December 2023

In a landmark reversal, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 87(m)(ii)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, which restricts the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 to cases where demand or show-cause notices were issued on or before 31st March 1998. Overturning the Gujarat High Court’s ruling, the Court held that the classification is not arbitrary under Article 14, as it is based on intelligible differentia (pending disputes as of the cut-off date) and has a rational nexus with the Scheme’s objective of settling litigation and recovering locked revenue. The judgment reinforces that statutory settlement schemes must be interpreted strictly within their defined parameters, and courts cannot extend benefits beyond the legislative intent. This decision has significant implications for tax dispute resolution, emphasizing that eligibility for amnesty schemes is subject to clear statutory conditions.

In a landmark ruling on international taxation and business connection principles, the Supreme Court held that systematic purchase of raw materials in British India through an established agency by a non-resident manufacturer constitutes a taxable ‘business connection’ under Section 42 of the Income Tax Act 1922. The Court established that profits can be attributed to purchase operations alone, rejecting the narrow view that profits accrue only from sales. This decision significantly expanded the scope of taxable business operations for non-residents, emphasizing that habitual, skill-based procurement activities through continuous agency relationships create sufficient nexus for tax attribution, even without local sales.

In a landmark ruling on fiscal federalism and constitutional limitations, the Supreme Court struck down the West Bengal government’s rural employment cess on tea estates as unconstitutional. The Court, through a piercing substance-over-form analysis, determined that the levy, though ostensibly on tea estates, was effectively a tax on despatches of tea. This characterization brought it into direct conflict with Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees the free flow of trade and commerce across India. The Court found the levy created a direct and immediate impediment to interstate trade in tea. Furthermore, the State failed to secure the mandatory prior Presidential sanction required under Article 304(b) to impose such a restriction. The judgment also invalidated the levy on grounds of legislative incompetence, holding that regulation of the tea industry, including cesses, falls within the exclusive domain of the Union Parliament under the Tea Act, 1953, creating a occupied field. The decision reinforces the principle that the true nature of a tax is determined by its substance and economic effect, not merely its nomenclature, and underscores the constitutional safeguards against protectionist state taxes that burden interstate commerce.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that subscription amounts received by finance companies under collective investment schemes constitute capital receipts, not taxable income, when no forfeiture occurs. The decision reinforces that the legal character of a transaction prevails over its accounting treatment, rejecting Revenue’s reliance on estoppel. The Court upheld its earlier precedent in Peerless General Finance (1992), establishing a general principle that such deposits are capital in nature, ensuring alignment with the Companies Act and protecting assessees from arbitrary taxation based on book entries.

In a landmark ruling on the tax treatment of subscription receipts under collective investment schemes, the Supreme Court has held that such amounts constitute capital receipts rather than taxable income when not forfeited. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the Tribunal’s ruling in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the legal character of transactions cannot be altered by accounting entries. This judgment reinforces the principle that deposits repayable to investors are capital in nature and clarifies the retrospective application of the Court’s earlier Peerless decision.

In a landmark ruling on export incentives, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that commission payments to foreign agents for procuring specific export orders do not constitute ‘maintenance of an agency’ for sales promotion. The decision reinforces a strict interpretation, requiring the assessee to maintain a physical or permanent establishment abroad and incur expenditure for general sales promotion, not transaction-specific commissions. This judgment resolves a conflict among High Courts and sets a precedent limiting claims for weighted deductions to expenditures on sustained overseas operations.

In a pivotal ruling on procedural limitations in excise law, the Supreme Court has definitively settled that High Courts lack jurisdiction to condone delays in filing reference applications under the erstwhile s. 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The bench, led by Justice P. Sathasivam, conducted a meticulous comparative analysis of the Act’s appellate framework. It underscored a critical legislative distinction: while other appellate authorities (Commissioner, Tribunal, Central Government) were expressly empowered to condone delays, the provisions for approaching the High Court (s. 35G and unamended s. 35H) provided a fixed 180-day window with no extension mechanism. This structural silence was interpreted as an intentional exclusion of s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a special statute like the Central Excise Act creates a complete code with its own limitation periods, the general law of limitation cannot be invoked to override a deliberate legislative design. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, affirming that the statutory timeline for High Court references is absolute and non-extendable.

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India definitively settled the interplay between Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the context of pre-2005 law. The Court ruled that when a male Hindu dies after the Act’s commencement, leaving a Class I female heir, his interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property devolves by intestate succession under Section 8 (via the proviso to Section 6), not by survivorship. Crucially, this devolution transforms the property: it ceases to be joint family property and is held by the heirs (here, the sons) as tenants-in-common. Consequently, a grandson, not being a Class I heir of the grandfather, has no right by birth in such property and cannot sue for its partition during his father’s lifetime. The decision reinforces the Act’s codifying objective, overriding traditional Hindu law, and clarifies that the notional partition under Section 6 is merely a computational device for succession, not a mechanism to perpetuate the joint family. This has significant implications for property rights and succession planning in Hindu families.