BackgroundCIDCO (City Industrial and Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.), incorporated on 17th March 1970, is designated as the New Town Development Authority under Section 113(3A) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). In furtherance of its planning mandate, CIDCO allots residential-cum-commercial and hotel plots on 60-year leases through a tender process. Successful bidders pay a one-time lease premium (lump sum) plus annual lease rent. In April 2017, upon issuance of allotment letters, CIDCO demanded GST @ 18% on the total one-time lease premium via Demand Draft. Petitioners — an association of builders and a partnership firm — challenged this levy before the Bombay High Court after the GST Commissionerate failed to respond to their grievance correspondence. Court Observations (Verbatim)"A perusal of sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 falling in this Chapter leaves us in no manner of doubt that the expression 'supply' includes all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business.""Once this law, in terms of the substantive provisions and the Schedule, treats the activity as supply of goods or supply of services, particularly in relation to land and building and includes a lease, then, the consideration therefor as a premium/one-time premium is a measure on which the tax is levied, assessed and recovered. We cannot then probe into the legislation any further.""It is entirely for the legislature, therefore, to exercise the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 7 of the GST Act and issue the requisite notification. Absent that notification, merely going by the status of the CIDCO, we cannot hold that the lease premium would not attract or invite the liability to pay tax in terms of the GST Act.""With respect, it cannot be said that the activities performed by sovereign or public authorities under the provisions of law, which are in the nature of statutory obligations are excluded from the purview of the present enactment.""Pertinently, the dividing line between governmental and non-governmental, sovereign and regal functions and otherwise is not very thin and post globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation."Final VerdictThe demand for GST on the one-time lease premium is held to be in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 

Facts of the CaseThe matter arose from a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. During the hearing, an important legal question emerged regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence and the necessity of videography at crime scenes. The Court also considered whether the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records.In earlier proceedings, the Court had recorded submissions from the Additional Solicitor General regarding the usefulness of videography in crime scene investigation. It was noted that videography and digital photography could enhance transparency and accuracy in investigation. The Union Government had also constituted a Committee of Experts to prepare a roadmap and Standard Operating Procedure for videography at crime scenes.Simultaneously, a legal issue arose in connected matters concerning the interpretation of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. The apprehension expressed was that if the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) was treated as mandatory in all circumstances, electronic evidence produced by a person not in control of the device would be excluded, resulting in denial of justice.The questions decided by the Court were:Whether electronic evidence is admissible only in compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act.Whether the certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory in all cases.Whether procedural requirements under Section 65B can be relaxed in appropriate cases.Court Observations and DecisionThe Court examined earlier decisions dealing with admissibility of electronic evidence. It noted that electronic evidence is admissible subject to safeguards regarding authenticity and reliability. The Court observed that Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are procedural provisions intended to supplement the law on admissibility of electronic records.The Court clarified that primary electronic evidence is admissible under Section 62 of the Evidence Act and is not governed by Section 65B. Section 65B applies to secondary electronic evidence.Importantly, the Court held that the requirement of certificate under Section 65B(4) is not always mandatory. The requirement applies when electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in possession and control of the device from which the electronic record is generated and is capable of producing such certificate.Where electronic evidence is produced by a person who is not in possession of the device, Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act can be invoked. In such cases, insisting on a certificate under Section 65B(4) would result in denial of justice.The Court clarified the legal position that the requirement of certificate under Section 65B(4) is procedural and can be relaxed by the Court in the interest of justice. Electronic evidence cannot be excluded merely on technical grounds if it is otherwise relevant and authentic.Case ReferredRam Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 611, Supreme Court of India.R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 All ER 464, Court of Criminal Appeal (UK).R. v. Robson, (1972) 2 All ER 699, Court of Appeal (UK).Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329, Supreme Court of India.Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, Supreme Court of India.Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India.State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, Supreme Court of India.Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, Supreme Court of India.

