ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #SupremeCourt

  • Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods

    Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.09.2025

    Supreme Court Orders Refund to Patanjali Foods​ ​ ​ Β 

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a landmark judgment delivered on May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of M/s Patanjali Foods Limited (formerly known as M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited), directing the Union of India and its departments to refund amounts covered by bank guarantees encashed by the customs department. The judgment, authored by Justice, sets a significant precedent in the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated in 2002 when M/s M.P. ​ Glychem Industries Limited (later merged with Ruchi Soya Industries Limited) imported crude degummed soybean oil and filed a bill of entry for clearance. ​ The customs department demanded higher customs duty based on a tariff value fixed under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act. ​ The appellant contended that the notification fixing the tariff value was not in effect at the time of import, and duty should be assessed under Section 14(1) instead. ​

    To resolve the impasse, the Gujarat High Court directed the appellant to furnish bank guarantees for the differential duty amounts, allowing the goods to be cleared. ​ Subsequently, the appellant challenged the validity of the notification, but the High Court dismissed the writ petitions in 2012. ​ Following this, the customs department encashed the bank guarantees in 2013, even as the appellant’s appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. ​ In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant in the case of Union of India vs. Param Industries Limited, holding that the notification fixing the tariff value was not offered for sale at the time of import, making the customs department’s demand for differential duty unlawful.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court- Procedural Errors in Shipping Bills Cannot Defeat Export Incentives

    Supreme Court- Procedural Errors in Shipping Bills Cannot Defeat Export Incentives

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.09.2025

    Supreme Court- Procedural Errors in Shipping Bills Cannot Defeat Export Incentives​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant judgment delivered on August 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has provided much-needed clarity on the rights of exporters under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS). The case, M/S Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. ​, highlights the importance of balancing procedural compliance with substantive entitlements under beneficial export schemes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/S Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. ​ Ltd., a private company engaged in the export of corn starch, faced a procedural hurdle that jeopardized its claim for MEIS benefits. Between July and October 2017, the company filed 54 shipping bills electronically through its customs broker. ​ However, due to an inadvertent clerical error, the declaration of intent to claim MEIS benefits was marked as β€œNo” instead of β€œYes.” This error prevented the shipping bills from being transmitted to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), thereby blocking the processing of the MEIS claim. ​

    Despite the correction of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the DGFT refused to process the claim, citing systemic constraints. ​ The Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) also rejected the claim without assigning reasons or granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. ​ Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to pursue remedies against the customs broker.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.08.2025

    Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    ​ ​ ​ ​

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    1. Constitutional Framework for Delegated Legislation

    • Article 245–246: Only Parliament/State legislatures can levy taxes; delegation cannot include β€œessential legislative functions.”
    • Article 265: β€œNo tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” Thus, a rule, notification, circular, or regulation cannot create/expand a tax liability without clear legislative sanction.
    • Doctrine of Excessive Delegation: Laid down in In re Delhi Laws Act (1951 SCR 747), later reaffirmed in Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979 1 SCC 137). Parliament may delegate the manner or details of implementation, but not the policy or essential features.
    • Judicial role: Courts test whether delegated instruments remain within the β€œparent Act” or trespass into taxation without statute.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Multiple sources- High Court, Indian Kanoon, Economic Times

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Rule 2(a) in Customs Classification

    Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Rule 2(a) in Customs Classification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.07.2025

    Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Rule 2(a) in Customs Classification

    The Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Sony India Ltd., has dismissed the Customs Department’s appeal and upheld the decision of the CESTAT in favor of Sony India Ltd., clarifying the application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Customs Tariff.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the importation of various components of Colour Television (CTV) models by Sony India Ltd. between 1995 and 1997. The Customs authorities alleged that Sony had effectively imported Complete CTV Sets in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) form, but declared them as mere components to avail concessional duty.

    The Commissioner of Customs, relying on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, clubbed the 94 consignments of parts imported over 22 months and treated them as complete CTVs, thereby raising a massive differential duty demand of β‚Ή42.89 crores, with penalties of β‚Ή30.19 crores under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Supreme Court of India

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.05.2025

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Rules: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases, Invokes Article 142 for Complete Justice

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment delivered on 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025 INSC 605) addressed two pivotal legal concerns that had long vexed India’s arbitration ecosystem:

    1. Whether courts have the power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and
    2. Whether the power under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to grant complete justice in arbitration-related disputes.

    The Constitution Bench decisively ruled that courts do possess limited power to modify arbitral awards. Furthermore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, Article 142 can be invoked to modify awards where doing so avoids unnecessary remand and protracted arbitration.

    Context: The Precedent Conflict

    Earlier rulings, such as Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2021), had suggested that courts could only set aside or remand awardsβ€”not modify themβ€”under Section 34. This created an enforcement challenge where minor or severable defects in arbitral awards required the parties to re-commence lengthy arbitration proceedings.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    Supreme Court Constitution Bench Affirms Limited Court Power to Modify Arbitral Awards Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act based on Severability Doctrine

    In a landmark Constitution Bench judgment dated 30 April 2025 (Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 INSC 605), the Supreme Court of India has decisively held that Indian courts possess a limited power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

    1. Recognition of Limited Modification Power

    The court affirmed that while Section 34 does not explicitly provide for modification, courts can:

    • Modify an award if the invalid portion is severable from the valid portion.
    • Correct clerical, typographical, or computational errors.
    • Adjust post-award interest, as prescribed under Section 31(7)(b).
    • Exercise modification under Article 142 of the Constitution in rare cases to do complete justice.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.04.2025

    Ref: ART-SM-21042025-001

    Bill of Lading & Charter Party contracts- New York Convention on Arbitration implemented in India

    Topic: Bill of Lading and Charter Party

    Case Law

    The Owners & Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence & anr. Vs State of Trading Corportion of India Ltd. & anr.

    In Supreme Court of India, under Civil Appeal Decided On: 20.08.2001, wherein Appellants were  The Owners & Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Baltic Confidence & anr. and Respondents were State of Trading Corportion of India Ltd. & anr. wherein the subject matter of the case is of Contract and Arbitration. The said case referred Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 45; Arbitration Act, 1950 – Section 33; Arbitration (Amendment)Act, 1979

    This Article has been written by Mr. Shobhit Mallik, Arbitrator. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.lca23@gmail.com or office@aadrikaalaw.com & his Mobile No is +91-9712924188.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com