Trace Your Case

Author: TYC

Categories
Electronic Evidence

Anvar v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

ANVAR V. P. K. BASHEER

Anvar v. P. K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

ISSUE:

  • Whether electronic records, such as CDs submitted by the appellant, can be admitted as evidence without compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
  • Whether the evidence presented by the appellant met the standard of proof required to establish corrupt practices akin to a criminal charge?

RULE:

  • Compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records.
  • Secondary electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) certifying its authenticity; otherwise, it is inadmissible.
  • Allegations of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, akin to the standard required for criminal charges.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Anvar P.V., contested the Kerala Legislative Assembly election on April 13, 2011, as an independent candidate supported by the Left Democratic Front (LDF). The first respondent, P.K. Basheer, supported by the United Democratic Front (UDF), was declared elected from the 034 Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency.
  • The appellant alleged that the first respondent engaged in corrupt practices under Sections 123(2)(ii) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These included defamatory publications (Annexure-A leaflet) and misuse of songs, speeches, and posters during the election campaign.
  • The appellant claimed that Annexure-A falsely implicated him in a 1995 murder case, despite his acquittal, and alleged that the first respondent consented to the printing, publication, and distribution of this leaflet.
  • The appellant further alleged that CDs containing songs, speeches, and announcements used for the first respondent’s campaign were part of corrupt practices.
  • The Kerala High Court dismissed the election petition on April 13, 2012, stating that the appellant failed to prove the alleged corrupt practices or the first respondent’s consent to the acts.
  • Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition, arguing that the High Court erred in dismissing the case and disputing the treatment of evidence, particularly electronic records.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that electronic records must meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for admissibility.
  • It held that the CDs produced by the appellant lacked the mandatory Section 65B certification and were, therefore, inadmissible as evidence.
  • The court found no evidence to prove that the first respondent consented to the printing, publishing, or distribution of Annexure-A. It ruled that “consent,” rather than knowledge or connivance, is crucial for establishing corrupt practices under Section 123(4).
  • The allegations of corrupt practices related to Annexure-A, songs, and speeches were deemed unproven due to insufficient and inadmissible evidence.
  • The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision that the charges were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Categories
Burden of Proof

Amba Lal v. The Union of India and Others, 1961 AIR 264

AMBA LAL V. THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Amba Lal v. The Union of India and Others, 1961 AIR 264

ISSUE:

  • Whether the burden of proving that the seized goods were smuggled into India after the establishment of customs barriers in March 1948 lay with the customs authorities or the appellant?

RULE:

  • The burden of proving that goods were smuggled into India in contravention of customs laws lies upon the customs authorities, and such burden cannot be shifted to the accused unless expressly provided by law.
  • The prosecution must adduce evidence to establish its case beyond doubt, adhering to the principles of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice.

FACTS:

  • Amba Lal, a resident of Barmer, Rajasthan (post-1947), had been living in what is now Pakistan before the Partition of India.
  • On June 22, 1951, the Deputy Superintendent of Land Customs, Barmer, searched Amba Lal’s house and seized ten articles, including silver, gold, and other items worth approximately Rs. 46,500.
  • On July 14, 1951, the Assistant Collector, Ajmer, issued a notice under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 7 of the Land Customs Act, requiring Amba Lal to explain the origin of the seized goods.
  • Amba Lal responded, claiming that items 1 to 5 (e.g., silver slab and gold bullion) were brought from Pakistan in 1947 after Partition, and items 6 to 10 (e.g., gold bars and phials of liquid gold) were purchased bona fide in Barmer.
  • During an inquiry on October 27, 1951, before the Collector of Central Excise, Amba Lal admitted that items 6 to 10 were smuggled goods but maintained his claim about items 1 to 5 being brought from Pakistan in 1947.
  • The Collector rejected his explanations, confiscated all ten articles under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 7 of the Land Customs Act, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000. Amba Lal was also required to pay Rs. 25,000 for redemption of the goods and customs duty.
  • The Central Board of Revenue upheld the Collector’s decision, dismissing Amba Lal’s appeal.
  • A revision petition filed before the Central Government was also dismissed on August 28, 1953.
  • Amba Lal filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court, which was dismissed on November 3, 1954.
  • This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the confiscation and penalties imposed.

HELD:

  • The burden of proof lay with the customs authorities to demonstrate that items 1 to 5 were smuggled into India after March 1948 (when the customs barrier between India and Pakistan was established).
  • The authorities failed to provide evidence proving the smuggling of items 1 to 5; hence, their confiscation was deemed unjustified.
  • Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act (placing the burden on the accused) was not applicable as it came into effect after the confiscation order (1955). Similarly, Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not override the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.
  • Items 6 to 10 were established as smuggled goods based on Amba Lal’s admission during the inquiry. The confiscation of these items was upheld.
  • The penalty imposed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act for items 6 to 10 was reduced as it was disproportionate to the findings of smuggling for all ten items.
  • The Collector of Central Excise’s imposition of conditions for releasing confiscated goods (e.g., customs duty and charges) was held invalid.
  • Amba Lal was allowed to approach customs authorities to revise the penalty in light of the partial invalidation of confiscation.
  • The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the Collector’s order, and directed both parties to bear their respective costs.
Categories
Supply

Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P. No. 5130 of 2022

ISSUE:

Whether the issuance of gift vouchers by Kalyan Jewellers constitutes a supply of goods or services under the GST Act?

If the issuance of gift vouchers is deemed taxable, determining when the tax liability arises—at the time of issuance or at the time of redemption?

