule, the overall similarity test, and the perspective of an average consumer, the bench said it prima facie did not find any deceptive similarity between the competing marks that would give rise to confusion. "The marks - 'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'LONDON PRIDE' - are clearly not identical. Though the products are similar, the branding, packaging, and trade dress of each are materially distinct. The commercial court and high court have rightly held that the term 'PRIDE' is publici juris, and commonly used in the liquor industry. The dominant components - 'BLENDERS', 'IMPERIAL BLUE', and 'LONDON' - are entirely different both visually and phonetically, producing distinct overall impressions," it said. The courts below also correctly observed the products in question are premium and ultra-premium whiskies, targeted at a discerning consumer base, it added. "Such consumers are likely to exercise greater care in their purchase decisions. The distinct trade dress and packaging reduce any likelihood of confusion. The shared use of the laudatory word 'PRIDE', in isolation, cannot form the basis for injunctive relief," it said. "The appellants' attempt to combine elements from two distinct marks -'BLENDERS PRIDE' and 'IMPERIAL BLUE' - to challenge the respondent's mark 'LONDON PRIDE', constitutes a hybrid and untenable pleading. Each mark must be assessed independently, and cherry-picking generic or unregistered features from multiple marks to fabricate a composite case of infringement is not legally sustainable," it said. While dismissing the appeal, it asked the local commercial court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by this court or by the courts below, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The verdict came on a plea of liquor major Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd , which manufactures and sells 'Blenders Pride' and 'Imperial Blue' whisky, against 2023 verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Pernod Ricard moved the high court against an order passed by commercial court, Indore, which rejected their application for issuance of temporary injunction. It told the high court that they have registered trade mark in respect of "Blenders Pride" and "Imperial Blue" and also have such registered trade mark in respect of Seagram's which is their house mark and appears on their products sold under various brands. It alleged JK Enterprises has imitated their trade mark and is manufacturing and selling its whisky under the trade mark "London Pride" but the high court dismissed its plea. Writing a 97-page verdict, Justice Mahadevan said trademark law protects overall consumer impressions rather than dissected components of a brand name. It said the dominant parts of the marks, "Blenders," "Imperial Blue," and "London", were entirely different in sight, sound, and meaning. The bench also found that the bottle shapes, label designs, and packaging styles were distinct enough to avoid confusion among consumers. It said term "Pride" is 'publici juris', (common to the trade) and appears in numerous registered liquor trademarks in India.