BACKGROUND The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions challenging the final judgment dated 22.11.2012 passed in a Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi and the subsequent order dated 28.04.2014 passed in a Letters Patent Appeal arising therefrom. The petitions were filed with applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling. CRUCIAL COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)The Supreme Court passed only the following operative order and made no detailed observations on merits:"Delay condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the issue relating to maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal, is kept open." FINAL VERDICT The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions after condoning the delay, without going into the merits. The question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal was expressly kept open. 👎

Facts :A search and seizure operation was conducted on the assessee, followed by block assessment determining undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer later sought to levy surcharge through rectification and revision proceedings. The assessee challenged the levy, contending that the proviso to Section 113 (inserted in 2002) could not apply to earlier block periods. The Tribunal and High Court held the proviso to be prospective, leading to appeal before the Supreme Court.Court Decision:The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 113 is prospective and not clarificatory. It ruled that prior to insertion of the proviso, levy of surcharge on block assessment was ambiguous and uncertain, particularly regarding the applicable Finance Act and rate. Since the proviso imposed an additional tax burden, it could not be applied retrospectively in absence of clear legislative intent. The Court also emphasized the principle that taxing statutes are presumed to be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise, and rejected the earlier view in Suresh N. Gupta treating the proviso as clarificatory.Cases Referred:Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh N. GuptaCommissioner of Income Tax v. Sanjiv BhataraGovinddas v. Income Tax OfficerController of Estate Duty v. M.A. MerchantCIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.Govindasaran Gangasaran v. Commissioner of Income TaxKeshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal BhagwandasGovernment of India v. Indian Tobacco AssociationVijay v. State of MaharashtraPhillips v. EyreL’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd.

BACKGROUNDThe assessee, a manufacturer of CTD/Round bars, was subjected to simultaneous searches at its premises and at the premises of its associate concern. Three note-books and one pen-drive were recovered allegedly containing details of illicit clearances. A further search at the premises of a transporter yielded parallel invoices purportedly issued by the assessee. Statements of several persons connected with the manufacturing activities were recorded, but all were retracted almost immediately after recording. On the basis of this material, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.1,93,26,138/-, comprising approximately Rs.1.85 Crores based on data in the note-books and pen-drive, and approximately Rs.8.25 lakhs based on parallel invoices recovered from the transporter's premises. The Order-in-Original confirmed the entire demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the demand and imposed matching penalties. The assessee approached CESTAT, which set aside the demand of Rs.1.85 Crores while confirming the demand of Rs.8.25 lakhs along with penalties under Section 11(c) of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue challenged the CESTAT order before the High Court. FACTSThe CESTAT, while dealing with the demand of Rs.1.85 Crores, found that the entire basis for the same rested only on retracted confessional statements and data in the note-books/pen-drive recovered from the associate concern's premises, without any independent corroborating evidence in the form of excess raw material purchases, shortage of finished goods, excess electricity consumption or cash seizure. Further, the opportunity of cross-examination of the person in-charge of records of the associate concern was not made available by the Department. In contrast, for the demand of Rs.8.25 lakhs, the parallel invoices recovered from the transporter's premises were confirmed not only by the proprietor of the transporter but also by independent evidence, and hence this demand was sustained by the CESTAT. The Revenue's appeals before the High Court challenged the CESTAT's decision to set aside the larger demand. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)"The Tribunal rightly concluded that in the case of clandestine removal of excisable goods, there needs to be positive evidences for establishing the evasion, though contended by the Revenue.""In absence of any material reflecting the purchase of excessive raw material, shortage of finished goods, excess consumption of power like electricity, seizure of cash, etc., the Tribunal noted and held that there was nothing to bank upon except the bare confessional statements of the proprietor and of some of the persons connected with the manufacturing activities and such statements were retracted within no time of their recording.""not permitting the cross examination of a person in-charge of records of M/s. Sunrise Enterprises and absence of other cogent and positive evidences, would not permit it to sustain the demand of Rs. 1.85 Crores raised in the Demand notice and confirmed by both the authorities below.""Confessional statements solely in absence of any cogent evidences cannot make the foundation for levying the Excise duty on the ground of evasion of tax, much less the retracted statements.""Appeals since do not raise any question of law, much less substantial question of law, deserves no consideration." FINAL VERDICTAll Tax Appeals filed by Revenue were dismissed. The High Court upheld the CESTAT order setting aside the demand of Rs.1.85 Crores (based on note-books and pen-drive) for want of positive corroborating evidence. The confirmed demand of Rs.8.25 lakhs (backed by independent evidence from the transporter's premises) was upheld.👍 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE