Latest news with #JBPardiwala
Economic Times
a day ago
- Business
- Economic Times
USL liable to pay entry tax under Madhya Pradesh local area rule, holds Supreme Court
Synopsis The Supreme Court has ruled that United Spirits (USL) is responsible for paying entry tax in Madhya Pradesh on goods entering local areas for use, consumption, or sale. The court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that USL's sales to warehouses triggered the entry of goods, justifying the entry tax levy. IANS United Spirits Limited The Supreme Court on Monday held that United Spirits (USL) is liable to pay entry tax under the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam 1976, which levied such tax on the entry of goods into a local area for use, consumption or the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision which favoured the state, the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan said that '…it is clear that the appellants (USL) by the sale to the warehouse caused to be affected the entry of goods and the entry was occasioned on the account of the sale into the local area for consumption, use or sale therein.'It is also not disputed that USL is a dealer as defined under the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002, the SC said, adding that the company's only contention that the State warehouse was also a dealer 'makes no difference' since it cannot be disputed that the company certainly occasioned the entry of goods and the levy of entry tax on them, which could always be passed on, was perfectly justifiable in to the judges, we have no manner of doubt that there were two independent transactions, one between USL (manufacturers) and the State Warehouse and the other between the State warehouse and the retailers. 'Hence, it will be difficult to accept the contention of the State that the role of the State is only supervisory and the warehouses didn't purchase beer and IMFL from the manufacturer,' they the top court said that this does not resolve the issue in favour of USL as under Section 3 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act 1976, the incidence of taxation is on the entry in the course of business of a dealer of goods specified in Schedule II, into each local area for consumption, use or sale therein. The further requirement is that such tax was to be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the VAT Act who hasd effected entry of such goods. USL had contended that no direct sales could be made by the manufacturer to the retailers and there was "no privity of contract" between them and the retailers and it was the state government warehouse which sold the goods to the retailers. It is the warehouse which caused the movement of the goods into the local area, it the State government contended that it neither purchased nor sold liquor. The HC had correctly found that the warehouses neither purchased or sold liquor and that the department only supervised the sale made by the manufacturer to the retail contractors.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 days ago
- Health
- Business Standard
SC grants Fssai 3-month extension to decide on front-of-pack labels
The Supreme Court has granted the expert committee under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Fssai) another three months to submit its recommendations on the proposed introduction of mandatory warning labels on the front of packaged food items. Earlier this year, in April, the apex court had already allowed a 90-day extension to the committee for its recommendations on the amendments proposed by the Fssai regarding Front-of-Pack Warning Labels (FOPL) on packaged foods, to inform customers about the sugar, salt, and fat contents. On the insistence of the Centre, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan granted a further three months on 15 July, stating it would be the last opportunity for the committee. "This is an application at the instance of the Union of India praying for extension of time by a further three months to enable the Expert Committee to prepare its Report as directed by this grant further time of three months for one last time, failing which we shall proceed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law," the court order of 15 July stated. The direction was passed following a public interest litigation plea filed by 3S and Our Health Society, highlighting the urgent need for interpretive labels that clearly indicate levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat in packaged foods. The plea argued that such labels would empower consumers to make informed dietary choices, help reduce the prevalence of diabetes and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and address public health concerns related to obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular conditions. In an affidavit filed by the FSSAI, it was stated that to implement the Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) requirements, a draft of the proposed amendment to the FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, was notified on 13 September 2022 and made available to the public for objections/suggestions. Following the notification, over 14,000 comments were received from public stakeholders, including food businesses, consumers, and consumer organisations. To analyse the public feedback, the Fssai constituted an expert committee on 17 February 2023. In its fifth meeting, the expert committee prepared a report containing its recommendations. The report of the expert committee and the amended final draft notification of the FSS (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022, were to be submitted to the Scientific Committee for recommendation and approval. According to Fssai's affidavit, the proposed amendment aims to introduce an Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) for FOPNL. This format employs a star-rating system (ranging from 0.5 to 5 stars) that presents simplified nutrition information on the front of pre-packaged food items, providing information on the overall nutritional value of the food and/or the nutrients included in the FOPNL. Under the INR system, a higher star rating indicates a healthier product. The design aims to simplify the complex nutritional content of packaged foods, enabling consumers to assess products quickly and make healthier dietary decisions more easily.