Whether gift vouchers qualify as “actionable claims” under Section 2(1) of the GST Act, thereby exempting them from GST according to Schedule III?

RULE:

Vouchers, as payment instruments, are not taxable as goods or services unless linked to specific goods or services at issuance; otherwise, tax arises at redemption when the supply is identified.

Actionable claims, representing rights to future payment, are exempt from tax to avoid premature taxation, and PPIs are treated under financial standards, not as sales transactions, impacting their GST treatment.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
ITC

Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner, GST, Civil Appeal No. 2948 of 2023

ISSUE:

Whether a shopping mall or similar leased property can qualify as "plant" under Section 17(5)(d), allowing ITC on its construction costs if it is essential to generating taxable supplies?

Whether denying ITC for leased commercial property contradicts the GST system’s goal of minimizing cascading taxes and ensuring tax neutrality?

Whether Section 17(5)(d) infringes upon Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by creating arbitrary distinctions among taxpayers and restricting their right to carry on business?

RULE:

Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act restricts Input Tax Credit (ITC) on construction-related expenses for immovable property, even if that property is used for generating taxable supplies, such as rental income.

The restriction reflects legislative intent to prevent ITC misuse, particularly where properties are created for self-use and not further taxable supply.

The “functionality test” is a key criterion: properties integral to business operations (e.g., "plant" that directly supports taxable supply) may be eligible for ITC under Section 17(5)(d).

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Supply

Re: Maharashtra Power Generation Ltd (MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/09/2018-19)

ISSUE:

Whether GST is applicable on liquidated damages imposed due to delays in contract performance?

Whether liquidated damages constitute an independent supply or an adjustment to the contract price?

Whether the time of supply for GST purposes arises upon the occurrence or establishment of delay?

Whether liquidated damages qualify for input tax credit by the contractor?

RULE:

Liquidated damages payable due to delays in contractual performance are considered a taxable supply under the GST Act when they constitute an agreement to "tolerate an act" or a situation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
GST

Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.  AIR 2022 SC 2826.

ISSUE:

Whether the Indian importer under a CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) contract, who does not directly pay for ocean freight, can be considered the "recipient" of freight services and thus liable for IGST on a reverse charge basis.

Whether the imposition of IGST on ocean freight through Notifications Nos. 8/2017 and 10/2017 constitute double taxation, as freight costs are already included in the customs duty valuation on the CIF value.

Whether the notifications exceed the statutory scope of the IGST and CGST Acts by taxing services provided entirely outside Indian territorial jurisdiction, between foreign entities.

RULE:

Under Section 5(3) of the IGST Act, tax on a reverse charge basis can only be levied on the recipient of a supply of goods or services.

Section 2(93) of the CGST Act defines the "recipient" as the party liable to pay consideration for the service, which, in CIF contracts, is typically the foreign seller, not the Indian importer.

The Constitution of India mandates that taxation must have a clear territorial nexus with India; therefore, transactions entirely between foreign entities cannot be taxed under IGST.

Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act includes freight costs in the customs duty valuation, implying that IGST on the same freight component would result in double taxation.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Supply

In re Integrated Decisions And Systems India Pvt Ltd (GST-ARA- 116/2019-20/B-113)

ISSUE:

Whether the partial amount recovered from the employees for facilitating transport would be construed as a supply of service by the Applicant?

If such service is construed as supply, then how will the value of said supply be determined keeping in mind that employee and the Applicant are related parties as per GST law?

RULE:

The facilities provided to their employees that are not integrally connected to the functioning of the business cannot be construed as a supply.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
ITC

In re New Pandian Travels Private Limited (TN/43/ARA/2021)

ISSUE:

Whether the GST paid on the Motor cars of seating capacity not exceeding 13 (including Driver) leased or rented to customers will be available to it as input tax credit in terms of Section 17(5) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017?

Whether the GST paid on the Motor cars of seating capacity not exceeding 13 (including Driver) registered as public vehicles with RTO to transport passengers provided to their different customers on lease or rental or hire will be available to it as input tax credit in terms of section 17(5) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017?

Whether the supply of services by way of renting or, leasing, or hiring motor vehicles to Special Economic Zones (SEZ) to transport the employees of the customers without payment of IGST is deemed as a taxable supply and whether ITC is admissible on motor vehicles procured and used commonly for such supply to SEZ and other than SEZ supply?

RULE:

Only when the taxable person makes a further supply of such motor vehicles with a seating capacity of less than thirteen can he claim the input tax credit.

If the person or entity is a service provider who provides service for renting/leasing motor vehicles, the taxable outward supply should include the further supply of such purchased motor vehicles to be eligible for the input tax credit.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
ITC

Re: Biostadt India Ltd (NO.GST-ARA- 72/2018-19/B- 165)

ISSUE:

Whether input tax credit can be claimed by the applicant on procurement of gold coins, which are to be distributed to the customers at the end of the scheme period for achieving stipulated lifting or payment criteria?

Whether input tax credit can be claimed by parties that notify other schemes with similar conditions?

RULE:

Input tax credit is not available for gifts or rewards without consideration even though they were given for sales promotion as they do not qualify as inputs for the purpose of credit since no GST is paid on its disposal.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
ITC

Re: M/s. National Aluminium Company Limited (Order No. 02-03/Odisha AAAR/2018-2019)

ISSUE:

Whether the GST paid on services used by a party for maintenance of their township, security services and horticulture can be claimed as input tax credit?

RULE:

To claim input tax credit, an input service must be integrally connected with the business of manufacturing the final product. The cost of an input service forming part of the cost of the final product alone cannot be a condition to allow the benefit of an input tax credit.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now