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC upholds Orissa HC's 2019 order on Senior Advocate designation
CUTTACK: The Supreme Court has upheld the Orissa High Court's 2019 decision to designate five advocates as senior advocates, setting aside a May 2021 judicial order by the same court that had invalidated the process. A bench comprising Justices R Mahadevan and JB Pardiwala on Monday ruled that the full court of the Orissa High Court had acted within its legal authority under the Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, particularly sub-rule (9) of Rule 6, when it designated five advocates suo motu on August 17, 2019. The administrative order formalising the designations was issued on August 19, 2019. The May 10, 2021, order, passed on a petition filed by a lawyer, had questioned the legality of the process adopted by the full court, stating that it lacked proper legal sanction. The high court, on its judicial side, had struck down the designations, citing procedural lapses.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC upholds 2019 HC decision to redesignate 5 lawyers as senior advocates
Cuttack: upheld the Orissa high court's 2019 decision to designate five lawyers as senior advocates, setting aside a 2021 judicial order that had quashed the appointments. A bench of Justices R Mahadevan and J B Pardiwala on Monday ruled that the full bench of the high court had acted within its powers under the Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, when it conferred the designation on the advocates on Aug 17, 2019. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The designations were notified via an administrative order on Aug 19 the same year. But on May 10, 2021, the high court, while hearing a petition filed by an advocate, ruled that the process followed in 2019 was legally flawed and beyond the court's authority. That order invalidated the appointments. However, the top court disagreed with the view. "The order passed by the high court on its judicial side on May 10, 2021 is set aside. The designation of five lawyers as senior advocates notified on Aug 19, 2019 is held to be valid," the SC said in its July 14 judgment. The ruling clarified that the high court's full bench is empowered to designate advocates suo motu, without requiring any application or proposal, if it believes the individual deserves recognition. In its remarks, the Supreme Court underlined the importance of merit in the conferment of the senior advocate title. "Before parting, we wish to observe that the designation of a senior advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on the basis of seniority, experience, or popularity. " The SC bench added, "Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour. At the same time, the process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal influences."
India Today
4 days ago
- India Today
Prisoners not getting costly food doesn't violate fundamental rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said prisoners, including disabled ones, not being provided "preferred or costly food items" in jails was not a violation of fundamental rights.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all prisoners. However, it did not confer a right to demand personalised or luxurious food non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental State's obligation is to ensure that every inmate, including those with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, subject to medical certification," the bench said. The top court called prisons correctional institutions and not extensions of civil society's non-supply of non-essential or indulgent items does not amount to a constitutional or human rights violation unless it results in demonstrable harm to health or dignity, it added."Prisons are often regarded as the 'tail-end' of the criminal justice system – historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties. While modern pioneological principles advocate rehabilitation over retribution, the current prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate – especially when it comes to meeting the needs of prisoners with disabilities," the verdict apex court's observations came on an appeal filed by advocate L Muruganantham, suffering from Becker muscular dystrophy, against an order of the Madras High Court which ordered him Rupees 5 lakh imprisonment was the result of a land dispute his family was embroiled in with another claimed to have not received medical and adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis during apex court said in the present case, though the deficiencies in prison facilities may not be directly attributable to the respondent authorities, they highlight the urgent need for prison reforms, particularly the implementation of disability-sensitive infrastructure and court was conscious of the systemic neglect in prison infrastructure, especially in relation to the needs of prisoners with disabilities."Persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community. This includes access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison authorities are under a duty to coordinate with public healthcare systems to ensure uninterrupted care. Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation," it top court found most state prison manuals to be "outdated" besides being "uninformed" by developments in disability law and rights-based frequently conflate sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby eroding the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. This conflation promotes harmful stereotypes and obstructs disabled inmates from claiming their lawful entitlements," it apex court said the state had a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities and this includes not only ensuring non-discriminatory treatment but also enabling their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
